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 4996 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

Not really, as it's a bit of a non-starter, and the end result is the same, if they don't want to give you more than 6 yrs, they won't and will lie about it. (allegedly!) Incidentally, Natwest did tell me that it was only 6 yrs back in 2006 and sent me nothing else, the swines. :razz: However, I may still get them sooner or later with "sample" old statements still in my possession, but that's by the by for now. ;-)

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

I remember speaking to our statement department AFTER 2006 and they told me 10 years :D

However, those that used to work for natwest know that statements over 7 years old are printed on Saturday ;)

.

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

kenny look around you There are a multitude of thread were the lenders have suddenly 'discovered' additional evidence which they have then produced in court. It's known as the ambush & as county courts are so lax when it comes to the rules of evidence many Judges allow it. If this happens one should kick up an almighty stink there & then

 

So the answer to your question is yes they shouldn't but they do all of the time

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Jon - I seem to have spent an inordinate number of my 67 years online but hadn't come across those instances - but if it happens to me then you can bet that an almighty stink will ensue with quotations from any denials that they have issued for the SAR!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

kenny look around you There are a multitude of thread were the lenders have suddenly 'discovered' additional evidence which they have then produced in court. It's known as the ambush & as county courts are so lax when it comes to the rules of evidence many Judges allow it. If this happens one should kick up an almighty stink there & then

 

So the answer to your question is yes they shouldn't but they do all of the time

 

Here, here...

 

Happened to my against Barclays - CCA'd an overdraft, and they claimed they didn't have the documentation to comply with the OFT's Determination under s.74. I sent a SAR, and they responded with "everything [i'm] entitled to under the DPA". I even wrote back and said, where is the documentation relating to interest rates, only to be told that "this is everything you're getting".

 

When the claim came to Court, they turned up with everything they needed to defend - the Judge wasn't bothered about failure to comply with the SAR, saying "I only want to deal with the issues on the table, here, today".

 

I didn't push the non-compliance issue, as the case was adjourned for an amended Defence from Barclays, but they settled out of Court before that deadline.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Car; they know there's a loan & ppi involved so if the info isn't forthcoming I'll go after the Data Controller and distruction certification (if that's what they contend) before going after any pecunary satisfaction and I shall 'push' the non-compliance issue should it turn out that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi there

 

im a bit out of touch with the bank charges debate, i received a refund from nat West just before the breaks weer put on. Nationwide possibly owe me about £350. should i start the process to claim now do you think or wait ?

 

many thanks

 

seen the light

Link to post
Share on other sites

Put your claim in now.

 

 

For everyone else, the HoL date has been moved by a day to the 23rd June 2009. Still scheduled for 3 days. Hopefully someone here who has the power to change the thread title can do so or is that a silly thing to say. This is only the second time I have mentioned it on the forum so maybe three is the charm ;)

.

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

Hi all, can anyone tell me in simple terms what is the position in this saga at present,preferably in english and not "legalese"? ;)

Much obliged.

 

One court told the banks the OFT could asses the lawfulness of bank charges under the UTCCR, a set of consumer protection regulations. The banks appealed. The Court of Appeal told the banks where to stick it, and now the banks are wasting taxpayer's money by dragging it up to the House of Lords, the country's highest court, where the case is being heard next month.

 

Simple enough?

Please note nothing I say constitutes legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One court told the banks the OFT could asses the lawfulness of bank charges under the UTCCR, a set of consumer protection regulations. The banks appealed. The Court of Appeal told the banks where to stick it, and now the banks are wasting taxpayer's money by dragging it up to the House of Lords, the country's highest court, where the case is being heard next month.

 

Simple enough?

The banks appealed the Court of Appeal said NO. The bank Appealed to the House of Lords and they said YES. Not sure HSBC, Barclays, Nationwide, et al are wasting taxpayers money but following their legal right. I am sure you wouldn't appeal if you lost a case and had the resources to do so ;)

.

