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 4997 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

I used govan law templates and natwest have responded with a 3 page letter... denying all issues and stating that case is closed and this is final response...

 

That's strange cos someone else on MSE got one that stated something about financial hardship. They then phoned them and were then told that omitting the word challenge meant that they had not looked at the letter as a bank charges challenge one. Interesting responses I guess.

Link to MSE response: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=29205433&postcount=1

.

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

If they are rejecting CCA and sec5 utccr then what next.... I feel this challenge is fading... I remember the day od suporeme court judgement and there was real anger....

 

I feel unless something happens soon we need to take a more public action...

march on downing street or something as this is beyond a joke.... they can do what ever they want... people are even coming out fighting against obamas ideas.... this is quickly becoming a joke... the law is being interpreted by regulators and judges to suit the banks... we bail them out , they continue with bonuses, everyone forgets mps expenses.... PLEASE CAN CAG COME UP WITH SOMETHING WE CAN ALL SUPPORT FRONT PAGE BANNER AND LETS GO FOR THEM.... TAKE A LEAF OUT THE BOOK OF THE FRENCH !!

Only direct action by the masses will work....

 

Look at all successes they have never come from negotiation!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fergal.....calm down bud :D... the FOS may be rejecting the arguments of CCa and UTCCR but theyt are not the LAW. Only a Court can decide on these things.

 

Whilst the FOS can rule on disputes, the Banks in these cases don't have to follow them or uphold the FOS's decision...did you know that?

 

Only a Court of Law can enforce or correct an opinion, and that's all these regulatory bodies can do, give opinions.

  • Haha 1

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 the banks that are rejecting them and a further note to mention is that the Govan law Centre templates ARE UK WIDE and not just for Scotland as they have clarified on their blog so game on for banks and FOS claims.

Govan Law Centre: Unfair bank charges: free help to amend existing complaint letters

.

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

Indeed....can't say if anyone's surprised that the Banks' are rejecting them given their thinly failed mis-leading letters saying to their consumers there's nothing you can do. It just goes to show that if they blatantly brushing aside valid legal arguments then they are scared of something or are so convinced of their invincibility it's frightening.

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

At the moment, the banks are sending out rejection letters for all claims on their books(even some where they have paid out in full and settled the cases). However, there are things ongoing across all the forums so I would expect there to be some news before they get to the end of their long list ;)

.

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

Hmmmm...interestingly, I haven't heard of any Abbey Claimants getting any letters from Abbey? Has anyone or is this the only Bank that's keeping it's head down?

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

Abbey ones are showing a date of December 2009 and are being sent out. Having clarified with them, their letters are 8 weeks from 31st December 2009.

.

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

At the moment, the banks are sending out rejection letters for all claims on their books(even some where they have paid out in full and settled the cases). However, there are things ongoing across all the forums so I would expect there to be some news before they get to the end of their long list ;)

 

Quite right YB i had one from RBS who paid out 10 months ago lol

 

But at least it made me smile lol

HTH (Hope This Helps) RDM2006

 

THE FORCE (OF CAG) IS WITH YOU

;)

 

We've Helped You To Claim - Now Help Us Remain

A live Site - Make a Donation

 

All advice and opinions given by people on this site are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.

 

However, if you have found any advice you have been given helpful.

Why not show your gratitude And

Click the * on the post you found helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

How can MSE state that the recent Supreme Court ruling in the bank charges test case doesn't impact on reclaiming credit card charges. It is precisely the same laws that are used for reclaiming credit card charges that is used for reclaiming bank charges, what's the difference?

 

TheyrCriminals

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strewth....well nothing for it, I'm having to to pay for an application to unstay my claim otherwise it will be struck out on the 1st Feb 2010.

 

As such to save me from having to fork out 2 x £75 fees in raising applications I will be submitting my amended POC at the same time.

 

Just got very very tired and frustrated at having to wait, then wait, then wait some more with any assistance in submitting a new/amended POC.

 

I have formulated a new POC, just need it checking.

 

Can anyone assist as I will be in the Courts to submit the new POC before Friday. Help anyone? :D

 

Not saying this is what you should do, but can you ask for the stay to be extended owing to the lack of clarity in the SC judgement?

 

Cheers YB..much appreciated, sent now.

 

CARO...your inbox is full :confused:

 

I'm PMing you an email addy you can use.

 

If they are rejecting CCA and sec5 utccr then what next.... I feel this challenge is fading... I remember the day od suporeme court judgement and there was real anger....

 

I feel unless something happens soon we need to take a more public action...

march on downing street or something as this is beyond a joke.... they can do what ever they want... people are even coming out fighting against obamas ideas.... this is quickly becoming a joke... the law is being interpreted by regulators and judges to suit the banks... we bail them out , they continue with bonuses, everyone forgets mps expenses.... PLEASE CAN CAG COME UP WITH SOMETHING WE CAN ALL SUPPORT FRONT PAGE BANNER AND LETS GO FOR THEM.... TAKE A LEAF OUT THE BOOK OF THE FRENCH !!

 

As part of CAG, perhaps you'd like to follow the link to a thread that's running in the campaign forum and join in a discussion what would be most effective.

 

Unfortunately not everyone is willing or able to travel to London because the banks have got their money.:rolleyes:

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well of course the banks are rejecting anything asking them to pay out as non-valid and what not... what did anyone expect, that they would roll over and pay up? They didn't before, they sure as hell are not going to do so now... As before, they will rely on the vast majority of people to give up at the first hurdle.

 

Come on, how many of us have in their files a variation on: "we are satisfied that our charges are fair and lawful"? Hell, even when they paid up, they still maintained that!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re Edinburgh - you're right on James Fountain Court - People - James Duffy - I just get worried with these fountain court people - still not a local solicitor though but yes better than it being a QC.

 

The claimant was ordered to expand on his POCs and Mr Duffy wasn't given the opportunity to put his case forward.

 

Interestingly enough Giles Wheeler works at the same chambers as James Duffy – not that I think there is any collusion but I haven’t been called the world’s greatest conspiracy theorist for nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re Edinburgh - you're right on James Fountain Court - People - James Duffy - I just get worried with these fountain court people - still not a local solicitor though but yes better than it being a QC.

 

The claimant was ordered to expand on his POCs and Mr Duffy wasn't given the opportunity to put his case forward.

 

I understand that James Duffy launched into the SCOJ ruling and was stopped in his tracks by the judge. Was any decision reached at court? It was on the LB site but has been moved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's back up there now. no further news though as yet.

 

Hi

Just returned from court. the bank has appointed a Q.C! As soon as he walked in, one of the other solicitors made a joke about him being in the wrong court and the jury trials were next door.........lol

 

Anyway, the bank requested time to examine the content of the incidental application, so the sheriff has requested that by 28 January, I submit a fuller arguement. The bank has then been given a further 2 weeks to state a defence. I will then have time to rebutt before a full days hearing is convened on 5 March to hear legal argument.

 

The QC for the bank began to outline his argument before being stopped by the sheriif. Eassentially, their argument is that the ruling of the supreme court covers the whole issue of unfair bank charges

 

kind regards

.

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...