Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You do realise all your pers details are shown in file info/properties?   It's why our upload guide states use pdf only    Dx
    • Remember that your hearing is for set aside, and only for set aside.   The judge couldn't give a monkey's whether your defence is legally sound and able to beat the fleecers on every point.  That's for the judge for the final hearing much later down the line.  The judge will want to know    - if you have a serious reason for not defending the first time around, and    - if you have a defence.   That's all.  Oh, and you didn't faff around for months before applying for set aside.   Therefore it occurred to me that forcing motorists to queue up in shops to get vouchers to then faff around at machines to input codes, rather than just, er, allowing two hours free parking, could be construed as an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act "notice is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer".   To a large extent at this stage it doesn't really matter if I'm right or wrong or clutching at straws, the judge just wants to see an series of bullet point you intend to argue in your defence.   If you do include it I now see the Act is 2015. not 2019.
    • This is the letter I sent to P.E.on behalf of my friend, who is a work colleague.  P.E.sent nothing that was requested, and instead sent a letter which is the one posted in this read.  here is what I sent to P.E.     Dear Sir/Madam,                                  Before I am in a position to decide what to do with this pcn, please supply me with the following documentation, no later than 10 calendar days from the receipt of this letter.   1.Please supply a  full unredacted copy of your agreement with the land owner allowing you to enforce parking regulations. Unless of course, CEL are the legitimate landowners, in which case I require a copy of that proof as registered with the land registry. If however,CEL are not  the legal landowner of the said land, then you will have failed to constitute a contract with the land owner giving you the rights to enforce parking on the site.     When considering wether you are the legal land owner, and entitled to the stated fee, please bear this in mind:-  2.If CEL are not the legal land owners, then your penalty charge would be deemed illegal under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999,if you are not the legal registered landowner. It is also an unfair term according to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 regulation 62(4) October 1 2015.   3. I require you to provide me with a breakdown of how you reach the claimed figure. Please be aware of Judge McIlwaines comments in VCS v  Ibbotson Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012 (transcript in the public domain), where judge McIlwaine said  “Parking charges cannot include business costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place”.   Based upon that evidence, I suggest that the amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly parking. The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The charge is also, nearly double that of what a council parking charge would be.   I believe there is no contract with the landowner that gives CEL the legal standing to levy these charges nor pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor.   4. Supply  me with documentation showing how or where I formed a contract with CEL.I don’t recall entering into a contract wether fomally, verbally, by phone, text, email, or in person. Signs do not help CEL and drivers to form a contract.CEL, I believe, are only an agent who may or may not be the legal landowner as registered with the Land Registry.  Excel -v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.   5. CEL have not said wether the pcn is for damages for trespass, or a contractual sum. Please specify which it is.   6. I do not believe that CEL have planning permission to erect signage (or the cameras) at this location),required under section 2a, town and country planning act,as defined in the Information Commissioners code of practice, book, updated October 2017.Here is the section you need:-   “Given the significant amounts of information that ANPR systems are able to collect, it is important that individuals are informed that their personal data is being processed. The best way to do this is through signage explaining that ANPR recording is taking place and, if possible to do so, the name of the data controller collecting the information.   While it is a challenge to inform motorists that they are being monitored, there are methods you can use, such as the Town and Country Planning Act (control of advertisements) Regulations 2007, to help provide this information (see section 9.1.2 for further detail)”. You will find this on page 34, section 5 of the said handbook. If  however, you do have planning permission from the local council to erect cctv/anpr cameras and signage,, then please forward me a copy of the planning permission granted. I also require a copy of the approved planning application, approved site plan and schedule of installation and maintenance of the signs, and cameras.   7. Do not try and frighten me into paying by quoting the Supreme  Court case of Parking Eye V Barry Beavis. Here is some information before and since that case.:- Parking Eye actually pay a fee to the landowners of the car park in question in the SC case, which is why no other cases using this case have gone to county court.  Furthermore,Judge J J Maloney did say in his case that he is “ only a district Judge and each case would be different depending on its issues”. Either provide me with all the documentation I have requested, in the time scale stated, or simply  cancel your actions.                                                   Yours Sincerely   Obviously i changed the name from CEl to Parking Eye.   For a windscreen ticket.docx
    • Good evening   Have something of nothing really to tell   BigMW - I received an email yesterday from the business manager requesting that I attend in person...rather ironic considering I'm imobile hhmmm....   " If you require further information could you please come to site and present valid ID.  The purpose of this is to prevent fraud"   I would deem this an unreasonable request!! Firstly it's taken 36 days to respond, why isn't my drivers license feasible?  Please advise here   Creation Finance -  Received Docs from Sar request - Doc confirming pcp attached....What do you think?   Further to the above, I should have heard back from their investigation (20/05/2022) . I've heard absolutely nothing!  Do I at this point send a nudge email to them or just go straight to FOS regarding both parties?   Thank you     PCP contract_.pdf
    • SAR, yes do both, could be useful for cross referencing   The dates you've given for moving abroad also change from your original post so the more info you can gather the better   Also, there's quite a few questions you haven't answered that could be useful.    
  • Our picks

