Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello guys how are you. I have just got off the phone to the mediator. The garage who initially changed the turbo are saying that I haven't suffered a loss of £480. (Cost of labour to renew turbo) The only loss I have suffered is the £185.01 I had to pay the independent garage to repair the turbo. They said a gasket can go at any time. ( In this case almost immediately after I drove away after the repair) and that I didn't follow the complaints procedure.   Mediator says if it goes to court I have to prove a loss.   And the £185.01 is the only loss...   The initial garage said they would pay the 185.01 and my court fee, I'm not sure what to do, this is what I wanted in the first place but I've had to come here to get it.
    • https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-jeremy-corbyn-suspension-court-b1793627.html Labour attacks Jeremy Corbyn for ‘wasting time and money’ after court defeat over suspension from party "Party to seek to recover legal costs from its former leader – in new deterioration in relationship"   Hopefully Carbuncle will now just *** off. Fat chance Perhaps the Labour party should just take a leaf from Corbyns own book and deselect him and force a by-election?
    • Piers aint that bad (recently amended opinion)  
    • It looks as if you have been completely ripped off. I'm sorry about that but frankly I don't think there is much you can do – and believe me, it is not often that I say that on this forum. I think it's fairly clear that there has been a deception here and although it won't help massively, I would suggest that you report the crime to the police. They will try to say that is a civil matter and you will have to stick to your guns and say that no there's been a deception, that this man is selling cars in an unroadworthy condition and probably he is committing tax fraud offences as well. I'm afraid that there doesn't even evidence that you have the correct name. It seems entirely possible that such a person simply doesn't exist. I don't see any point in beginning a legal action because if you don't even have the correct name for this dealer, then a judgement recorded against his credit file will make absently no difference at all and you will simply incur the costs of bringing the claim. I doubt very much whether he would bother to respond to a claim or to put in a defence. If he did put in a defence then if you wanted to move on to the hearing stage you would have to pay another fee and this would simply put you even more out of pocket – probably to the tune of about £250 or so – and as it seems very unlikely that you could ever enforce the judgement, you would never get any of this money back. I'm sure you feel very bad and very upset. The only other thing you should do is start going around the review sites and putting up negative reviews about this person and his business – and business names. At least it will put other people on guard and you never know, you might stumble across other people who know more about him and actually know who he is. If you do decide to inform the police then you should tell the police that he is trading under a false name. In terms of your car, I'm afraid that the only way I can suggest to cut your losses is to have the work done. It means that you are £1000 down on the deal – but at least you will have a driving car. However, before doing that I would have the car thoroughly checked over to make sure that there aren't any other defects which are about to materialise which might eventually make the car is simply not economical to repair. You said that there was an MOT certificate in the glove box. Is it a recent MOT certificate? Are you able to speak with the previous owner at all?  Cagger @Daniel Hanson who has also bought a vehicle from the same person may be able to help you in this respect. It seems that he has been lucky enough not to have any problem so far with the car that he bought. I think at the very least, the lessons to be drawn from this are: Don't purchase a used car – or any car from a dealer who is far away from you make sure you check the car yourself make sure that the dealer is well established and do some research on forums and review sites for negative reviews and positive reviews. However, be suspicious of positive reviews. Don't pay cash/bank transfer. You lose all control of your money. Insist on paying by credit card or debit card and if the dealer won't accept it then walk away. Ignore warranties. They are meaningless and they are simply a red herring intended to distract you from your statutory rights. However, as you are discovering, even your statutory rights are meaningless if you are unable to identify the dealer and if you are able to identify any assets belonging to the dealer against which you could enforce judgement. Please do let us know how this develops and if you are able to track anybody down. As I say, I think you should certainly inform the police – but it will be a hard job to get them to take notice because they will simply try to say that it's a civil matter and there is no evidence of a crime. You will have to push hard.
    • That is one mean spirited individual, looks like what a Dickensian female Workhouse Beadle would look like.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3840 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Furious to say the very least. I agree with the others on here, Dont get mad get even. we obviously cannot trust the people that are supposedly fighting on our behalf so we now have to take the fight into our own hands. We should all carry this on to the courts. Each case should be looked at individually. I really cannot see the banks attending each and every case it would surely cost them an awful lot more.

 

As for others who think that CAG have just jumped onto the band wagon. CAG has saved my home, and my childrens futures I wouldnt call that jumping the band wagon . If you do not agree with all the hard work that goes on amongst the site and its members then go and crawl back into your tiny little narrow minded hole !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

olives xxx

 

p.s this is just my personal opinion

Next Directory £215 NO CCA ***WON***

 

Littlewoods Visa*** WON ***

 

Littlewoods evenmore£496.47 COURT CHARGES£296.84 PPI £575.52

Littlewoods LX £0.00 COURTCHARGES £327.68

Choices for you S.A.R owe £362.02

Additions Direct £1400 NO CCA

 

HUBBY

Bank of Scotland Prefernce account £296

Capital One £300CHARGES£1135 TAKING COURT ACTION

 

also owe big to

Bank Of Scotland £10000 sending cca reqest

British Credit Trust £6000

 

Fighting For Family

MUm,***WON ***Barclays for hardship just need to get the last little bit. Chasing LLOYDS TSB for hardship

Bro, HBOS PPI mis selling ***WON***

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Am i the only one who is seeing this as a positive thing ,

 

The stay now has to be lifted

Still no judgement as to the fairness

The banks well never explain these charges in court

 

Completely game on in my eyes , just let the local court decide what is fair and what isnt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"But it is obvious on reading the charging structure that charges cannot be directly related to the actual costs of providing any particular service triggering them."

