Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I see the poops are still trying to deflect from their own criminality and and abuses by whinging on about raynors buying her council house - now about election registration - anyone who owns a flat or house understands that you dont give up your and your childrens home just because of a new relationship and while we are on about that ..   lets start with When is jenrick being revisited for both lockdown abuses and self admitted (claims estate is his main home - not the property in his electorate or his london property) - and electoral registration abuses as he claimed he was at his estate 'main home' away from both London and his electoral 'home'  - much of which paid for by the taxpayer   Cabinet Minister Robert Jenrick 'breaks lockdown rules twice' by going to 'second home' - Mirror Online WWW.MIRROR.CO.UK Key Cabinet Minister Robert Jenrick drove 150 miles to his 'second home' after urging the nation to remain in their homes in a bid to...   ... perhaps follow with more self admitted lobbying while in a potion where they shouldn't “A few of us in parliament have lobbied the government – and with the help of the Treasury select committee, the chancellor has listened,” John Baron wrote.   Tory MP faces lobbying questions over Treasury committee role | Investing | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Co-owner of investment management firm called for ‘urgent’ post-Brexit changes to City rules at committee meetings     About time labour got in the game and started pressing for these self admitted/bragged Tory abuses were properly investigates.
    • No I didn't I got the dates mixed up.   
    • Sorry about that, TJ. The person who posted it specifically said it was free access. Here's another version of the FT article. https://archive.is/KYrPa
    • Isnt there some indication in there of at least intent to inform arbuthnot? IF he wasn't then it would seem to be Vennells decision to keep him 'uninformed .. Although seems to me if arbuthnot was unaware - he was either incompetent or should have very detailed records of denials. Seems vennells is constantly at the core of all the lying about all these issues though.
    • Paywalled/subscribe HB I'm unaware of the details on this HB but why is it a potential taxpayer burden? Hasn't a judge already ruled port has rights of access - so shouldn't costs be on the private company (South Tees Development Corporation) trying to change established access?     LIVE: High Court updates as CEO gives evidence in access rights row between STDC and PD Ports - Teesside Live WWW.GAZETTELIVE.CO.UK The face-off between the Teesport operator and Mayor Ben Houchen's South Tees Development Corporation continues in the High Court  
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

I didnt't know this. Do you?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5796 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

A couple of weeks ago I recieved a bank charge as a DD came out of my account 3 days early. I waited for the bank to open and then paid the appropriate funds in, thus not making me overdrawn, but I still got charged:mad:

 

Lady on phone was quite rude and did not explain things very well, so I went into the bank and spoke to a lovely lady who explained things much better, but what she said surprised me.

 

In a nutshell; It all changed approx 5 months ago. If you have a DD coming out, then the funds need to be in your account the day before. You can no longer pay them in on said day as I have always done. Whereas before, if the funds were not there at first presentation (usually about 5am), they would then be represented at about 4pm, giving the customer time to pay them in. This is no longer the case and the DDs are now presented only once, early in the morning, so if the funds are not there then that will always incur a bank charge.

 

Goodness, knows why they changed this, its a real inconvenience!

 

She also said that if a company tells you that a DD is to come out on a certain day, then it must come out on that day. If they present it early and this causes you a penalty, then that compnay are responsible for that and you must take it up with them.

 

So I guess my new thread will be entitled "Kazdoc V Medway Council"

 

Has anyone tried to claim like this before? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?:|

Karen :oops:

 

05/01/07 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) posted

07/03/07 Offer made of £457. Rejected. Offer remade of £651, accepted.

26/03/07 PAID IN FULL

 

Your Site Needs You!

and we need this site!

 

Please don't forget to make a donation!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I havent tried it, no, but what you were told is correct in that if a company states they will take a pyment on a certain day, then they cant just change it to suit themselves, unless they tell you in writing. The ambiguity lies when they say "on or around ". They could argue that 3 days before is about that date.

 

It's why I hate DD's... they take what they want, when they want, and leave the customer to do all the chasing afterwards if there is a mistake, without the slightest regard for their circumstances.

