Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 160 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 4996 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

well i dont think the banks will just give in after the 25th thats for sure ,.

 

but one thing i would like to know is .

 

how much is this hole test case costing the bank . lets say it did run untill 2015 then they lose .. how much money would they has wasted trying to fight it .. plus you have to take into account all the interest aswell .

 

surly it would have been better for them to just pay out in the long run

 

I'd suggest that they have a potential payout of over 1.5/2.5 billion. Their legal expenses to now (bearing in mind in house full time legal teams) probably amount to around 2 million tops, if that at all. They have a long way to go as in beneficial for them to carry on for years. Think Bill Gates and Microsoft with daily fines! The downside is that unlike one of us they will simply, if they end up paying out) not have additional penalties, again unfair.

 

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

The point is if the court ruling does favour the consumer the the OFT investigation is not that relevant to us as the OFT is not legally binding to EITHER party unless they seek an order to that effect

 

If the OFT say as they did in the case of credit cards the fee should be no more than £12 we can still challenge the banks ........... so its back to square one only some of the banks arguments will be dust

 

Does anyone know of a single case of 'challenge' to the £12 maximum fee suggested? Of course these lenders are so cute, if they cannot charge vast 'default charges' then they just IMHO unjustly 'up' the APR. High street theiving at its worst and done ever so legally. If anyone saw the Panorama episode of illegal/legal money lenders the other night on the BBC should take note. Okay, I guess the programme was not too good because most people were afraid to show themselves but that's the same message given lately for the banks. The fact that (if I recall) they mentioned 12,000 or 1,200 registered lenders makes one shudder a little.

 

Michael

Edited by InformedSearcher
typo corrections yet again

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

The point is if the court ruling does favour the consumer the the OFT investigation is not that relevant to us as the OFT is not legally binding to EITHER party unless they seek an order to that effect

 

If the OFT say as they did in the case of credit cards the fee should be no more than £12 we can still challenge the banks ........... so its back to square one only some of the banks arguments will be dust

 

Totally agree with JC, if the OFT set a limit they will have to get it to a court agreed deal but that would be to stop date with regards to fairness because it leaves the charges levied from the date historically as requiring action.

UTCCR 1999 clearly states that a term that is deemed is unfair is unenforceable in its entirety so we cannot have a situation in which, for example, the level is £12 yet the historic charges are allowed to be partially repaid. The unfair term was completely unenforceable yet we let the banks keep the charge that we now believe is fair.

 

Anyone who challenges charges through the FOS are getting 100% payouts on credit card claims including the £12 ones so it would be perverse if historic charges are not dealt with through the courts.

With regards to the challenge to the £12 credit card charges, I think everyone that does challenge them gets their money back.

 

I would add that how far back would have to go through the courts since under UTCCR 1999, it leaves to the national courts to decide how far back you can reclaim and not to the regulator or to the government.

.

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

How can making thousands even millions of claimants wait for a lengthy court case be a fair trading practice?

Any typos spelling mistakes are due to leprechauns in my keyboard they move the letters around sometimes (edited for bookworm god bless her sole) Deep Peace be with you.

 

“I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have

nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the

most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of

suffering.

 

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs —

Victory in spite of all terror — Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for

without victory there is no survival.”

 

(Winston Churchill Addressing the House of commons.)

 

All complaints go to the lootube. All conversations go in the white box then you click submit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How can making thousands even millions of claimants wait for a lengthy court case be a fair trading practice?

 

It's a court case deciding on whether the regulations apply to bank charges. Many people have said how can the bank charge while claimants cannot. Simple, because the legal case is about whether Bank Charges fall under UTCCR 1999 and can be assessed for fairness.

The OFT can apply under section 12 of UTCCR 1999 for an injunction against the banks charging terms in the next part of the case that would prevent them from charging customers under those terms subject to the test of fairness under UTCCR 1999.

 

Sorry for long winded answer..

.

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

It would seem that giving the banks power to keep on charging lubriciously high charges would be in breach of our human right equality under the law.

 

How can one party profit so highly and unfairly now that a governing body has virtually ruled they are unfair.

 

This is definitely a breach of our equality of opportunity as the legal case gives the banks virtual power not to deal with our complaints. No wonder they are appealing at every opportunity. If they don't like trading in this country maybe they should ship shape and get out.

 

An unfair term should be made powerless once it is in dispute empowering the consumer and putting our European Human Rights at the for front of the contract.

 

It is now pointless voting a government in since it is the courts that make the decision in the end of the day.

Any typos spelling mistakes are due to leprechauns in my keyboard they move the letters around sometimes (edited for bookworm god bless her sole) Deep Peace be with you.

 

“I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have

nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the

most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of

suffering.

 

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs —

Victory in spite of all terror — Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for

without victory there is no survival.”

 

(Winston Churchill Addressing the House of commons.)

 

All complaints go to the lootube. All conversations go in the white box then you click submit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem that giving the banks power to keep on charging lubriciously high charges would be in breach of our human right equality under the law.

