Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Oft Test Case - Next Important Date?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5508 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

Ive got bank statements showing charges from 1987....:D

 

Pah.... lightweight !!:D

 

I've got going back to 1983 !!:D:D:D

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

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Blue

 

 

I am also owed a lot of money.......original charges total just short of £4000

 

With interest..it's now standing at over £48,000

 

Interest is going up now by £80-£90 a day :D and yes it is calculated correctly quoting SEMPRA.

 

Hope that helps?

 

That brought a big smile to my face! My claim is also for the same amount.... 48k would make my dreams come true... but in reality, will OFT not set an acceptable rate for charges and therefore we will only get a pro rata refund (one day) ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

When the question of the charges is finally resolved, the real battle will have to begin- the damage that unlawful charges and interest have done to everyone's credit ratings and the past court actions for "recovery" of charges, bankruptcies, homes lost and charging orders placed on properties after CCJs etc.

 

Surely you can take the argument further than just any debts with the bank involved? For example, if it turns out the bank had over charged me by £2,000 as of 2003 if I then received a CCJ or default notice for £2,000 after that date I could argue that I would have been able to pay it if the bank hadn't taken the money from me in the first place. Basically, the consequential losses resulting from the charges.

 

Plus there is a precedence for this with banks currently covering consequential losses when they make a mistake. For example, if a direct debit is taken from your account twice (or for too much) any bank charges will be written off or refunded by the party in error.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IIt's feasible that the OFT could recommend that only charges above, say £12, as per CC's, should be refunded, right?

 

Would the OFT encourage claimants to accept whatever the banks we're offering as the difference between their charge and the £12 + SI?

 

The banks will need to credit the charges back to your account effective on the day the charges were originally taken out. If you then work forward, pretty quickly none of the other charges would have happened in the first place as there would have been more money in your account.

 

So they might be able to get away with the difference on the first few charges, but once your account had gone back in to credit they would have to refund them all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i note the debat about the "banks appealing to the House of Lord"

 

What can we do if anything about that? i.e can we right to the Lords (i guess not) can we write to our MPs? MEPs? Chancellor etc etc? "to ask them to use there power not to allow such an appeal???"

Veester

 

"Challenges are what make life interesting; overcoming them is what makes life meaningful." -- Joshua J. Marine‏ ;)

 

Better than the truth itself is truthful living.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i note the debat about the "banks appealing to the House of Lord"

 

What can we do if anything about that? i.e can we right to the Lords (i guess not) can we write to our MPs? MEPs? Chancellor etc etc? "to ask them to use there power not to allow such an appeal???"

 

They're not appealing the decision to the House of Lords, they're appealing for the right to appeal the decision to the House of Lords (if that makes sense). At present the court has denied them the right to appeal the decision.

 

No point writing to anyone, the House of Lords is god when it comes to UK law (unless its something under EU law and I don't think this is). Plus I'm sure there will be some pressure put on them to make a decision quickly anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes sense BB987 - missread the articles....lack of sleep due to contract negotiations!!! LAW!!!

 

Lets see...

Veester

 

"Challenges are what make life interesting; overcoming them is what makes life meaningful." -- Joshua J. Marine‏ ;)

 

Better than the truth itself is truthful living.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

so what happens now? i realise they are waiting for the appeal to approach the house of lords but what happensa after that? as were presuming that the appeal will be denied.

 

thanks :p

HALIFAX-4..CLAIM 1

5 Jan PRELIM

5 Mar LBA

26 Phone HSBC about offer

14 April Halifax paid into account

 

HALIFAX-10..CLAIM 2

21 Mar PRELIM

18 Jul LBA

24 Jul FILED N1

30 Jul Letter from halifax putting case on hold due to OFT

10 August notice of acknowledgement

22 August letter of defence from halifax legal

 

LLOYDS TSB..CLAIM 3

5 Jan PRELIM

5 Mar LBA

26 Mar FILED N1

5 April acknowleged

4 May defense

27 June to be assessed by judge

12 Sept court date (adjourned till further notice)

21 August letter from court, case on hold till Jan?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got this from www.iii.co.uk

 

David Black, Principal Consultant of Banking at Defaqto now sees two possible outcome for the level of charges that are deemed to be fair.