 

It would be worth checking your DD paperwork to see if it says the dreaded "on or about". I would complain as loud as you can though to the council to get your charges refunded (and even contact your local councillor).

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone seeks an earlier than agreed payment of a debit without at least asking you 1st then they breach the DD guarantee & are liable for any losses you may suffer as a result

 

This goes on a lot. Some even attempt to take more than one payment on the same day & when it goes wrong try to blame the client

 

This sort of behaviour is one of the best reasons to not give outsiders access to your bank account which is effectively what you do when you authorise a DD

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also say that the lady who told you things changed 5 months ago is talking out of her lovely backside, as every single bank I have been with ALWAYS have had it in their T&Cs that cleared funds must be in the account before the end of the previous working day. Furthermore, it is well known that transactions are processed at about 1-2 am (hence the previous working day part) and I have never heard of them being done a second time in the day, I have to say. :-?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have BW in fact I have evidence, via the customers statements, in at least one case that a bank allowed the SAME DD to be presented 3 times in one day thereby incurring 3 separate penalty charges totalling £101 & this didn't happen just once but on a number of occasions throughout the year

 

It was so bad the victim went from being £4 overdrawn to £700 in 14 days as the charges for more & more unpaid DD's accumulated to the extent that by the time he realised what what was happening he was unable to stem the flow.

 

The only reason he found out when he did was when a creditor wrote telling him they hadn't been paid.

 

As for the bank nothing! which is of course is why they changed their T's & C's allowing them to do this. not sending letters telling customers of their unpaid DD's

Edited by JonCris
Link to post
Share on other sites

My exact reaction BW & such disbelieve that I had a bank insider have a look & he confirmed my understanding that indeed they had permitted the same DD to be presented 3 times on 1 day on a number of occasions incurring 3 separate penalty fees each time

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something has defintely changed. To give an example:

My sofa loan comes out 3 weeks after payday, so I cant always guarantee that the funds will be sitting there waiting every month! Usually if I know that there is going to be a problem, then I just pay the £50 in on the day (always the 11th). By close of business, the DD will show up on my internet banking whereas there will be nothing until the funds are in. I have never incurred a penalty for doing this until now.

Karen :oops:

 

05/01/07 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) posted

07/03/07 Offer made of £457. Rejected. Offer remade of £651, accepted.

26/03/07 PAID IN FULL

 

Your Site Needs You!

and we need this site!

 

Please don't forget to make a donation!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Queen. I used to be clueless too!

Just read, read, read.

People will help you more if you help yourself and try to learn. I was up to speed within a week.

Karen :oops:

 

05/01/07 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) posted

07/03/07 Offer made of £457. Rejected. Offer remade of £651, accepted.

26/03/07 PAID IN FULL

 

Your Site Needs You!

and we need this site!

 

Please don't forget to make a donation!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It used to be that Direct Debits had 2 runs, 1 in the morning and 1 in the afternoon. Approx around last June/July that stopped.

 

The official rule is suffucient cleared funds need to be available in the account the day before any dd/so comes out.

 

Direct debits leave the Halifax between 3-5am, debits before credits

Link to post
Share on other sites

Qwerty101:

 

Is this just a Halifax thing or does it apply to all banks do you know?

 

Today I opened a new current account with a different bank. Halifax account will be closed within the month:mad:

Karen :oops:

 

05/01/07 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) posted

07/03/07 Offer made of £457. Rejected. Offer remade of £651, accepted.

26/03/07 PAID IN FULL

 

Your Site Needs You!

and we need this site!

 

Please don't forget to make a donation!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It applies to Nat West, they like you to have the money in the account the day before - they never did quite manage to explain how they 'allowed' one customer to take a DD out 14 days early just before Xmas one year and leave me with no money - I got that lot back pronto thought as I threatened to take the person responsible in the bank and in the other company to court.... they said I couldn't and I said I could prove theft had happened... that an unnamed person had taken money out of an account before the legally due date.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...