Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What we need to see is all the original paperwork  That would include the pre contract information and the original HP Agreement  Post it up and I will have a good look over it at the weekend  It really hangs on the wording as to whether it’s a scrapage adjustment /discount on the price of the car( that is how some schemes worked) Every manufacturer had their own version  Have you sent VW a SAR?
    • Wrong as usual Jugg    Did Michael Cohen Commit Perjury In The Trump Trial? WWW.ZEROHEDGE.COM ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero Michael Cohen. He still has one day of cross examination ahead of him on Thursday. With the government resting after Cohen’s cross examination, I believe that an honest judge would have no alternative but to grant a motion for a directed verdict and end the case before it goes to the jury. Judge Juan Merchan will now have to give the full measure of his commitment to the rule of law. Given the failure to support the elements of any crime or even to establish the falsity of recording payments as legal expenses, this trial seemed to stumble through the motions of a trial. Michael Cohen was only the final proof of a raw political exercise. For critics, some of Cohen’s answers appear clearly false or misleading. Like their star witness, the prosecutors have shown that they simply do not take the law very seriously when there is an advantage to be taken.
    • So to sum up. 1.  You & your friend did the right thing on 28 December and are in the right legally. 2.  You are in the early stages of the threatening letter cycle.  We've seen these letters quite literally over 10,000 times.  For the moment your friend has nothing to worry about. 3.  No-one will turn up at your friend's door. 4.  If months down the line this got to court, you would win.  It's blatant disability discrimination.  Some time back I looked through the results of Excel v Caggers court cases, well we won 85% of the time, and you would be 100& certain to win. But this is the bit that you won't like ... 5.  Excel don't care that they are legally in the wrong.  They want your money.  They will go on and on with their letters hoping you'll give in. 6.  They are also the most litigious of the private parking companies and it's perfectly possible, months hence, that they will take your friend to court.  You have to be prepared for this.  They would lose.  But they don't care about the losses since, sadly, presumably so many people are afraid of court and so give in and pay.  7.  We will of course support you all the way!
    • Hi, Just updating that I'll be submitting the SJPN shortly this evening electronically.
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5044 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I agree yourbank but read the bankers website particularly sec 7 & it would appear that even if the courts decide the OFT can decide their charges are unfair they will still argue that the OFT cannot set the amount.

 

It would appear that as they say that only court can decide that then it'll be back off to the court for all claimants.............. if I'm correct then it's been a round robin exercise all along

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I agree yourbank but read the bankers website particularly sec 7 & it would appear that even if the courts decide the OFT can decide their charges are unfair they will still argue that the OFT cannot set the amount.

 

It would appear that as they say that only court can decide that then it'll be back off to the court for all claimants.............. if I'm correct then it's been a round robin exercise all along

 

BUT, when they do decide on a fair amount(whoever that may be) then EVERYTHING that went before HAS to be paid back. The Banks LOST UTCCR 1999 so we need to make sure people RECLAIM RECLAIM RECLAIM

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree yourbank but read the bankers website particularly sec 7 & it would appear that even if the courts decide the OFT can decide their charges are unfair they will still argue that the OFT cannot set the amount.

 

It would appear that as they say that only court can decide that then it'll be back off to the court for all claimants.............. if I'm correct then it's been a round robin exercise all along

 

... Sort of makes you wonder why we even have an OFT at all ?

 

Perhaps they should be renamed: Office of Fairy Tales perhaps ??

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have recently purchased a few shares in both Barclays and RBS, and now as a shareholder will write to both urging them to no longer waste any more cash and time in pursueing a lost cause, conceed defeat and refund all charges now.

ps I got the shares cos they were very cheap and as soon as the price reaches twice (at least) what I paid for them I plan to sell. At least that way I can make something off their backs :D:D

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went down to the RCoJ for the roughly 8 minute verbal judgement. This is a massively important judgement.

I think Barclays reserve fees are very much on the table for fairness under the UTCCR 1999. The appeal court judge effectively followed the First National Bank judgement....House of Lords - Director General of Fair Trading V First National Bank

(For reference). I think it would be surprising if the bank were to be allowed to appeal to the House of Lords. I think they should petition the House of Lords for permission to do so, but I would be surprised if they were successful without something new on the table to argue. BLOODY FANTASTIC DAY TODAY(and tiring ;) )

 

They'll probably try the HRA as they did in Wilson v County only to be told a firm does not have human rights only an individual. ......... However I don't think that will stop them as this government agree with them hence the removal of s127 from the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

95.