Which bit of the post did you not understand?

UTCCR 1999 either does or does not apply to bank charges. How can judges make a decision if we were still unable to determine whether the charges can be assessed for fairness? You have no case without case law and you would lose on penalties in law argument.

How can one party profit so highly and unfairly now that a governing body has virtually ruled they are unfair.

It was the view of the banks' that the terms did not fall within the regulations so the courts have to decide.

This is definitely a breach of our equality of opportunity as the legal case gives the banks virtual power not to deal with our complaints. No wonder they are appealing at every opportunity. If they don't like trading in this country maybe they should ship shape and get out.

I would have done exactly the same thing as the banks if money was not an issue and that there was a glimmer of hope that i would win.

An unfair term should be made powerless once it is in dispute empowering the consumer and putting our European Human Rights at the for front of the contract.

UTCCR 1999 is not about Human Rights but about the fairness of a contract between you and the seller.

It is now pointless voting a government in since it is the courts that make the decision in the end of the day.

To slightly go off topic, I would always vote in local and general elections because it is democracy in action. Sometimes you vote for the winner and sometimes you don't. Would an x factor style competition to become an MP be any better?(not sure my ears could take them singing, lol)

.

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

British democracy should be for the people and by the people always has been.

 

The whole point in a European Union Is to empower the people by the democratic way of life.

 

In this country decisions the real ones any way are made by a bunch of ponsy loony's wearing wigs. Mean while The banks rake in money by the billions.

 

Are we in Europe or not?

Any typos spelling mistakes are due to leprechauns in my keyboard they move the letters around sometimes (edited for bookworm god bless her sole) Deep Peace be with you.

 

“I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have

nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the

most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of

suffering.

 

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs —

Victory in spite of all terror — Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for

without victory there is no survival.”

 

(Winston Churchill Addressing the House of commons.)

 

All complaints go to the lootube. All conversations go in the white box then you click submit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The supremacy of law, means that the law is above everyone and it applies to everyone. Whether governor or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law.

 

Rule of law is a general legal maxim according to which decisions should be made by applying known principles or laws, without the intervention of discretion in their application. This maxim is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance

 

Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and we enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state.

 

law should govern, and those in power should be "servants of the laws.

 

The Democratic way in this case is to take our case to the European Courts of Law. In a European Superstate the Supreme Court dose not have the last say.

Any typos spelling mistakes are due to leprechauns in my keyboard they move the letters around sometimes (edited for bookworm god bless her sole) Deep Peace be with you.

 

“I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have

nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the

most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of

suffering.

 

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs —

Victory in spite of all terror — Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for

without victory there is no survival.”

 

(Winston Churchill Addressing the House of commons.)

 

All complaints go to the lootube. All conversations go in the white box then you click submit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Article 3 - torture

 

Main article: Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 3 prohibits torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". There are no exceptions or limitations on this right.

The Court have emphasised the fundamental nature of Article 3 in holding that the prohibition is made in "absolute terms ... irrespective of a victim's conduct."

 

This is in my view inhumane treatment as there are many folk suffering financial difficulties regarding the length of the case. Also in view of the fact it is a pointless endeavour as we can still go back after the FSA waiver is lifted.

Any typos spelling mistakes are due to leprechauns in my keyboard they move the letters around sometimes (edited for bookworm god bless her sole) Deep Peace be with you.

 

“I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have

nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the

most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of

suffering.

 

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs —

Victory in spite of all terror — Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for

without victory there is no survival.”

 

(Winston Churchill Addressing the House of commons.)

 

All complaints go to the lootube. All conversations go in the white box then you click submit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bank customers in line for £6bn refund of overdraft charges - Times Online

 

"The banks have lost two High Court judgments on the matter and so have taken the case to the Supreme Court, Britain’s highest court, established last month.

Treasury officials told The Sunday Times that the banks would be pushed to negotiate a settlement after the verdict, rather than pursue the matter through the European courts if they lost."

 

"A Treasury source said: “The government will be looking to settle the matter out of court rather than allow the banks to drag the process through the legal system, which could take several years before a satisfactory outcome.”

Treasury officials have had discussions with the banks about a settlement, though payouts may still not occur for several months.

The British Bankers’ Association said it was in discussions with the Financial Services Authority, the City watchdog, on the issue. “We have been discussing the process with the authorities from the beginning, and we will continue to do so,” the association said."

 

As I've said for a while I think a negotiated settlement is definitely where this will end up - I know Your Bank doesnt think this is possible but if neccesary the government will bring in retrospective legislation that makes it possible.

Edited by Stornoway

All comments are my personal views - if in doubt then seek professional advice. If you think i've helped then please tip my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Treasury officials have had discussions with the banks about a settlement, though payouts may still not occur for several months.