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

The banks appealed the Court of Appeal said NO. The bank Appealed to the House of Lords and they said YES. Not sure HSBC, Barclays, Nationwide, et al are wasting taxpayers money but following their legal right. I am sure you wouldn't appeal if you lost a case and had the resources to do so
However, only banks, tycoons, media stars and the exceptionally affluent can afford to even think about Appealing once it gets to that level.

 

The average Litigant in Person with a far stronger case than these dull greedy bankers, usually gets their neck severely slapped at the bottom rung of this rather expensive ladder. Climbing up to the next rung is almost beyond the reach of all but the most suicidal and determined Litigants in Person. Going beyond the 2nd rung takes balls of steel.

 

If you now peer up to the very top of this ladder, it's not a very pleasant sight. All we surfs can see are the rather ample banking backsides pointing down at us, while the other end that makes the main noise is busy spending our money to protect the indefensible.

 

Not that this will stop serious money from buying them the result they want.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Bookie!

 

You forgot to mention that strictly speaking the taxpayer is now funding both sides of the legal battle.
Absolutely. I tried to allude to that...

 

If you now peer up to the very top of this ladder, it's not a very pleasant sight. All we surfs can see are the rather ample banking backsides pointing down at us, while the other end that makes the main noise is busy spending our money to protect the indefensible.
You are quite right, the banks are spending our money on the one side, and the Courts are spending it on the other.

 

They get to play the game, we get to fund it no matter who wins. Gin and Tonic in the bar afterwards for all sides. We pay for that too.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a slight aside to all of this, anyone else think we should make them all work on Monday? That'll show 'em!

Prelim letter received by Barclays: 26/03/07

**************no reply***************

 

LBA received by Barclays: 10/04/07

**************no reply***************

 

N1 filed at court: 25/04/07

N1 received by Barclays: 04/05/07

Offer of £1,885.00: 04/05/07 (turned down)

Offer rejection received by B'clays: 08/05/07

Barclays Acknowledge Claim: 11/05/07

Barclays Defence Filed: 18/05/07

 

Directions Hearing Date Set: 06/08/07

Case Stayed Until Feb '08

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

dragging it up to the House of Lords, the country's highest court

Surely they won't stop there with Europe to go at - YES I know, Yourbank, it's undoubtedly their God given right to appeal to anyone, anywhere, but I still believe these legal costs should be ringfenced, NOT funded directly or indirectly by Tax payers, and heavily challenged at AGM or even an EGM; really somebody within their tight boardroom circles should be held to account - heaven only knows they don't appear to have been to date!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely they won't stop there with Europe to go at - YES I know, Yourbank, it's undoubtedly their God given right to appeal to anyone, anywhere, but I still believe these legal costs should be ringfenced, NOT funded directly or indirectly by Tax payers, and heavily challenged at AGM or even an EGM; really somebody within their tight boardroom circles should be held to account - heaven only knows they don't appear to have been to date!

 

This might be because someone might just spot the investment accounts getting opened with circa £15/£20 million in each one to support each pension payout! ;)

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

Surely they won't stop there with Europe to go at - YES I know, Yourbank, it's undoubtedly their God given right to appeal to anyone, anywhere, but I still believe these legal costs should be ringfenced, NOT funded directly or indirectly by Tax payers, and heavily challenged at AGM or even an EGM; really somebody within their tight boardroom circles should be held to account - heaven only knows they don't appear to have been to date!

 

The European Courts can only be appealed to after the HoL if issues of European Community Law are concerned.

 

From Wikipedia;

 

The only further appeal from the House of Lords is to the European courts (the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights), and only then in matters concerning either European Community law or the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

If there's even a chance that they don't have to repay every charge that has been reclaimed, plus be open to further complaints from anyone that hasn't reclaimed, (like the Mortgage Indemnity Fee issue) surely there's a good business reason to continue to drag it out as much as possible.

 

What they haven't considered is the impact that has on the Public's perception of what they are trying to do - for me, this is beyond repression now, but it's just a shame I can't choose not to Bank in this day and age.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...