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

"unreasonably prioritising the bank's own interests over those of the customer when dealing with customer problems".

 

This IMO may be the lynchpin.

 

 

 

Very much like the sound of that Bookie - is there a real way forward here? I think there may be. Worth some thought me thinks!

 

Very best of luck with your case - greatly look forward to reading how it goes.

I do my best to be helpful, but at the end of the day I'm not a professional - please seek further advice if you're not sure. On the other hand, if I have helped, please click my scales - thanks ;)

 

Current Claims (all for friends!) -

 

Abbey - over £4k - Court claim issued & AQ filed ('Tish vs Abbey'). Alloc'n Hearing 21 Sept - Claim stayed 29/8/07.

Cap One - just under £2k - WON (just over 2k!)('Tish vs Cap One')

Cap One - just under £1000 - WON (just over £1k) Nov 07 (JimmyBoy vs Cap One)

Lloyds TSB - £3.5k - Court claim issued, defence rec'd and AQ filed; Alloc'n hearing 7th Sept Claim stayed 29/8/07! (JimmyBoy vs Lloyds')

MBNA - over £1k for mis-sold PPI - WON - approx £1500(IpswichWitch vs MBNA . . .)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems true that banks have really no interest in their customers once they hit bad times. The bank's attitude is simply that these people are an irritation but easy pickings for revenue! Bank's have no shame when it comes to upsetting people and the main reason is that those same people have little or no power to fight back against a monolith funded by their monies.

 

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 anyone taken a peek at BCOBS? (Banking Conduct of Business Sourcebook)

 

My particular favourite is held within section 5.1 Post Sale Requirements:

 

1 A firm must provide a service in relation to a retail banking service which is prompt, efficient and fair to a banking customer and which has regard to any communications or financial promotion made by the firm to the banking customer from time to time.

BCOBS 5.1.2 01/11/2009 In determining the order in which to process payment instructions in relation to the retail banking service, a firm must have regard to its obligation to treat banking customers fairly.

 

BCOBS 5.1.3 01/11/2009

To the extent that it relates to a retail banking service, a firm may find it helpful to take account of the British Bankers' Association "A Statement of Principles: Banks and businesses - working together".

 

My most favourite though:

 

Dealings with customers in financial difficulty

 

BCOBS 5.1.4 01/11/2009 Principle 6 requires a firm to pay due regard to the interests of its customers and to treat them fairly. In particular, a firm should deal fairly with a banking customer whom it has reason to believe is in financial difficulty.

 

:rolleyes:

 

xx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dealings with customers in financial difficulty

 

BCOBS 5.1.4 01/11/2009 Principle 6 requires a firm to pay due regard to the interests of its customers and to treat them fairly. In particular, a firm should deal fairly with a banking customer whom it has reason to believe is in financial difficulty.

 

:rolleyes:

 

xx

 

fairly... or fair game for the banking vultures :-|

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can answers those... ;)

 

BCOBS 5.1.2 01/11/2009 - They do, they charge you what 'they' consider fair.

BCOBS 5.1.3 01/11/2009 - They do, they apply the charges which they considered fair.

BCOBS 5.1.3 01/11/2009 - That'll be the BBVA aka as The British Bankers Vulture association.

BCOBS 5.1.4 01/11/2009 - That'll be a Default Notice (and 6 years of misery), activating their Indian, Malaysian and Phillipino cousins into action on the way there to pile on the pressure.

 

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

4783 Posts So Far,,,,,, We Aint Going To Win With Any Legal Argument And They Know This.... What Next!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Previously posted by Bookworm

Well, in all fairness, the test case started in July 07, the CPUT Regs didn't come out until 2008, it could have been tricky...

I see I scored an og again!!! But what's your take on the CPUT Regs as an instrument for torturing the banks?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it apply historically to? ie to charges/events that took place before 2009 ie: 1996 or 2000?

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

The Test Case: where it all went wrong

 

The way that the OFT handled this whole issue of penalty bank charges can be explained either as a cock-up or a conspiracy. In the cock-up theory, the OFT was determined to sort out the scandal of penalty bank charges but made mistakes in the whole process of how it set up the test case with the banks, how it allowed the banks to run rings around it through the whole process and was unfortunate to come up against a rogue decision from the Supreme Court at the end of the process. With the conspiracy theory, the OFT never really wanted to win this case – it was under pressure from the government because of the parlous state of the banking industry and the government had decided that it could not afford for the banks to lose; so the OFT made deliberate tactical mistakes thoughout the process.

 

Which of the theories is true? I suspect that it is a combination of the two. The OFT's heart was not really in this case, it was under pressure from the government to go easy on the banks but it did its best, but its best was not good enough.

 

If anyone had set out in 2007 to make sure that the test case was handled as badly as possible, they probably would have done exactly what the OFT did. Consider all the mistakes that the OFT made.