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 4320 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

thats the way im reading it seminole - this was never a decision on what is fair , its simply whether the oft can assess the charges ,although the judge did say "you agreed to the charges" he never actually ruled that these are fair, if you can convince a judge that they are unfair you should still get your money back

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

So the ruling only has the effect of stopping the OFT from making a ruling. It doesn't say anything about fairness and doesn't strike out the Regulations (which are a statutory instrument). Personally I think it means that people can still make claims and have individual county court decisions on whether they're fair or not. If the claims are based on the Regulations rather than the penalties issue, there must still be a reasonable chance of success. Am I missing something here?
So what you're saying is all our claims got put on hold so that we could see if the OFT could assess for fairness.

The courts say no, the OFT can't assess for fairness.

But it doesn't mean the charges are fair.

Which takes us back to the OFT's statement on credit card when they said only the courts could decide what constitutes a fair charge.

So we have to go back individually to the courts for each individual judge to decide on fairness.

So, the last 2+ years have been a giant waste of time??? :-? :-? :-?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The banks were quick enough to get their smug comments on the ruling onto the BBC report, so where is the OFT representative?? Surely they should have had a statement ready for either eventuality.

PLEASE NOTE... I AM MOST SORRY BUT I HAVE VERY LIMITED AVAILABILITY AT THE MOMENT DUE TO EXTREME PRESSURE OF WORK - IF YOU REQUIRE URGENT HELP ON YOUR THREAD AND ARE GETTING NO RESPONSE PLEASE HIT THE TRIANGLE FOR SITE TEAM ASSISTANCE. ELSA XXX

 

Please check out my BLOG for the quick guide to debt threats - it has all the info & letter template links you need to get started on your journey of TAKING CONTROL. :roll:

 

All opinions are my own based on research. I am not legally qualified, if in doubt please consult a legal expert.

Hope this has helped or made you smile. Keep your chin up, you're among friends now! Elsa xxx

Please click the *star* of any CAG member who has helped you .

Link to post
Share on other sites

carry on!!! this doesnt really change the facts of what is fair , this shouldnt effect what happens in local courts , just rule out trying to get the oft involved , just because the oft cant rule what is fair it doesnt mean we cant use the law to show that they are unfair in court

Link to post
Share on other sites

OFT disappointed by Supreme Court judgment

 

137/09 25 November 2009

 

The OFT is disappointed by today's Supreme Court judgment, which overturns previous High Court and Court of Appeal rulings that unarranged overdraft charging terms can be assessed in full for fairness. It will also be disappointing for many consumers.

 

The OFT will now consider the detail of this judgment before it makes a decision on whether or not to continue its investigation into unarranged overdraft charging terms. It will also explore with others the implications for consumers and for existing and future legislation and regulation. The OFT expects to make a further announcement in December.

