Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

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

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

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

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

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

freakyleaky
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5024 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

InformedSearcher

InformedSearcher

Posted
Posted
People with 2 or 3 claims settled claims in any tax year may easily receive a few thousand pounds in interest, depending what rate they're paid at (and many banks do pay the contractual rate), so this kind of amount DOES need to be declared and cannot be ignored.

 

 

I'm quite sure that if they have to pay out, the banks will be only too happy to pass any revenues due, to the taxman. Of course they could suggest they term certain payments as, 'repayment' (something like their own new terminology of default) and dependant of what it is will be decisive if any tax is due. I'm none too sure about 'thousands' of pounds of interest being dished out to people in the first place?

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
  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

danielr

danielr

Posted
Posted
Oh well, have used the line before but for the unfortunate poster you can click on "thread Tools" and it should have a dropdown box and in that it will say "subscribe to this thread" and hey presto, job done.

I did deliberately miss-spell that...

 

watching with obvious interest as someone else plays the game for me. isn't that what we're all doing whilst waiting for this test case to be over!

 

 

 

(I never knew about the drop down menu for subscribing, despite being a mod on a different vbulletin forum)

Link to post
Share on other sites
InformedSearcher

InformedSearcher

Posted
Posted

I agree 'danielr' but now it's so frustrating. You see banks changing things as if they know something we are not privvy to. It must be fair and no one should have the upper hand.

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
ncf355

ncf355

Posted
Posted (edited)

One week today then?

Edited by MARTIN3030
Commercial link removed

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites
Muffintop

Muffintop

Posted
Posted

Does anyone know about test cases being held for barclaycard in relation to CCAS being found unenforceable, inparticular MCGIFFEN V BARCLAYCARD. I have some naff solicitors who I took on and keep fobbing me off with some alledged test cases.

On another note looked at post above re oft v banks, and have a case close to filing with halifax was trying the hardship card but even though my son has more money going out than goin in they say he is not suitable for hardship..... what should I do now, write to fos or just file.. its with hbos by the way

muffintop

Won Nationwide £900 and £1908 Bank Charges

Lloyds personal account 1,861

Lloyds Bus Account 2k

Abbey bank acc. Stayed 2008

 

CCA requested Barclaycard Nov 08 - n1 issued - GAVE UP

CCA Mbna Nov 08- n1 issued - GAVE UP

Marks and Spencer Money Nov 08 -lost found 2b enforceable.

Tomson Holiday - WON

 

if I help you tip my little scales it gives me a thrill. MT

Link to post
Share on other sites
the_shadow

the_shadow

Posted
Posted (edited)
Does anyone know about test cases being held for barclaycard in relation to CCAS being found unenforceable, inparticular MCGIFFEN V BARCLAYCARD. I have some naff solicitors who I took on and keep fobbing me off with some alledged test cases.

On another note looked at post above re oft v banks, and have a case close to filing with halifax was trying the hardship card but even though my son has more money going out than goin in they say he is not suitable for hardship..... what should I do now, write to fos or just file.. its with hbos by the way

 

Hi Muffintop,

 

Halifax like other lenders tend to reject the first letter claiming hardship, I would try again as the banks have been "told" to look more favourably on claims recently (Seem to remember that someone on this forum did a good write up of how to claim hardship and whats required by the banks and Fos by yourbank.. soz cant be certain but you can search on threads started by...)...

 

If no joy from another letter then go to FOS but you need to ensure you give them all the info up front and word it correctly.

 

 

edit: Oh and the only Mcguffin case I know of is the stupid test case that was lost against MBNA(?) in regards reporting to CRA's when s78 request in default... the holes in that ruling should mean it can be argued against tho.

 

S.

Edited by the_shadow
See InformedSearchers comments two posts down :-)
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bookworm

Bookworm

Posted
Posted (edited)
One week today then?

 

"reliable" source? :lol:

 

In other words, still guesswork and dates being bandied about... Eventually one of them must be right. :rolleyes:

 

I urge people not to pin their hopes too high. Whether it is this date or another, it is NOT the end of the test case, and you're unlikely to see your money back anytime soon. (says she, desperately hoping to be proven wrong! :razz:)

Edited by MARTIN3030
Link to post
Share on other sites
InformedSearcher

InformedSearcher

Posted
Posted

'the shadow', With respect, whilst the banks might have been told what to do in cases of hardship I'd suggest the word 'suggested' be used instead. There is nothing to force them to make any payment if they decide they don't want to as it's all purely voluntary. Only banks could do a deal like them, me thinks!

 

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
bach

bach

Posted
Posted (edited)

F A O NCF355

 

BEWARE Innovative and original posts often draw (in correctly) negative comments.

 

(One week today then?

 

This had already been posted by bach (pg 133 - permalink 2659) on behalf of landy alert who was having problems posting it. (2657)

However for some un known reason it was removed.

