Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes that looks fine. It is to the point. I think somewhere in the that the you might want to point out that your parcel had been delivered but clearly had been opened and resealed and the contents had been stolen
    • Hi All, I just got in from work and received a letter dated 24 April 2024. "We've sent you a Single Justice Procedure notice because you have been charged with an offence, on the Transport for London Network." "You need to tell us whether you are guilty or not guilty. This is called making your plea."
    • Okay please go through the disclosure very carefully. I suggest that you use the technique broadly in line with the advice we give on preparing your court bundle. You want to know what is there – but also very importantly you want to know what is not there. For instance, the email that they said they sent you before responding to the SAR – did you see that? Is there any trace of of the phone call that you made to the woman who didn't know anything about SAR's? On what basis was the £50 sent to you? Was it unilateral or did they offer it and you accepted it on some condition? When did they send you this £50 cheque? Have you banked it? Also, I think that we need to start understanding what you have lost here. Have you lost any money – and if so how much? Send the SAR to your bank as advised above
    • In anticipation of lodging my court claim next Weds 1 May (14 days after advising P2G that was my deadline for them to settle my claim) I have completed my first draft POC as below: Claim Claim number: xxxxx Reference: P2G MAY 2024   Claimant xxxxx   Defendant Parcel2Go 1A Parklands Lostock Bolton BL6 4SD  Particulars of Claim The defendant has failed to arrange for the safe delivery of the claimant's parcel containing a 8 secondhand golf clubs (valued at £265) that was sent to a UK address using their delivery service (P2G Reference xxxxx). The defendant contracted Evri to deliver the parcel (Evri Reference xxxxx) and refuses to reimburse the claimant on the grounds that the claimant did not purchase their secondary insurance contract. The defendant seeks to exclude their liability in breach of section 57 Consumer Rights Act. The secondary insurance contract is in breach of section 72. The claimant seeks reimbursement of £265, plus P2G fees of £9.10, plus postage costs for two first class letters to P2G of £2.70, plus court fees, plus interest. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from xxxxx to xxxxxx on £276.80 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx   Details of claim Amount claimed £276.80 I look forward to your thoughts and comments guys! As ever, many thanks - G59    
    • Hmm, that's strange how they got my email then.  I assume the below is ok to send to DCBL, Nicky?  Hello, I am writing regarding our ongoing dispute and the upcoming court claim reference xxxxxxxx. To ensure fairness and transparency in our communications leading up to the court hearing, I request that you use postal mail exclusively for all further correspondence related to this claim. Please refrain from sending any communication or documents via email. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. If you have any questions or need clarification, please feel free to contact me via postal mail at the address provided above. Yours sincerely, xxxx
  • 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 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5307 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

Business claims have always had to rely purely on the argument that bank charges are unlawful contract penalties since the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR1999) do not apply to business accounts.

 

The UTCCR1999 were the main focus of the recent OFT 'test case' but one of the other decisions in the judgement was that bank charges do not constitute contract penalties, at least in contracts based on current bank terms and conditions for personal current accounts. It appears that the OFT is not going to appeal this decision.

 

If the same applies to business account terms and conditions (and there is no reason to suppose otherwise) then it has left us with no cause of action - that is, with no basis in law to reclaim bank charges on business accounts.

 

The purpose of this forum is to try and develop a strategy for business claims. At this stage the most important common feature is that the claim is a business claim rather than which bank is involved - that is why we have brought all business claims together in one forum.

 

There is a possibilty that bank charges on accounts with older T&Cs might still be deemed to constitute contract penalties. That is the first thing we would like to look at.

 

We would also like to look at other aspects of law to see if there are other legal principles, statutes or case law that might be used to build a case for the unlawfulness of bank charges on business accounts.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really pleased and welcome this new forum.

 

Thank you CAG.

 

Many Business claimants until now have struggled to find relevant information and help with regards their claims, because their threads and thus claims have been grouped by institution rather than by relevance.

 

Hopefully now it will become easier to find others in the same situation, and share and help each other.

 

Many Business claimants may know me through the general Business claims discussion thread I started a while back, which I was pleased to see become so popular became a good place for Business claimants to help each other out.

That thread has now grown to quite a size, so may be a bit off putting, but I do encourage anyone making a Business claim to try to read through it if possible, as it provides a potted history of Business claims to date.

 

I think this forum could benefit from a new general discussion thread to thrash out fresh ideas and general strategies in light of the current OFT case. I have just started one here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/business-claims-bank-charges/146727-post-oft-case-strategies.html

 

All are encouraged and welcome to join in, but it would be best if those doing so did not actually post ongoing updates or histories etc of their own specific cases (unless it is specifically relevant to devising new strategies) and instead keep such to or start their own threads.

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

As a business that almost went to the wall because two banks decided to have a row over whose account was the main one - we had frozen accounts for three years which of course had charges placed on them as no overdraft of any sort was allowed and "uncleared Balances" was the usual problem. We finally got a ruling from OFT (and £250 paid for the delay in time the bank took) BUT they did not insist that the charges should have been repaid as our "overdraft Limit" became due for renewal about the time it happened and "Banks do not have to grant overdrafts to businesses" That was 6 years ago unfortunately. Do not trust OFT to come down on your side.

 

Meantime I had found that our FSB MBNA card is being debited for "Late Payment" no matter how many payments are made in the month or when they are made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi trailer

 

You can still claim for charges over 6 years old - you just claim you paid them in the mistaken belief they were lawful and then claim them under s32 of the Limitations Act 1980

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where can I find the s32 of the Limitations Act? We totalled it up to about £2000.00! Praise to Bank of Scotland who did rescind all charges themselves and paid up the £150.00 but the NATWEST really put the boot in. We ended up changing banks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I put my business claim with Yorkshire Bank to the Ombudsman. I've just had a letter back from the Ombudsman today to say that Yorkshire have refused any sort of settlement. It says

 

1. the charges are not unlawful as penalties under common law

 

2. the UTCCR apply only to consumer contracts

 

Has anyone any comments on this. FOS has gone back and asked them to outline their position in more detail - also I think they should be asking the bank for an accurate costing on these charges........

 

Mel

Link to post
Share on other sites

I put my business claim with Yorkshire Bank to the Ombudsman. I've just had a letter back from the Ombudsman today to say that Yorkshire have refused any sort of settlement. It says

 

1. the charges are not unlawful as penalties under common law

Yorkshire bank would say that !! We all beg to differ, and it will be interesting to see what they have to say in further detail in response to the FOS.

 

 

2. the UTCCR apply only to consumer contracts

That is indeed correct, as the clue is in the title Unfair Terms in CONSUMER Contracts Regulations. A business claimant should avoid using or quoting such regs. There are more ways to skin a cat however.

 

Has anyone any comments on this. FOS has gone back and asked them to outline their position in more detail - also I think they should be asking the bank for an accurate costing on these charges........

 

Mel

I gather that there is some work going on behind the scenes regards the current status and approach for Business claims. If you do not get a result from the FOS, then I suggest you wait a short while and keep an eye on this forum before escalating matters to a court claim.

 

Best regards

 

PM

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I had never referred to the Unfair contract terms - they did in all their standard letters - merely as guided by this site ! It will be interesting to see what comes in response to my suggestion that the FOS request a full cost breakdown of the cost of bouncing a cheque etc

 

Mel

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5307 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...