Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
  • 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 5030 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

  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Woohoo, I still get a hearing in February 2010 - think the 17 pages did the trick and they got tired of trying to complete the response. Mines a relative tiddler at 2k so may not get too far but will report if it gets a full hearing with the DJ.

 

Will ring the court manager in the morning and try to find out how many others are still being heard (if she'll tell me)...... if anybody wants to know which court (I'm in Kent) please PM me and i'll respond as soon as I can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a concern that it will be difficult to litigate on fairness of structure, good faith or cross subsidy under 5(1) without touching on the adequacy of price which has been ruled out by the Supreme Court under regulation 6(2).

 

That is what I have been saying. The difficulty approaches the squaring the circle level.

 

Depending on counsels opinion, there is a possiblity of referring directly to the UTCCR greylist from EU directives and taking the case on consumers failing to fulfill an obligation under the contract to keep the account in credit or within an agreed limit.

 

That sounds to me rather like the contractual penalties argument thinly disguised.

Edited by Aequitas
Link to post
Share on other sites

What if when I turn up at the hotel etc.

 

With respect, you have homed in on points that are irrelevant. A few other posters have made points that seek to emphasise that contracts for banking services are different from any other types of contract. Of course they are different, but they are not so different that, as people seem to want to be the case, there are special rules that only apply to them. The point I was trying to make is this: what is it about bank contracts that singles them out so that the cost to the bank of supplying the service is all important and must be subject to some test of reasonableness that does not apply to other contracts?

 

Lady Hale asked the question: Should financial services be treated differently from other goods and services? She gave no answer but suggested that the law did not treat them differently and that if they were to be treated differently it was a matter for Parliament.

 

For myself I have always felt that the UTCCRs do not sit very happily with contracts for financial services. They are aimed at contracts for holidays, car hire, double glazing and the like. A completely separate set of regulations ought to have been drawn up for financial services and (whilst we are on the subject) also for residential tenancies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For myself I have always felt that the UTCCRs do not sit very happily with contracts for financial services.

 

Why? (Not provocative, just interested).

 

They are aimed at contracts for holidays, car hire, double glazing and the like.

 

How are you able to be so specific?

 

Els

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? (Not provocative, just interested).

 

You only have to read the "grey list" to see that it was not drawn up with financial services (or residential tenancies) in mind.

 

How are you able to be so specific?

 

I just put down the first things that came into my head.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect, you have homed in on points that are irrelevant.
Points which arose from the examples given by you. ;-)

But I think that they are VERY relevant. Turn the question around: If the charges are for goods/services, I know of no other industry where one can apply charges for NOT supplying the service/goods in question.

 

what is it about bank contracts that singles them out so that the cost to the bank of supplying the service is all important and must be subject to some test of reasonableness that does not apply to other contracts?

Well, I'd say the self-generating system for starters. The bank "supplies a service" by not paying, say, a Direct Debit, because you don't have sufficient funds. Fair enough. BUT they then deduct £30 from your account for NOT supplying the service. This is where they start deviating wildly from a "normal" business. It gets worse, because for NOT supplying the service and charging you for it, they then generate that very "service" which they had denied you, and charge you again. And again. And again.

 

In no other business will you get that vicious circle. That alone IMO justifies the test of reasonableness.

 

Another thing is that if we accept the service argument, then the correct way about this is: service supplied -> invoice sent by supplier -> invoice to be paid by customer (with the obvious collateral that if customer is on the breadline, then that invoice should be taking its place in the line of importance of debts, ie: mortgage/rent, council tax, utilities, food, THEN unsecured debts such as credit cards, store cards, loans etc...) The bank blatantly jumps the queue and just takes the money, ahead of priority bills. They then create the situation described above, where they CREATE the "demand" for "service", even though the customer has not asked for it.

 

It's really the equivalent of an exterminator knocking on your door, asking if you have rats. When you say no, he starts letting rats loose in your house so that you will then need him to come in to exterminate the rats. And every time you think the rats are gone, he then lets a few of them go so that they will keep on breeding, and charges you every time of course. The only difference is that when you first opened the door and said "no thanks", he didn't charge you £50 for you saying no.

 

Even if, and it's a HUGE "if", we were to agree that the reasonableness test doesn't apply to the "service" provided, surely it must apply when there isn't one provided? :-?

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

good post Booky.

 

If the gas company send me a bill for £6,000,000 I then ring them up and tell them they have made an error. I can argue the charge, they have to fight ME to get the money if they think they are justified. Thank heavens they cant just help themselves to MY money.

 

If my car insurance is higher than I would I like, I can shop around, get a better deal. thank heavens they cant just help themselves to MY money.

 

most services work this way. You can shop around, and you can dispute a bill you dont agree with. You can CHOOSE whether or not you are going to pay the bill, at least there can be a discussion about it.

 

With banks this doesnt work. I cant shop around. The banking cartel all charge the same, and the regulators are ineffectual. (much the same as the water regulator, but thats a bifferent kettle of fish) I cant contest the bill, it gets removed from my bank balance, I have no choice, and so I have to FIGHT to get the money back.

 

Imagine things were different. Imagine banks were prevented from directly charging the account, they like everyone else had to bill you and wait for you to A) pay it or B) contest it.