 

The OFT set out its concerns in relation to unarranged overdraft charges as part of its 2008 market study. This found that banks earn around a third of their retail revenues from unarranged overdraft charges that are difficult to understand, not transparent, and not subject to effective consumer control.

 

The OFT will be seeking discussions with banks, consumer organisations, the FSA and the Government in the light of this judgment

Settled Claims:

Abbey: £4025 Claimed 27/02/06 - Paid in full 19/06/06

NatWest: £4529 Claimed 10/05/06 - Paid in full 1/08/06

Halifax: £1150 lba 18/05/06 - Paid in full 07/06/06

Natwest CC: £420 Initial letter 25/07/06 - Paid in full 08/06

Woolwich: £1100 Paid in full 28/2/07 + Default removed

NatWest Pt 2: £1700 Claimed 10/05/06 - Paid in full 7/2/07 + Defaults removed

 

Current Claims:

Abbey Pt 2: £2300 + adverse credit removal claimed 23/03/07

Alliance & Leicester: £1421 + adverse credit removal claimed 23/03/07

 

Refunds pending:

Capital Bank: Swift Advances: Halifax

 

Son's Refunds pending:

Abbey: HSBC

Link to post
Share on other sites

we may as well face facts here we gonna get naff all from um no matter how long this goes on for they cheat there way out of everything they dont care about there cutomers they care about there bonus's. and while they enjoying there selfs at xmas with there nice wage packet we are left with the dept they made for us!

 

I thought today was D-Day but now I am thinking its only Dunkirk!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Check the following link... Santander launching new current account with no fees, no penalties (for mortgage holders though!)

 

Santander launches new current account that does not charge for going overdrawn | Mail Online

 

Is that the start of a revolution?

---Aut viam inveniam aut faciam---

 

***All advice given should be taken as guidance... Professional advice should always be taken before any course of action is pursued***

 

- I do not reply directly to any PMs, but you are more than welcome to enclose a link, in a PM, to your post. Thank you -

Make a contribution to this site... Help the CAG keeping on helping you for FREE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your case has been stayed pending the OFT case, how will the courts handle them now?

 

There is no reason not to handle them as a normal case. I think there is still a british law after 12 years of a communist government, but they cant stop you sueing somebody.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is all our claims got put on hold so that we could see if the OFT could assess for fairness.

The courts say no, the OFT can't assess for fairness.

But it doesn't mean the charges are fair.

Which takes us back to the OFT's statement on credit card when they said only the courts could decide what constitutes a fair charge.

So we have to go back individually to the courts for each individual judge to decide on fairness.

So, the last 2+ years have been a giant waste of time??? :-? :-? :-?

 

Yup, that's how I read it, Bookie.:sad:

 

Els

BANK CHARGES CAMPAIGN CONTINUES - PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION

 

Aktiv Kapital £300.00 SETTLED IN FULL

Capital One £741.47 SETTLED IN FULL

Citi Cards £1221.00 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(personal) £3854.28 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(business) £7487.97 SETTLED IN FULL

 

What poor education I have received has been gained in the University of Life

Link to post
Share on other sites

For these reasons I have formed the conclusion that the Relevant Charges are, as

the Banks submit, charges that they require their customers to agree to pay as part of the

price or remuneration for the package of services that they agree to supply in exchange.

 

-------

So does that mean I can charge them for holding ny money, if I am in credit?

PGH7447

 

 

Getting There Slowly

---------

 

Advice is given freely but is in no way meant to be taken as Gospel:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is all our claims got put on hold so that we could see if the OFT could assess for fairness.

The courts say no, the OFT can't assess for fairness.

But it doesn't mean the charges are fair.

Which takes us back to the OFT's statement on credit card when they said only the courts could decide what constitutes a fair charge.

So we have to go back individually to the courts for each individual judge to decide on fairness.