He says: 'There may be a flat limit imposed, and, if this is the case, I would expect it to be set slightly above the £12 default cap currently imposed on credit cards.

'The alternative is that we will see a graduated cap determined by both the amount by which the borrower has strayed into unauthorised overdraft territory and the duration for which it happens. This method would see a small temporary unauthorised overdraft attracting a lower fixed charge than a more substantial transgression.'

I need to change my avatar..But cant find a good replacement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well start the bloody claim then.........the Limitations Act does not apply as it's a mistake in Law.

 

What they have done was ultimately unlawful. So yes....chop their nuts off and ask for blood and plenty of it!

 

Bloody claim started in 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got this from www.iii.co.uk

 

David Black, Principal Consultant of Banking at Defaqto now sees two possible outcome for the level of charges that are deemed to be fair.

He says: 'There may be a flat limit imposed, and, if this is the case, I would expect it to be set slightly above the £12 default cap currently imposed on credit cards.

'The alternative is that we will see a graduated cap determined by both the amount by which the borrower has strayed into unauthorised overdraft territory and the duration for which it happens. This method would see a small temporary unauthorised overdraft attracting a lower fixed charge than a more substantial transgression.'

 

Don't know about anyone else but I think this is still a rip off !

£2-£3 and no more you greedy bankers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well start the bloody claim then.........the Limitations Act does not apply as it's a mistake in Law.

 

What they have done was ultimately unlawful. So yes....chop their nuts off and ask for blood and plenty of it!

 

Hi mate it's been ages since I was on here. I submitted my claim in July 2007 (claimed back to 2001) and it was probably one of the first cases to be stayed. I wasn't aware that it was possible to claim back further than 6 years. If this is the case is there a process that I should follow? Would it mean withdrawing my current case and starting again or could I start another claim up to the dates of the charges for my current case.

 

Sorry if it's a long post but if I can claim back further then I will.

 

One further point the current OFT case was on the fairness the UCCT? Nothing to do with the common law elements of claims

 

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know about anyone else but I think this is still a rip off !

£2-£3 and no more you greedy bankers.

 

 

I wrote to the OFT about this and asked advise - about who to complaint to, as it ties into the whole Barcalys Approach with there 'reserve' system.

 

I mean the OFT etc has allready highlighted you are looking at £1.50 to £3 costs to the bank, so £12 reflects upto a constant 400% profit on there costs.....what kind of business model ever sustains that type of growth, the banks need to get a grip of reality.

 

Maybe £5 tops, or better still a graded system starting at the near bare bones of £3.50 moving upwards....

Veester

 

"Challenges are what make life interesting; overcoming them is what makes life meaningful." -- Joshua J. Marine‏ ;)

 

Better than the truth itself is truthful living.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The British Bankers' Association confirmed the banks have put in a request to see if they can appeal to the House of Lords, but stressed this does not mean they plan to proceed.

A spokesperson said: 'You have to ask if you can appeal before you decide if you are going to appeal. It's just a legal process. The banks are keeping their options open.'

Even if the banks do not appeal, consumers will not be able to reclaim their bank charges until the OFT delivers its final assessment on whether the charges are fair.

It has already begun its investigation into the overdraft charges and, if banks do not hold up the process further, it expects to report its findings later this year.

The OFT said in a statement: '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 for these terms.

I need to change my avatar..But cant find a good replacement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many questions to be answered regarding all of this like.

 

1. Compensation?

2. Unjust enrichment?

3. Credit file damage

4. People who through the banks defaults/actions have taken mortgages/loans with higher interest rates.

5. What interest can be claimed on these charges.

 

It seems to me there are many bridges to be crossed yet but it is a victory and one that put a broad smile upon my face.