 

First, why was the test case announced out of the blue in July 2007? The OFT had been alerted to the issue of unauthorised overdraft charges and how unfair they were as early as 2005 when I and other campaigners started taking up the issue. At the time, the OFT was tackling the banks over the related issue of penalty charges on credit cards. The OFT told me and others that they would deal with current account default charges once the credit card charges issue had been successfully resolved. They gave the impression that they thought that current accounts could be sorted out fairly simply after the principles were established with credit cards.

 

However, the OFT did not sort out the principles with credit cards. Instead they reached a grubby compromise with the banks in the summer of 2006 whereby they agreed to lower their default charges from a typical level of £25 per incident to no more than £12. In return, the OFT would take no further action against them on this. Therefore, the legal principle was left hanging.

 

The OFT then slowly started to look at current account charges. Meanwhile, I and other campaigners were becoming increasingly successful in recovering unauthorised overdraft charges from banks by the simple expedient of issuing County Court summonses. Almost invariably, the banks rolled over and paid up without arguing the case in court. By the end of 2006, the banks had probably paid out several million pounds to claimants. But this was small beer compared with the profit that the banks were making from these charges, estimated to be between 3 and 5 billion pounds per annum.

 

Then, in the first half of 2007, the scale of payouts from the banks exploded and in 6 months the banks paid out in total about £700 million. At this level, these amounts had to be reported in the banks' half yearly figures to the Stock Exchange. Suddenly, the cat was out of the bag and it is likely that the scale of payouts in the second half of 2007 would have been even more. This was becoming a serious issue for the banks and action had to be taken to stem the flow.

 

I believe that the test case was, therefore, initiated by the banks and not by the OFT. If you ask them who initiated it, you get a very fudged answer. Interestingly, Royal Bank of Scotland did not seem to agree with the other major banks about the need for the test case and they signed up to it a day after the other 7 banks did and Sir Fred Goodwin (yes, that man again) was quoted in the press as saying he did not think it was necessary. See Banker of the Week story about this.

 

The terms of the agreement to fight the test case looked as though they had been put together hastily. The first mistake that the OFT made was to allow the banks to throw into the equation the issue of common law penalties. This issue is crucial for business account customers who are not protected by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR). The banks wanted it in so that they could get a declaration which would suit them in respect of business accounts. The OFT has no duty or remit to consider this issue but they allowed it to be put into the case. Then to cap this, within a few weeks, a senior OFT spokesman essentially surrendered on the common law penalties issue before the case was anywhere near the court. See test case update Sept 2007.

 

The next bizarre aspect of the test case was that it was agreed between the OFT and the banks that the first batch of bank terms that would be considered by the High Court judge to see whether or not they were subject to the test of fairness in the UTCCRs would be the new terms that the banks had produced after they had started paying out on claims against them. These were terms that had been written specifically by the banks' lawyers to try to make out that the unauthorised overdraft charges and similar penalty charges were all part and parcel of the normal terms rather than their being default charges. Some of these new terms had not even been written by the time the test case agreement was drawn up in July 2007. They were written after this date and then presented to the judge for consideration. Only when the judge had considered the new terms would he go back and look at what were now being called historical terms. This seemed bizarre because most of the claims in the Court system which were on hold related to the historical terms. Since the test case was supposed to bring "clarity" to the issue, why was the case concentrating first on terms which had not been involved in the claims on hold? Of course, the way these terms were being considered suited the banks. The new terms were more likely to be OK and once this was established, it would set the mood for what would then look like more of an academic exercise on the historical terms.

 

The test case came before the High Court Judge in January 2008. In April, he announced his first judgment on the new terms. This was essentially a score draw between the OFT and the banks. The banks got what they wanted on the common law penalties with Justice Smith saying that they were not penalties. On the UTCCRs, he found that they were subject to the test of fairness but that they were not default charges. This meant that the level of charge would have to be agreed between the OFT and the banks.

 

Then in October, the judge found similarly in respect of historical terms. To be frank, this was a nonsense. It is clear that in some of the banks' historical terms had express clauses that said that going overdrawn without agreement constituted a breach of contract. This means that it is a virtually cast iron certainty that they would be subject to the common law rules on penalties. But Justice Smith just ignored that and gave a ruling that suited the banks.

 

The banks appealed against the rulings on UTCCRs but the OFT did not appeal against the ruling on common law penalties.

 

It should be noted that the whole case was argued in court between barristers for both sides without any witnesses being called such as individuals who had been crucified by bank charges nor even high street bank managers who had to deal with customers and who could have been cross examined about what they thought the relationship was between the bank and its customers. This would have produced a very different version from the tale that the banks' barristers spun about some hypothetical relationship. Given that this dispute is about how banks treat their customers, is it not strange that no customers were ever allowed to testify in court? If the OFT had not intervened and launched the test case, any case that had come to a contested court case would have had to consider the evidence of a real customer.

