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
      • 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 5073 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

  • 5 months later...
A great deal of sense in what you say D - the case against the Banks is indeed very strong. Goodwill? - never! Trying to minimise losses? - yes.

 

However, in the present financial climate, with many banks in serious trouble largely due to the over-extended credit they have encouraged people to take on, I can't see the Government allowing the OFT to 'win' this case thus leaving the banks open to having to repay countless millions in 'unfair' charges. Very much hope I'm wrong, but we'll see later today what the Judge has to say.

 

One regulator wasn't afraid to fine A&L 7 million for mis-selling PPI insurance despite the difficult situation for banks.

So there is a ray of hope

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed there is, Phantom. However, 7 million is a drop in the ocean compared with the total of bank charges being reclaimed!

 

Adam

 

Yes, but this is a 7 million fine for just one bank despite the difficult climate

- I meant to say there should be some hope that the judgement today will be equally fair and unbiased

 

By the way...what is the judgement. It is 6 o'clock. Wasn't it due out an 4.30 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was being handed down 'not before 16:30.'

 

You can keep an eye on it here :-

 

What's new on the Judiciary of England and Wales website

 

Lex

 

They like to keep us on edge, eh ?

I will keep on checking back thorughout the evening.

Trust any news will spark a discussion here on the forum anyway, so I will keep checking

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please remember this hearing was only about historic T/C's.

 

It is not the main case, about whether the charges themselves reflect the true cost to the banks.

 

Expect an announcement shortly

 

Thanks Mr Lex. I will be waiting for an update/announcement from site admin and will keep checking back.

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just checked the claim I have in for someone, and it also has both....It's so long, I must have got it of CAG. Hope everybody else did.

Yes, I downloaded my POC at the time from here and I ran to whisk out the court paperwork to double check and it also has got both elements in it

 

phew

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont you think if they stopped repos people just would not pay?

 

I wouldn't have thought so. If you can afford to pay I believe you will, because at the end of the day at some point people want to own their house, don't they ?

"One more payment and it's mine" That's how I think anyway, so I would always pay my mortgage for that reason alone. With every payment I am a step closer to making it mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow what a surprise ,

 

What the judge has has said is if you want an account you have to abide by these onerous terms and we will(the bank) take every opportunity to rip you off . A charter for thieving Banks .

 

as a taxpayer I think the government on my behalf has just lent £50,000,000,000 to these banks ( might have got my 0's mixed up but 50billion is a big number).

 

just an added thought who pays the judge !!!!!!!!!! the taxpayer

 

a double shafting.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

They will all be out in force at the week-end to celebrate with a round of golf. Weather is supposed to be fine. The judge was probably told nobody will play golf with him anymore if he makes a mistake in his judgement.

Curious how the judgment was supposed to be out in September and then suddenly pops out on the day the big bank bail-out is announced by the government

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 1 month later...

I suppose they are playing for time.

The only worry I am having is that only the banks will appeal at every stage. If the OFT looses I fear they wouldn't appeal. So far we were lucky it always went for the OFT, but if at one stage it hadn't I don't think the OFT would have battled on.

What is after the HOL ? The European court ? I can't see the OFT taking it there but the banks would.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

All works one way though. Last time my mortgage came out they (NatWest) took almost £70.- too much by mistake.

It didn't leave me overdrawn or anything, but to me this constitutes unarranged borrowing on their side, but apparently I can't charge them a £38.- fee or interest on it, although they argue in court such charges are fair.

It took them over a week to refund the money they took out of my account without authorisation.

If it was the other way around....guess what...!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I can't see the OFT appeal. I think so far we were 'lucky' it always went for the OFT, as I just couldn't see them having appealed their way through the system the same way the banks have.

What has the OFT to loose ? It is not their money. They can just say "oh well, we tried", but the banks have a lot of money at stake (our money)

The moment it goes against the OFT it will be the end for us

:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
If you have used the POC that quotes Utccr and not penalties, there is no need to ammend your claim. The changes are to small to matter.

 

 

 

 

Lex

 

I have a claim stayed at the moment against HSBC (since early 2008) and my POC (downloaded at that time from the site here) state

 

The Bank has debited charges from the Account in respect of unauthorised overdrafts and unpaid items, relying on terms on the Banking Contract which were either

 

(1) a penalty payable on breach of contract and unenforceable at common law and/or

(2) unfair terms within the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract regulations 1999 (The Regulations) and unenforceable

 

Do I need to amend anything ? Will send the template letter to lift the stay tomorrow, but not sure if I need to amend my POCs ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a claim stayed at the moment against HSBC (since early 2008) and my POC (downloaded at that time from the site here) state

 

The Bank has debited charges from the Account in respect of unauthorised overdrafts and unpaid items, relying on terms on the Banking Contract which were either

 

(1) a penalty payable on breach of contract and unenforceable at common law and/or

(2) unfair terms within the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract regulations 1999 (The Regulations) and unenforceable

 

Do I need to amend anything ? Will send the template letter to lift the stay tomorrow, but not sure if I need to amend my POCs ?

 

I am also worried if I don't move quickly HSBC will apply to have the claim struck out, so have today requested removal of stay using the template on the site.

Still not sure if my POCs are OK or whether I should have amended them. Never mind. They refer to the UTCCR although not specifically to clause 5 or any clause really :-|

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike its competitors HSBC hasnt made a comment about cases in the court system but it states that "complaints" are to remain on hold while discussions on the way forward are held with the FSA and OFT.

 

S.

 

Well, will see what happens next and probably open my own fresh thread on the topic if things start to move forward, sideways or backwards

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was one yesterday under announcements from alanfromderby

Have to drop off my daughter at Browniees, will post it later

 

This is what was posted on the site yesterday to use for lifting the stay, as apparently POCs that refer to the UTCCR would be OK (?)

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

I refer to my claim number ...... for the refund of bank charges dated ......., which was stayed on

 

I understand that the Judicial Press Office has advised Claimants to write and request a lifting of their stayed claim

 

As my claim for Bank Charges is brought under Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, and is therefore not affected by the recent Supreme Court Judgement, in fact the Supreme Court has indicated that a challenge to "fairness" of my Banking Contract under Regulation 5 may be an appropriate route to take.

 

I therefore request that the stay be lifted, that any necessary directions be given, and that a date be listed for a hearing of my claim

 

Hope this has now not been changed again within 24 hrs ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is now up to the claimants and/or the banks to instruct the courts about their next move... meaning that it is up to you to instruct your local County Court to pursue your claims...

 

It is in the banks' interests to ask the courts to struck out claims... which cannot be done if you make a move first by asking your C/C to pursue the claims.

 

I have sent the template letter from the site here to my CC asking to lift the stay. Should i have sent a copy to HSBC ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I am worried that no matter what the POCs now state or will state , the ordinary County Court Judge will side with the Banks after the OFt fiasco.

And banks will be more confident to defend claims in court through their legal departments.

I don't want to be little Johnny Raincloud, but I can't see the banks refunding a penny now and I think the County Courts will go along with them

:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...