 

I hope the OFT dont offer the banks a deal and do ACTUALLY investigate the level of fairness as anything over £5 at most would imply they are just plucking figures out their head.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(just thinking out loud)

 

I am wondering if a figure of £12 might actually be to our advantage... at this level it is easy to prove that even this amount is way above what it should be and with a reclaim it should be possible to get the lot back (just as we currently do with credit cards) ie it should be fairly easy to get the £12 as well.

 

If its set to £5 then I think all folks will get is the difference between that and the full charge, I think it would be difficult to win this smaller amount back in court.

 

As for claiming back other things as Bigmac has suggested... I get a feeling in the pit of my stomach that something is going to be put in place to stop this, some sort of waiver... as I think this amount would make any charge reclaim look like small fry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for claiming back other things as Bigmac has suggested... I get a feeling in the pit of my stomach that something is going to be put in place to stop this, some sort of waiver... as I think this amount would make any charge reclaim look like small fry.

 

I do hope you're wrong on this point Crusher.

 

Indeed the sums involved may dwarf the charges, but acting unlawfully should have consequences.

The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if a figure of £12 might actually be to our advantage... at this level it is easy to prove that even this amount is way above what it should be and with a reclaim it should be possible to get the lot back (just as we currently do with credit cards) ie it should be fairly easy to get the £12 as well.

 

If its set to £5 then I think all folks will get is the difference between that and the full charge, I think it would be difficult to win this smaller amount back in court.

 

My thoughts exactly Crush,

 

Plus we would loose the public support we have now.

 

As for the rest of it, it doesn't bare thinking about, that just could collapse the economy completely.

Please help us to help you. Download the CAG tool bar for free

HERE and use the search option for all your searches. CAG earns a few pennies every time !!!

 

Please don't rush, take time to read these:-

 

 

&

 

 

This is always worth referring to

 

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by me are personal, are not endorsed by the Consumer Action Group or the Bank Action Group. Should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think £12 won't happen. If the OFT sets an intervention threshold the way they did with the cc in 2006, it is IMO likely to be set much higher, I reckon £18-£20.

 

Think about it: cc fees used to be round the £20 mark, and the threshold was set at £12. Banks do have higher costs than cc companies (ATMs, branches, etc, on the whole a much more complicated setup than cc companies, therefore higher overheads) and their charges are £30 to £38 a pop.

 

Logically, it seems that if the OFT follow the same pattern as they did with the cc charges, then the bar will be set higher.

 

As Crusher says, that will only makes it easier to reclaim in TOTALITY, regardless of what the banks will try to tell you.

 

Now's the time to remind all of this essential sentence:

 

A term which is deemed unfair is non-enforceable in its entirety.

 

 

Don't let the banks tell you otherwise and con you out of any of YOUR money when they offer you a part settlement! ;-)

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

....but the fun will really start when everybody starts claims for damages caused by their credit ratings being trashed due to charges....

 

To say nothing of CCJs and charging orders being set aside...

 

Claiming against NatWest for charges going back to 1993.Case presently stayed. People will encounter all sort of excuses from the Banks for copy statements going back to 1990s. Took me well over six months of many letters/phone calls to get some of my statements /data records.

 

Have recenty discovered a copy of a consolidated loan taken out in 1998 no doubt to cover an overdraft which obviously included charges. Well looks like its back to the Court next week with another claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the OFT will do a dal with the BBA and set a limit like they did with credit cards. The only question is at what level. As a pointer, I beleive barclays revamped their charges last year starting at £8 for most 'transgressions' and Halifax now have a £5 daily charge. A charge of £7 may be fairer but I doubt the banks would agree. They have got to fund fred the Shred's pension somehow!

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever figure they set a limit at, it will only be a nominal figure below which they wont take any regulatory action.

 

It will not be a figure that is legally "fair"

 

Only a court can state what figure is fair or not, and will thus leave the road clear for everyone to resume their claims.

 

Just as it is now with credit card claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...