Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Parents and teens alike are trading in their smartphones for "dumber" models to help stay offline.View the full article
    • The coffee giant is suffering as customers "lose it" over price hikes and other controversies.View the full article
    • Victims as far afield as Singapore, Peru and the United Arab Emirates fell prey to their online scams.View the full article
    • Rights groups warn of state paranoia as experts on hypersonics, the science behind ultrafast missiles, have been jailed.View the full article
    • The Contract itself The airport is actually owned by the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan. There should be an authority from them for Bristol airport group  to sign on their behalf. Without it the contract is invalid. The contract has so many  clauses redacted that it is questionable as to its fairness with regard to the Defendants ability to receive a fair trial. In the case of WH Holding Ltd, West Ham United Football Club Ltd -v- E20 Stadium LLP [2018],  In reaching its decision, the Court gave a clear warning to parties involved in litigation: ‘given the difficulties and suspicions to which extensive redaction inevitably gives rise, parties who decide to adopt such an appropriate in disclosure must take enhanced care to ensure that such redactions are accurately made, and must be prepared to suffer costs consequences if they are not’. The contract is also invalid as the signatories are required to have their signatures co-signed by independent witnesses. There is obviously a question of the date of the signatures not being signed until 16 days after the start of the contract. There is a question too about the photographs. They are supposed to be contemporaneous not taken several months before when the signage may have been different or have moved or damaged since then. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court therefore to treat the contract as invalid or void. With no contract there can be no breach. Indeed even were the contract regarded as valid there would be no breach It is hard to understand why this case was brought to Court as there appears to be no reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA.............
  • 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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Lloyds TSB - Clue to New Tactics?


Valdez is Coming
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6540 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

Hi all...l am involved with an LTSB claim (almost at Moneyline claim stage) but can't put details up yet for various reasons. Will post full story in due course.

Sent them my LBA on 03 July and today received reply from Mandy Horton, Assistant Manager, Colmore Row, Brum.

 

Most of her letter was the usual fob off stuff - charges are fair, made clear to all, can't refund, here's a leaflet now get lost...etc.

 

HOWEVER, the following para was a new one to me :-

 

"You've mentioned the new guidlines from the OFT on credit card default charges. We don't agree with the OFT's thinking on this and we're still talking it through with them.

But the important point is that the guidelines only concern 'default' charges. The fees we charge for going over an overdraft limit and for returned payments are not any kind of default penalty. They are fixed standard prices for the service we provide in these situations. So, according to our legal experts, the OFT's guidelines on credit card default charges do not in any way apply."

 

Could this be their new argument for a defence against our claims and the reason they are (seemingly) prepared to meet the mysterious Elliott in the Mercantile Court? Or has this been covered before ?

 

Has anyone else received a similar letter? All comments welcome, thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Valdez is Coming,

I think this is a new one to me but if you consider the points, it still talks about service etc which is covered in the information given. Even if they are to discredit the OFT statement, I believe you will be able to win on other points. Since the OFT is an opinion and there to stand up for the Consumer, it would be strange for them to make a statement they could not support, it can’t form the only point of attack. If you look at what they saying, it still basically says it was for a service and not a penalty but if you consider that you have an agreement with your bank when you signed up and opened your account, that you would conduct your account according to those terms. In the event, you don’t (I.e. By going over drawn or not having enough money on the account to pay a D/D), you are in fact in breach of those terms and therefore these charges are penalties and therefore the bank is only able to recover actual cost incurred for un-paying your D/D etc. They are just scare you.

DJ Tazzz

The information I provide in replies on this site are drawn from this site and a few other external sources. I acknowledge all parties the information maybe drawn from and offer my advice and assistance freely without guarantee and risk of liability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Snap, just recieved the same letter today as the rest of you after sending my LBA on the 5th July06, with this new section also saying they are in discussions with OFT about this.

 

I like how they try to make out that they are the most freindly bank in the world, and if you had a problem they are always willing to help, is this Mandy Horton the same computer who decides if you get a overdraft increase or loan.

 

Stuff them second letter going tommorow with final request in firmer tone....

 

Ray:mad:

My Cases

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/14777-rbphot-lloyds-tsb.html?highlight=rbphot

 

My useful posts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/26095-bank-credit-charges-eec.html?highlight=rbphot

 

;) The Masses Will Always Prevail

 

Rbphot

 

Lloyds TSB, (£2.5k) Data Protection Act-150606, Prelim letter-050706, 2nd LBA-140706, Money Claim submitted 010806(6QZ51069), Claim Agknowledged 040806:D , AQ submited today-070906

Lloyds TSB Amex, (£60) Data Protection Act-150606, 1st LBA-110706, 2nd LBA - 040806, SETTLED 50% of amount.:D

Citi Cards, (£995) Data Protection Act-110706, Prelim letter-210806, LBA - 040906

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

All the banks talk about the levying of charges for o/draft excesses as being a 'service',

By definition, they can't describe the act of penalising you punitively as a 'service'

(def: work done by one or many to the exclusive benefit of another)

The charging of penalties is clearly not, in the context of the banking industry, a 'service' to the customer since the customer does not benefit!

Mission accepted!!

All comments are my personal opinion or based on experience I claim no legal expertise!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...