Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice is change. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been reading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. On mediation form you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee that you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.  
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
    • I am sure the resident experts will give you a comprehensive guide to your rights.  The responsibility lies with the retailer. I have dealt with Cotswold before for similar. And found them refreshingly helpful.   Even when I lost the receipt for one item I had bought in Inverness. The manager in Newcastle called the store. Found the transaction and gave me a full refund. 
  • 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

I have just been charged 70.00? charges all in one go my husband lost his job we are pennyless cant even afford to eat i just rang the halifx told them this and there not even bothered that cud of been a weeks shopping .how dare they still do this... if i have already claimed back charges in the past can you still do it or not? i really needed this money..i cant even afford to take them to court if it got that far? please advise

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

Start a new thread in the halifax forum (Click here

start new thread ) and I'm sure you'll get all the help you need.

If in doubt, contact a qualified insured legal professional (or my wife... she knows EVERYTHING)

 

Or send a cheque or postal order payable to Reclaim the Right Ltd.

to

923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE

 

 

Click here if you fancy an email address that shows you mean business! (only £6 and that will really help CAG)

 

If you can't donate, please use the Internet Search boxes on the CAG pages - these will generate a small but regular income for the site

 

Please also consider using the

C.A.G. Toolbar

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just been charged 70.00? charges all in one go my husband lost his job we are pennyless cant even afford to eat i just rang the halifx told them this and there not even bothered that cud of been a weeks shopping .how dare they still do this... if i have already claimed back charges in the past can you still do it or not? i really needed this money..i cant even afford to take them to court if it got that far? please advise

 

Follow Locutus' advice.

 

I'm afraid you won't get any sympathy from the faceless banks, they are pathetic. Even bankers don't buy into there advertisments. LOL, Natwest would appear to be a good instituion if we listened to the bowlarks.

 

Stick with us instead, because we have standards!

 

The £70 is theft, but it's complicated to explain! (And CAG may see to my choice of word, it matters not if it's correct!, as the law just bums at times!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT welcomes Court of Appeal judgment

 

The OFT welcomes the Court of Appeal's very clear confirmation today that the unarranged overdraft charging terms for personal current accounts can be assessed for fairness.

The Court found that these terms are not part of the core or essential bargain between a consumer and their bank, and therefore consumers do have protection under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (UTCCRs) for these terms.

 

This judgment confirms the OFT's long-held interpretation of this important aspect of consumer law, and is one that consumers themselves would identify with. It is also relevant to businesses across the whole economy.

We are now analysing the implications of the judgment for our ongoing investigation. The OFT has already written to the banks with its provisional view on the fairness of the terms, setting out its concerns that they may be unfair. We expect to reach a final decision on fairness later this year.

 

Can we get access to this letter via the freedom of information act? More importantly, if we can, will that be of any use to us?

If in doubt, contact a qualified insured legal professional (or my wife... she knows EVERYTHING)

 

Or send a cheque or postal order payable to Reclaim the Right Ltd.

to

923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE

 

 

Click here if you fancy an email address that shows you mean business! (only £6 and that will really help CAG)

 

If you can't donate, please use the Internet Search boxes on the CAG pages - these will generate a small but regular income for the site

 

Please also consider using the

C.A.G. Toolbar

Link to post
Share on other sites

Locutus, I think this is referring to this:

 

BBC NEWS | Business | OFT says bank charges are unfair

 

Not sure that it would make much difference at this point anyway, all we can do is wait and see if the banks appeal to the HOL, and if not, then let the OFT publish their results (I suspect they may well have finished and are just waiting on whether the banks will appeal or not, no point in showing their hand too early, I think).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OFT are definitely not referring to the BBC article but as the BBC article was written after the fact.

 

 

"5. In August 2008, we wrote to the eight banks setting out our approach to the assessment of fairness and, for seven of them, our concerns about their particular terms. This included a provisional view on the unfairness of particular terms and conditions that impose charges. At this stage, no bank's terms have been given a clean bill of health and all banks remain under investigation."

 

Once the banks' appeal is either heard/turned down then the next stage of the process is the above(at least that is how I see the next stage providing the High Court Judgement is confirmed so to speak).

.

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

YB, I KNOW the OFT don't refer to the BBC article, I'm pretty sure they don't rely on the BBC to give them their own inside info. :-D

 

What I meant was that the leaked memo to which the BBC article refers is the same info which the OFT refers to in the above-quoted. In other words, on the 5th august 08, the OFT wrote to the banks about their concerns about the fairness of the charges ("no-one seems to have a clean slate", I vaguely recall they said), on the 29th August, the BBC published the article revealing the leaked memo about said letter and concerns, and in their website, the OFT now refers to the same letter again, or at least that's how I understand it, I somehow doubt the OFT would have written to repeat the same thing 6 months down the line especially when at this point we are all awaiting their conclusions to their investigation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

apologies, not sure if we are on cross purposes here. I read the link on the post

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT welcomes Court of Appeal judgment

And went from there which had a timeline on that.

Oops. We are on the same lines.

.