Having worked with/against the Treasury (who despite their own beliefs are NOT the brightest lights in any chandelier) this is not necessarily good - the banks could run rings around them although I do accept that any government is unlikely to accept a major haemorrhage in the court system. At what price to us?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bank Service charges are a inhumane highly lubricative profit making regime designed to pay back tax payers money when the state mucks up and it is a degrading punishment for going overdrawn. The only adequate settlement under law is the total refund of the charge.

 

It is about time the powers to be do the job they are elected for and protect our fundamental values and our right to life. In this day in age a good quality of life can not be achieved on government benefits when you have super banks Like Lloyds and Santander screwing and squeezing you for every single penny you have.

 

Judges Oath

 

"I... do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of..., and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God."

 

Seems they have the duty to vote in our favour already being a liberal and democratic nation.

Any typos spelling mistakes are due to leprechauns in my keyboard they move the letters around sometimes (edited for bookworm god bless her sole) Deep Peace be with you.

 

“I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have

nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the

most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of

suffering.

 

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs —

Victory in spite of all terror — Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for

without victory there is no survival.”

 

(Winston Churchill Addressing the House of commons.)

 

All complaints go to the lootube. All conversations go in the white box then you click submit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez Barry - this IS England; were anyone in a position of power to try to adhere to this I'd just have to walk on water!

 

I take it you did not read what I have just posted.

 

The judges have the power to refund bank service charges.

 

Lets not play school boy politics and start using the power of law to get our money back.

Any typos spelling mistakes are due to leprechauns in my keyboard they move the letters around sometimes (edited for bookworm god bless her sole) Deep Peace be with you.

 

“I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have

nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the

most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of

suffering.

 

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs —

Victory in spite of all terror — Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for

without victory there is no survival.”

 

(Winston Churchill Addressing the House of commons.)

 

All complaints go to the lootube. All conversations go in the white box then you click submit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a good lecture on maxims of law and the the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/speeches/mor-atkin-lecture-nov2009.

 

I quote a passage from primeinister Winston Churchill who famously quoted in the House of Commons.

 

“I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of

suffering.

 

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs — Victory in spite of all terror — Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for

without victory there is no survival.”

Edited by barry_2008
just showing off

Any typos spelling mistakes are due to leprechauns in my keyboard they move the letters around sometimes (edited for bookworm god bless her sole) Deep Peace be with you.

 

“I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have

nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the

most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of

suffering.

 

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs —

Victory in spite of all terror — Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for

without victory there is no survival.”

 

(Winston Churchill Addressing the House of commons.)

 

All complaints go to the lootube. All conversations go in the white box then you click submit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the mean time cases are on hold up and down the country.

Clogging court systems and putting pressure on judges and court staff.

(its not that I mind so much like)

 

We should not be treated this unfairly when there is law to support our case.

Any typos spelling mistakes are due to leprechauns in my keyboard they move the letters around sometimes (edited for bookworm god bless her sole) Deep Peace be with you.

 

“I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have

nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the

most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of

suffering.

 

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs —

Victory in spite of all terror — Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for

without victory there is no survival.”

 

(Winston Churchill Addressing the House of commons.)

 

All complaints go to the lootube. All conversations go in the white box then you click submit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the Supreme Court is handing down it's judgement on Wednesday - will the parties to the cae have already been made aware of the decision?

 

They would have a copy of the judgement(the solicitors anyway) a week before the verdict is made public so yes they know what the decision is.

.

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

In the mean time cases are on hold up and down the country.

Clogging court systems and putting pressure on judges and court staff.

(its not that I mind so much like)

 

We should not be treated this unfairly when there is law to support our case.

Which specific law currently supports your case?

 

UTCCR 1999 is being decided upon on Wednesday so is there any other case law you are relying on with regards to bank charges specifically?

.

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

Which specific law currently supports your case?

 

UTCCR 1999 is being decided upon on Wednesday so is there any other case law you are relying on with regards to bank charges specifically?

 

As I have suggested above Article 3 of the Convention of European Human Rights.

 

Enshrined into UK law by the UK constitution.

Any typos spelling mistakes are due to leprechauns in my keyboard they move the letters around sometimes (edited for bookworm god bless her sole) Deep Peace be with you.

 

“I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have

nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the

most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of

suffering.

 

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs —

Victory in spite of all terror — Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for

without victory there is no survival.”

 

(Winston Churchill Addressing the House of commons.)

 

All complaints go to the lootube. All conversations go in the white box then you click submit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Those who fight monsters should look to it that they too do not become a monster" Lord Atkin

Any typos spelling mistakes are due to leprechauns in my keyboard they move the letters around sometimes (edited for bookworm god bless her sole) Deep Peace be with you.

 

“I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have

nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the

most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of

suffering.

 

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs —

Victory in spite of all terror — Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for

without victory there is no survival.”

 

(Winston Churchill Addressing the House of commons.)

 

All complaints go to the lootube. All conversations go in the white box then you click submit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interpretation of legislation?? What has the Supreme Court been doing then?

 

Interpreting the legislation.

Any other case law that applies to contracts specifically?

.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...