 

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court judgment regarding UTCCRs. At this stage, it looked inevitable that the banks were going to lose this argument. Going to the House of Lords with the case looked just like further delaying tactics.

 

So on it went to the House of Lords and meanwhile all claims in the system remained on hold and the banks continued to plunder their customers' accounts at will.

 

By the time the House of Lords was due to give its ruling, it had been revamped to become the Supreme Court. And so, on 25 November 2009, the Supreme Court overturned all the previous judgments and essentially said that the banks could do what they liked. On 22 December, the OFT threw in the towel and said that they would not try any further legal challenge.

 

So what were the mistakes (deliberate or accidental) that the OFT made?

 

The OFT did not have to bring the test case at all. It could have stood back and allowed individual campaigners to continue to make claims. After all, we had achieved refunds of over £700 million with no help from the OFT. When the OFT launched the test case, the first thing that happened was that the good guys were disarmed.

If the OFT wanted to fight a test case, it could have picked off an individual bank rather than allow 8 banks to gang up against it. In the test case, the one OFT barrister was always faced with 8 opponents. So, the banks had a tremendous advantage in that they had 8 attempts at cross examining the OFT. And when presenting their own cases, they could watch each other and learn from each one before amending their own presentation accordingly. The OFT had only one shot on goal; the banks could take 8 attempts.

The OFT should not have allowed the banks to put into the test case the issue of common law penalties. The OFT had no remit to defend business account customers. So its heart was not in this.

Having agreed to have common law penalties in the test case, the OFT spokesman should not have sold his team short by stating publicly that he did not think that they would win that point.

The OFT should not have agreed that current terms were to be considered before historical terms. This played into the hands of the banks. If the arguments had been made on historical terms first, it would have been much easier to win the default charge argument on those; then the OFT could have successfully argued that the current terms were merely worded deliberately to disguise the true nature of the contract.

The OFT should certainly not have allowed banks to put to the High Court terms which had not even been written by the time the test case was announced.

The OFT should have called bank customers as witnesses and should have insisted on an actual bank manager being cross examined.

The OFT should have appealed the common law penalty argument and produced much more robust evidence from banks' historical terms and from letters written by banks that supported this argument.

The Supreme Court had suggested that there might be other grounds on which the OFT could challenge the banks. But, instead, the OFT unconditionally surrendered.

Overall, an abject performance by the OFT.

 

from Bob the bankbuster.....

 

So what do we do know to sort out this sorry mess!!!!!!!!!!

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

Previously posted by Bookworm

 

I see I scored an og again!!! But what's your take on the CPUT Regs as an instrument for torturing the banks?

Unfortunately, not much as a LIP: The CPUT are not for us plebs to take action, they are for the OFT. If you think that a company is in breach of the CPUT, you bring it to the attention of the OFT and they then decide to take action (or not). Obviously, the more people complain about the same behaviour by the same company, the more likely it is the OFT will pay attention... should they wish to do so. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very much in the conspiracy camp.

 

The only organisation that legally would have seen ALL the banks financial statements before they were released to the Stock Exchange wold have been the FSA. The banks would not have known its other figures and certainly the OFT would not have known. If you recall, the court case was announced on the Thursday evening and the application lodged with the court on Friday morning. At the same time (Thursday evening) the FSA announced irs waiver and FOS announced the hold on complaints.

 

The following Monday morning HSBC announced its results followed by the othre banks during that week By the end of the week, we all new hat the banks had paid out £700 million and that any argument that it was not worth their while to defend an individual case would have been shown to be hollow.

 

I don't believe the OFT was meant itself to win either, but win it did in spite of its own failings until it got to the Supreme Court. Even there, whilst the judges had to allow the point on the very narrow area the OFT had chosen to fight on, Lord Philips pointed the way to Reg 5 as clearly as a judge could do in the circumstances.

  • Haha 1

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites

) making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone;

 

(d) permitting the seller or supplier to retain sums paid by the consumer where the latter decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the seller or supplier where the latter is the party cancelling the contract;

 

e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

 

(f) authorising the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer, or permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for services not yet supplied by him where it is the seller or supplier himself who dissolves the contract;

k) enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided;

 

o) obliging the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his;

m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract;

Link to post
Share on other sites

no posts for 3 days, I take it the fight is over.......

 

what a pity , if britain has lost its great it is because we have all allowed it....

 

dont blame anyone else but ourselves!!!

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

Ditto......personally I'm being quiet because I am amending my POC to make it more personal.

 

It takes a little while and the need for a bit of peace and quiet. ;)

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...