 

In other words, the Supreme Court appears to have overuled the lower court's ruling that these are not penalties....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I've calmed down after this morning's ruling I agree with ROB :p

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

I think im with Rob too

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
but i thought there are two arguments , 1 penalties - 2 fairness

 

 

Yes, and this ruling simply implies that its up to the Courts to decide on both. Its just that the OFT cant assess for fairness.

 

We are back to where we were pre-test case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, it will be interesting to hear what they have to say about the waiver.

 

Is it the MoJ who is responsible for keeping it in place?

 

It's the Financial Services Authority, introduced at great expense and to little effect by our esteemed PM.:rolleyes:

 

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

The Consumer Forums - The Fight Goes On

 

As we read further into today's judgement it has become clear that the OFT may have used the wrong part of the UTCCR. The Supreme Court have pointed to Clause 5 of the Regulations as a better possible avenue for the OFT to have used, and this may lead consumers to consider rewording their claims.

 

Clause 5(1) states that "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."

 

Any clause allowing a bank to impose repressive charges, and increase and change those charges at its own discretion would be extremely likely to put the bank in a dominant position - and therefore the term should not be allowed to stand.

 

Obviously the judgement is still being analysed, but it would seem that the fight is most certainly not lost.

Alan, Derby, UK.

 

 

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

 

Sorry, but I cannot deal with your case by PM - please ask questions in your own thread. If you do not get a reply within 48 hours send a PM, with a link to the relevant thread, to any Site Team Member.

 

DO NOT SEND QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR CLAIM TO ADMIN, or our WEBMASTER - YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE A REPLY.

 

Advice given is purely my opinion, and is not based on any legal training.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So as someone who only paid her £200 AQ fee yesterday, all is definitely not lost?

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

agree with Noomill060 - dust off your court cases and inundate the banks and courts, lets see how they like that

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

Well I have immediately sent an email to number 10 regarding this, the government need to understand how angry and betrayed people feel.

The more of us that send the message through to the polititions that this "old boys club" decision will not be taken lying down the better. It may also push the OFT into pursuing the issues-thier website now says they are looking into the judgement and will make a statement in December.

 

I agree about some kind of mass protest using one or more of the banks involved. On mass withdrawals on one day, sort of a run on one bank might scare em a bit, or the DD suggestion by a previous poster.

 

Ali x :mad:

Btw I am no expert just give notes based on what I have read on here and other forums/sites, plus my own experiences and investigations.

 

All ccj's now dropped off file, 2 yrs to go to clear file.

All old debts either settled or made unenforcable.

 

RBS MPP-Full offer at 8 wks from first complaint

RBS Overdraft loanguard-full offer at 8 wks from complaint

Citicard ppi-with FOS finally paid 8 months after offer through FOS!

Capital one x2- with FOS

Monument ppi-with FOS

aqua x2 ppi-partialled settled still pushing for the rest

Black horse ppi-offers made and accepted except for one early loan they say no info held-still pushing for payment

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regulation 5 is the way forward

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

wow ...agreement:) first time for everything

 

this is the way ive viewed it.

 

We have lost in the sense that these charges are now seen as a charge for service.

 

However there nothing to say whether these charges for service are fair or unfair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Regulation 5 was the one we were using anyway? I am hopelessly lost!!!!!

 

I am starting to feel completely disillusioned with all aspects of the way this country is going. I have lost all faith in the Banks and Government and thanks to this ruling now the law too! It just makes you angry

Link to post
Share on other sites

You all need to check the wording on your stays, i am sure the onus was with us to progress the claim in a limited amount of time once a descision was finally made

Link to post
Share on other sites

in fact we have won ....

 

the banks have sed this door is shut .the H/O/L have sed yes its shut .

 

BUT the door at the side is wide open .. well done to the H/O/L

 

THEY have now shown us the way forward

Link to post
Share on other sites

The finding DID NOT say the charges are fair & reasonable it said the OFT could not rule as such which means we are still able to challenge the banks as before Its just that a ruling in favour of the OFT would have saved us the trouble

Edited by JonCris
Link to post
Share on other sites

Every ruling seems to be about unauthorised overdraughts, but what about unpaid DD's, surely we can still go to court over these as no service has been supplied and they are penalties.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Every ruling seems to be about unauthorised overdraughts, but what about unpaid DD's, surely we can still go to court over these as no service has been supplied and they are penalties.

 

The unauthorised OD & Unpaid DD/SO charges are lumped together in this case - see paragraph 3 of today's judgment:

3. The question for the Court is much more limited, and more technical. It is whether as a matter of law the fairness of bank charges levied on personal current account customers in respect of unauthorised overdrafts (including unpaid item charges and other related charges as described below) can be challenged by the respondent the Office of Fair Trading (the “OFT”) as excessive in relation to the services supplied to the customers.
Cheers

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

sparks is tottally right!!!

 

this is what i was saying and i now understand the statement "we hope this clarafies the situation" , because it does 100% , there is now nothing to stop ppl from taking their banks to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...