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

Small bit of print in The Times 13th March 09 yesterday noted how one customer recieved threats of court action over 4 pence. Lloyds sent a reply saying about how much the letter cost saying ' it is an automated letter system with minimal cost to ourselves'. So how do you justify £35?? as fair.

 

If it's 2 pence (overdrawn) I bet the letter automation system does a cost analysis and says 'No. But 4 pence, and away we go.

 

This should be evidence that the banks automated overdrawn letter printing systems are cheaper than 4 pence per letter. I used to work for the Woolwich in the print room, they used to zoom through at 3am. And off they go (that was 15 years ago)

 

Taking the P.I.S.S

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct.

 

They know as well as we do they are filthy swines, and it's unlawful.

 

Soon enough we'll be equal, then we can sit back and watch the x3 'goes around comes around' kick in!

 

Ahem, Saturday morning hangover, time to call Barclays and get an hour long insurance quote via saynoto0870. Think I'll pick the peanuts out of todays quote. :D Just a quick sponsored google link first....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the penny ever drop for these people? - Times Online

 

Will the penny ever drop for these people?

 

Martin Waller: City Diary

 

Time was, when a bank did something quite stupendously, mind-bogglingly stupid and extravagant, you just shrugged and said, hey, that’s a bank being stupid. It’s what they do. Now we own most of them, it somehow seems personal.

 

 

 

Lloyds Banking Group has just gone after an account-holder threatening the full majesty of the law over an unauthorised overdraft of 4p. The letter arrived at the Solihull home of Dave Beasley last Saturday, the day after the taxpayer bunged Lloyds £200 billion on the tacit understanding that it wouldn’t be quite so stupid in future. The letter, which relates to a long-dormant account, is from a firm of Brighton solicitors and will not have been cheap. “THIS IS A FORMAL DEMAND PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS . . .”

 

 

 

Lloyds says the whole thing was automated so there was “minimal cost” to, well, us. Mr Beasley tried to pay on the phone, to be told the sum was too small, so he had to go to his local branch. “The parking cost 50p.” The bank admits: “The letter was sent in error. It’s not our policy to pursue such a small amount of money.”

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

I want an official investigation into the banks' unauthorised overdraft charging policy. I am not talking about whether these charges are lawful or not as we all know there is a test case going through the Courts to determine that issue. I believe there should be a separate investigation into the impact these charges have had on peoples everyday lives and the resulting quality of life.

 

I want an investigation to examine:

 

(i) why such a perverse charging policy was introduced in the first place (ii) how it could have continued for such a long time without being challenged by a government department/regulator/agency (iii) to uncover the full extent to which these charges have impacted on individuals/families lives and (iv) to uncover the full extent to which these charges have ruined small businesses.

Can someone tell me which government body/department/agency/regulator may have the power to do this?

 

Cheers,

 

TheyrCriminals

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

I want an official investigation into the banks' unauthorised overdraft charging policy. I am not talking about whether these charges are lawful or not as we all know there is a test case going through the Courts to determine that issue. I believe there should be a separate investigation into the impact these charges have had on peoples everyday lives and the resulting quality of life.

 

I want an investigation to examine:

 

(i) why such a perverse charging policy was introduced in the first place

in the early 1980's when HSBC were the first bank NOT to charge for having a bank account

(ii) how it could have continued for such a long time without being challenged by a government department/regulator/agency

UTCCR original form evolved from 1992 and no one really challenged them and the press were not really that bothered until Stephen Hone won £5k back and was featured in the press. for reference Law student wins big penalty charges case | Money | The Guardian

(iii) to uncover the full extent to which these charges have impacted on individuals/families lives and

That one is difficult to do as you would have to find out both the initial factors for a lack of funds to cause the charges, ie wages payment being late, loss of employment,etc, etc, and how the charges impacted on the bills being paid and how that escalated further. I think it would be difficult to isolate bank charges alone. Perhaps, lending practices as well, re Credit cards, loans etc,etc, Perhaps that might be one for a student final year thesis.

(iv) to uncover the full extent to which these charges have ruined small businesses.

Again that one is a similar issue, ie to what extent was the loss of income a contributory factor to the scale of bank charges. I think that there are more than just bank charges at play, perhaps the consequential part ie withdrawal of bank borrowing(if that happened) etc,etc,

Can someone tell me which government body/department/agency/regulator may have the power to do this?

 

Cheers,

 

TheyrCriminals

I would kinda agree with Car, it is probably OFT.

.

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

"i) why such a perverse charging policy was introduced in the first place

in the early 1980's when HSBC were the first bank NOT to charge for having a bank account"

 

 

That would actually be the Midland Bank.

 

Ooooo! That brings back memories, that does! The Griffin comes back to life!

 

Anyhoo, back to updates on the OFT TC - any more for any more? :p

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Griffin was the thingy that was in the Midland adverts

 

See above(that one might take car2403 back a bit ;) )

.

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

Sigh i remember the Griffin -I had a Griffin Young Savers account with a lovely folder with a smiley yellow monster on the front to keep all my statements in - I was so proud.

Anyway, welcome to CAG. If you are claiming from HSBC then you will need to start a thread here.....HSBC Bank - The Consumer Forums

Good luck and welcome.

.

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...