 

Oh how different the banking industry would be!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

CRUSH....another well elucidated argument and scenario.......hell...you're both SMOKIN' today :D

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really the equivalent of an exterminator knocking on your door, asking if you have rats. When you say no, he starts letting rats loose in your house so that you will then need him to come in to exterminate the rats. And every time you think the rats are gone, he then lets a few of them go so that they will keep on breeding, and charges you every time of course. The only difference is that when you first opened the door and said "no thanks", he didn't charge you £50 for you saying no.

 

Now, that's an analogy!

 

Els

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have the change of POC been decided yet?

Beating the DCA's day by day

 

My fight:

NDR - CCA'd 12+2 passed

Bank of Scotland - CCA'd 12+2 passed

CFS - Win by Technical Knock-out!:lol:

HFC Bank - CCA'd 12+2 passed

Chantry Collections - CCA sent

 

Time flies like an arrow

Fruit flies like a banana :D

 

<---------- Have I given you top advice, have I made you laugh, click on the scales, it won't hurt you! :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this may seem to some as a bit of a cowards way out but my claim currently with the CC is worth potentially £7k. I’ve read the arguments put forward about how likely we are to succeed in view of the decision by the Supreme Court which we all know was decided on a very narrow point of law. I’m confident that a very well reasoned argument based on the path available to law will be put forward by Ray Cox QC and I was thinking of engaging a solicitor through an insurance policy on a no win no fee basis based on what is put forward by Ray Cox QC.

 

I’m not a lawyer or confident person but feel I could end up getting trampled by the banks solicitor and end having to pay their costs if they win.

 

Am I a coward?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No you are not... this is the effect that the banks want to have upon us unwashed masses. They hope we will get bullied into submission.

 

That is why the relationship between customer and bank is so unfair.

 

If you feel you need a solicitor, then who am I to disagree with you. I would say though wait and see what Ray Cox QC comes up with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The words ""NIL ILLIGITIMUS CARBORUNDUM" (sorry for shouting) springs to mind. :D

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

 

[sigh]

 

Not in my mind! cos I dont speak latin... can we please please please make these forums a latin free zone unless translations are given.. I'm too lazy to google :-D and half the time the latin gets translated differently each search anyway.

 

[rant over]

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a letter from HSBC this morning informing me that my fiances old student account has had a £25 'service' fee added. Cheers, thanks a lot.

 

Can't we opt out of this so called service provision? Am I being stupid and missing something really obvious? If a window cleaner turns up and says he'll do my windows for £10 and I say no, I am not legally obligated to then pay him if he then chooses to clean my windows.

 

How are the banks different to any other business on the face of the planet? Why are they special and seemingly immune to everyday morals and conventions of business? The only difference is that they already hold our cash and effectively help themselves to it whenever one of their bankers needs to fund the impossibly expensive and rare 'Unicorn skin toilet paper' to wipe their own asses. Or do they have someone to do that for them...oh yes...they're called taxpayers and are the lowest denomination in the social order.

 

Seriously though, if they're calling it a 'service' no-one can inflict the cost of that on you without your express permission. The bank will point to the terms and conditions as your acceptance of that service meaning unless you accept their terms you cannot have a bank account.

 

All of the other banks operate in the same way, each propping the other up in unison knowing that by standing firm they all prosper. The very fact that we are all effectively deprived of a 'fair service' is surely wrong.

 

The very fact that they are already in possession of our funds gives them a direct route to it, surely an abuse of trust? No other party can just help themselves to your money without some form of arrangement, a DD or standing order for example. The banks can purely because you had to agree to their terms and conditions in order to be able to operate and live in the modern world. You tried to get by in the world that the banks have helped to create without one of their accounts? Practically impossible.

 

How can this be right and how is it that the banks have such control over us all and can abuse it so freely? It is effectively a monopoly situation as they all act as one body in order to impose their costs on us. Lots of room for additional argument against them I would have thought?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shown in margin of Aequitas who seems dead set on discouraging any further action in that sphere.

Kennyh, just to clarify something, the bit that is showing on the margin under the name is not put on by anyone else but the site itself. It will say donate to the site, etc, etc,. That bit of the Cag profile is not user generated. The Avatar is and the signature underneath of a post is but not the body. Hope that clarifies the point.

 

With regards to the argument on what service is given. The consideration of whether to pay or not pay or increase an overdraft is what was argued in the courts so that is the service provided.

I have to say I have no idea where this is going at the moment cos I am literally on the fence on this one. Some days I think it will be refund of all charges, then refunds of only some charges and other days no refunds whatsoever. I hope Ray Cox, QC has some good arguments cos I think we could find out that we will head to the ECJ on a test case on regulation 5(1) since it is unclear how imbalance can be arrived at without cost involved.

.

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

The Principal Solicitor at Govan Law Centre gave a good interpretation of the Supreme Court judgement and also eluded that there is ample evidence of the banks acting in bad faith in respect of their explanations to their customers about the reaon and purpose of bank charges.

 

He went on to sat that the evidence the banks gave to the House of Commons Treasury Committee on how bank charges were calculated was contradictory to what they told the court in the OFT test case. Is this not admissible as evidence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...