The evidence shows that most high street banks offer similar current accounts, that the express terms of the banking contract are contained in several leaflets available from the bank and that the express terms and conditions are lengthy. It seems unlikely in the extreme that the typical customer reads them.

Bang goes Barclays' defence of their Reserve fees, that they "extensively advertised them" and that "every customer knew about them". Shame. :-D (especially as the appeals didn't deal with their new T&Cs and yet it is still relevant).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Zoot, :)

 

How are you doing ??

Please help us to help you. Download the CAG tool bar for free

HERE and use the search option for all your searches. CAG earns a few pennies every time !!!

 

Please don't rush, take time to read these:-

 

 

&

 

 

This is always worth referring to

 

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by me are personal, are not endorsed by the Consumer Action Group or the Bank Action Group. Should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Google News

 

 

Dont know if this is the right place, but you will find all the reports here :D

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'll be making a donation WHEN I get my cheque to cag! :- )

Been very helpful with this and other things

 

The funny thing I find with the article is how they say people were charged £38 when it actually would have cost around £2 mark

I was changed £72 each time - and that was because of a penny at times

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,

 

My complaint to the BBA about RBS and PPI met a brick wall:eek:

 

The foot is in the other shoe (or boot) now ready to kick back we hope! :rolleyes: as they (the BBA) try and defend the result of the OFT, they should reflect on the recent performance of the RBS or lack of performance £24.??? billion in losses and the absurd pension given for that abysmal performance to the former ceo. IMO Fred Goodwin should be stripped of his knighthood not only for the mess he left but the arrogance shown to the customers and now the government. He is actually smiling as he is forced into resignation. How good is that?

 

aa

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

------------------------------------------------

Bank charge successes:

Halifax - Full settlement incl interest.

HSBC - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 75% of claim.

RBS - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 70% of claim.

2 ongoing claims for bank charges with HSBC with more to come. (Supreme Court ruling could have upset these claims) They did :mad:

PPI Successes

PPI 4 settlements on 9 loans. FOS involvement on 7 added on the 8 % Statutory interest another 30% to both.

2 claims settled in full with LV without FOS involvement.

2 claims settled in full with HSBC without FOS involvement

 

PPI Claims ongoing with:

Cap one Now with the FOS

Barclays. Paid up today 24/04/10 cheque received for over £4,500 and in the bank.

LTSB still have to decide on this as their SAR production was abysmal. Papers data mixed up documents missing etc

 

1 Complaint not upheld by FOS they said it was ICO issue. Complaint upheld by ICO. See this..

Post 290 from

***RBS PPI Claim Long fight but, WON***

 

Please do not PM me for advice as it may be sometime before I can respond.

 

Keep at them. Do not give way and do not accept all they tell you, they will delay and stall for as long as they can to prevent repaying you your mis-sold PPI.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'll be making a donation WHEN I get my cheque to cag! :- )

Been very helpful with this and other things

 

The funny thing I find with the article is how they say people were charged £38 when it actually would have cost around £2 mark

I was changed £72 each time - and that was because of a penny at times

 

 

...That's called retaining their margins. Like the price of beer going up in a budget by 2p a pint means you'll pay 3p as the company retains teir margins. On that basis of 'good' business £2.50 sounds fair with a maximum of say £20/£25 per month. Of course we should always remember that the bank is also charging (unauthorised overdraft) interest from day one at an APR of near 30% so maybe my comment is unjustified?

We should always note that unlike competing supermarkets financial institutions do not compete. Their 'sales' normally have horrendous small print conditions and when you do complain their easy reply is that you should have read them!

Michael

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has everyone listened to this interview with Ian Pollock, one of the BBC's personal finance reporters who was in the court, Angela Knight, chief executive of the BBA and Marc Gander from the Consumer Action Group? BBC News Player - New bank charges twist

  • Haha 1

If in doubt, contact a qualified insured legal professional (or my wife... she knows EVERYTHING)

 

Or send a cheque or postal order payable to Reclaim the Right Ltd.

to

923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE

 

 

Click here if you fancy an email address that shows you mean business! (only £6 and that will really help CAG)

 

If you can't donate, please use the Internet Search boxes on the CAG pages - these will generate a small but regular income for the site

 

Please also consider using the

C.A.G. Toolbar

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...