 

See Pages 133

landy alert Permalink 2657,

Bach Permalink 2659,

082 Stevie Permalink 2662,

the shadow Permalink 2663

 

Bach

WHO IS FEMAIL FOR THOSE NOT IN THE KNOW

Edited by MARTIN3030
See below
Link to post
Share on other sites
MARTIN3030

MARTIN3030

Posted
Posted

bach-the reason for the removal was clearly stated by Rooster upon being edited.

Its a commercial link and in breach of site rules.

I think its self explan really.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
bach

bach

Posted
Posted

Thank you Martin 3030

It was not so much the removal of the post.

 

The fact that the post was followed up with what I considered as un necessary remarks, and negative comments, after all I was only trying to help someone else who could,nt post the artical theirselves.

 

Anyway, thank you Martin 3030 for you reply and explanation.

We will let it rest there.

Regards bach

Link to post
Share on other sites
ncf355

ncf355

Posted
Posted

Fair comment, my mistake - sorry all!

 

Booky - BOY, do I hope you are wrong

 

(and hi!)

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites
SPROUTY

SPROUTY

Posted
Posted
One week today then?

 

"reliable" source? :lol:

 

In other words, still guesswork and dates being bandied about... Eventually one of them must be right. :rolleyes:

 

I urge people not to pin their hopes too high. Whether it is this date or another, it is NOT the end of the test case, and you're unlikely to see your money back anytime soon. (says she, desperately hoping to be proven wrong! :razz:)

 

But there is alot of interest in the handing down:

 

what about this, posted within the last hour on the RH site.

 

 

BREAKING NEWS

 

Just off the phone to the press office of the Supreme Court, I've been told to expect an announcement within a couple of days.

 

 

My money is on Monday.

 

We should have notice of the expected handing down of the findings on the Test Case Appeal (which will be done within seven days). So we should have an idea of the way forward by the end of next week or by Tuesday 24 November at the latest.

'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

Thomas Jefferson 1802

Link to post
Share on other sites
mailmannz

mailmannz

Posted
Posted
'the shadow', With respect, whilst the banks might have been told what to do in cases of hardship I'd suggest the word 'suggested' be used instead. There is nothing to force them to make any payment if they decide they don't want to as it's all purely voluntary. Only banks could do a deal like them, me thinks!

 

Michael

 

BAM!

 

You have hit the nail squarely on the head IS...the banks have only been given some wishy washy "guidelines" around handling hardship cases and as we all know the only way these mammoth organisations will move is if they are FORCED to deal with hardship applications with very real implications for failure (like removal of stays for being in breach of a directive).

 

You know what, it probably wouldnt be nearly so bad if the banks themselves also had a stay put on bank charges over this time. That then might have made the banks more willing to come to an "arrangement" over their charges!

 

Mailman

Link to post
Share on other sites
SPROUTY

SPROUTY

Posted
Posted
BAM!

 

 

 

You know what, it probably wouldnt be nearly so bad if the banks themselves also had a stay put on bank charges over this time. That then might have made the banks more willing to come to an "arrangement" over their charges!

 

Mailman

 

WELL SAID!

'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

Thomas Jefferson 1802

Link to post
Share on other sites
MARTIN3030

MARTIN3030

Posted
Posted

The Supreme Courts website gives the details of up and coming hearings.

Theres one or two free dates in November where theres nothing listed.

Its not rocket science to assume one of these has been reserved.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
yourbank

yourbank

Posted
Posted
My thoughts precisely. ;-)

 

And unfortunately both are incorrect in your thinking. The Court can hand down its verdict after other cases have already been heard since it would only take 2 minutes to actually state that the appeal has succeeded or that the appeal has failed. In fact, we should be reminded the Justice Smith did hand down one of his judgements at the end of the day(after the stock market had closed ;) ).

We will have to await what the Supreme Court has to say I guess and then we will know.

.

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
Muffintop

Muffintop

Posted
Posted
Hi Muffintop,

 

Halifax like other lenders tend to reject the first letter claiming hardship, I would try again as the banks have been "told" to look more favourably on claims recently (Seem to remember that someone on this forum did a good write up of how to claim hardship and whats required by the banks and Fos by yourbank.. soz cant be certain but you can search on threads started by...)...

 

If no joy from another letter then go to FOS but you need to ensure you give them all the info up front and word it correctly.

 

 

edit: Oh and the only Mcguffin case I know of is the stupid test case that was lost against MBNA(?) in regards reporting to CRA's when s78 request in default... the holes in that ruling should mean it can be argued against tho.

 

S.

 

whew thanks shadow, your always lurking when i need you, at least my thread has now been moved hope to get some eyes on it now... i will check out the peeps you mention and am compiling a complaint to fsa as we speak

muffintop

Won Nationwide £900 and £1908 Bank Charges

Lloyds personal account 1,861

Lloyds Bus Account 2k

Abbey bank acc. Stayed 2008

 

CCA requested Barclaycard Nov 08 - n1 issued - GAVE UP

CCA Mbna Nov 08- n1 issued - GAVE UP

Marks and Spencer Money Nov 08 -lost found 2b enforceable.

Tomson Holiday - WON

 

if I help you tip my little scales it gives me a thrill. MT

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...