So, the last 2+ years have been a giant waste of time??? :-? :-? :-?

 

Essentially yes, I think.

 

The original test case seems to have had two strands. The first considered whether the charges were penalties. The courts decided (quite inexplicably) that they weren't and the OFT didn't appeal. The second was whether the OFT could exercise their regulatory powers and the Supreme Court has decided that not only that they can't but that the OFT can't appeal to the European court.

 

My take is that everything after the penalties ruling has been a waste of time. The courts can decide whether the charges are penalties and whether they are fair. The penalties approach was dealt a heavy blow by the court ruling but no court has given a definitive ruling on whether they are fair or not. I'm no lawyer but I think that issue remains unresolved and individuals could still pursue claims. We are going to get an answer to this one way or another because I can't see any reason for the stays to remain in place now.

 

Bankfodder will have a view on this but personally I think we should swamp the courts with claims again, swamp the banks and the Financial Ombudsman Service with complaints and bury our MPs in letters.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lady Hale said

 

The banks may not be the most popular institutions in the

country at present, but that does not mean that their methods of charging for retail

banking services are necessarily unfair when viewed as a whole. As a very general

proposition, consumer law in this country aims to give the consumer an informed choice

rather than to protect the consumer from making an unwise choice

 

--------

wow how astute of her

-----------

 

Fortunately, however, that is for Parliament and not for this Court.

 

----------

 

now we are all doomed

PGH7447

 

 

Getting There Slowly

---------

 

Advice is given freely but is in no way meant to be taken as Gospel:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

opps

Lloyds TSB (SARS) request sent 9th June 2006

£2191 Moneyclaim Issued 11/08/2006, Acknowleded 17th August Defence 14 Sep, AQ returned 5/10/2006.SETTLED IN FULL £2,670 26/11/2006/ Lloyds Credit Card SETTLED IN FULL £267

MBNA SETTLED IN FULL 15/09/2006 £829

Citicard (SARS) request sent 22nd June 2006 Moneyclaim issued 19th Sep, Defence and AQ received 5/10/2006, AQ returned 5/10/2006, part refund received 10/10/2006

GE MONEY SETTLLED IN FULL £400

Barclaycard Me and Mrs SARS sent 19/10/2006 settled £350

Welcome Finance PPI 2 accounts one settled £1018 waiting on other

GE Money PPI 1 account settled 8/5/2008 £560 2nd account SETTLED IN FULL £3,599.78p 15thAugust 2008

Lloyds TSB PPI CC complaint sent 10/04/2008

Black Horse PPI with FOS 20/05/2008

HFC PPI complaint sent 22/05/2008

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im more of a reader than a contributor - mainly through lack of detailed knowledge - BUT could one of those more knowledgable Caggers please explain how and why the credit card charges could be deemed unfair yet not the bank charges?

 

PS also watching the Banking Minister (who's she - not heard of her before) saying that the system can't be examined before, only forward. E.g. they're lowering charges going forward, but nothing will be done for the previous extortion

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bankfodder will have a view on this but personally I think we should swamp the courts with claims again, swamp the banks and the Financial Ombudsman Service with complaints and bury our MPs in letters.

 

I agree... I think we are back to square 1 on this.

 

Lets wait for the dust settle a bit... I am sure the politicians will have a lot to say on this in the next few hours.;)

 

 

HSBC WON three times!!!!! Read about my continuing battle (claim FOUR!) Link HERE

Capital One WON Link

HERE

GE capital (5 accounts) WON link HERE

Lloyds bank account WON second claim starting! link HERE

Budget insurance cough up WON link HERE

Principles WON link HERE

A&L (Mrs Crusher's account) claim link HERE

Barclays claim link HERE

 

Any advice given is on an informal basis only and without prejudice or liability. In in any doubt, consult a qualified lawyer.

IF YOU HAVE GOT YOUR MONEY BACK, PUT SOME BACK INTO THE SITE TO HELP KEEP IT OPEN!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...