Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • deed?  you mean consent order you and her signed? concluding the case as long as you nor she break it's conditions signed upto? dx Yes sorry. they called it a deed at first in court.  Then Judge said she was happy to have it sealed as something else  exact names of orders in message above.     The disease was tested for when his cardiac testing was done immediately after purchase and part of the now sealed case.   However, results were disclosed incorrectly and I only found out  two days ago.   This disease did not form part of my knowledge during the case as I had been informed of a normal result that was not the case.   it is perfect clarity of a genetic disease where as the previous cardiac issue could be congenital until the pup is genetically tested. 
    • Hi, Halifax recently sold a credit card account of mine to Cabot. I am unemployed and have no assets and was thinking of making token £1 payments for 12-18 months in order to drag things out a bit and reduce the chance of Cabot being able to get the correct CCA documents from Halifax if I requested them in future. However, I saw on the pages on this forum about defending county court claims that one of the standard approaches when defending such claims is to say “I had an account with bank X, but I don’t remember the details and so don’t know if I owe this debt…”. If I made £1 payments to Cabot, would it prevent me from using such a defence in future? OC: Halifax DC: Cabot/Wescot Card account opened: 2016 Defaulted: 2023
    • Paperwork says sealed consent order and composite settlement agreement      YES  ADDISONS DISEASE 
    • Hi, This may be the wrong place for a thread BUT If you receive a defence, can you send a CPR 31.14 request for document mentioned in the defence, and then apply to proceed with the case only after (14) days passed or they respond OR is it only if you receive a claim I see @dx100uk thread is for when you receive a claim, but can you also do the same when you receive a defence?
  • 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

Advice please-Charges


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5462 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,

I opened an account with A&L in July 2008 and deposited £2500 and kept it in there for a few months and withdrew £2480 in Nov 2008. I have found out in the last couple of weeks that because funding in my account was under £100 I have been charged £10 per month since oct for not having enough money in my account and now im overdrawn they have been charging me £25 a month for the past 2 months and £5 per day for going under the £100 funding that I shoudl have in my account! Bearing in mind that I was £20 in creidt,THEY have made me overdrawn.

I called and stated the above and was told there is nothing they can do and I have to pay the money back to them (currently approx £150ish) and going up by £5 a day . I said I wasnt paying it and wrote a letter to this fact also. I received a reply stating that the charges wouldnt be refunded and that I signed up to the account with the terms and conditions of the account being set up were that I was to have £100 in the account. They also said that this had been acknowleged as a formal complaint and that banks were currently going through the legal procedings regarding bank charges and until the hearing is concluded ,they wouldnt revise their policy on refunding the charges.

I replied again stating that this is irrisponsible banking and to reconsider. They havent replied.

I am concerned that I am being charged £5 each day and with the money I already owe I will recieve a default notice on my account making it difficult to obtain credit in future in what is already a turbulant market to obtain creidt even with a good creidt score.

Does anyone have any advice on what I should do?

Should I hold off making any payment?

Should I pay the charges and reclaim through OFT when the test case has finished?

Is there anyone else I can complain to to get these charges wiped off?

 

Thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have a similar situation with another bank, its a vicious circle.

 

A&L also did it to me last year, I just had the standard letter about the test case too. i paid it back to close the account though i am still claiming the charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had an update at the weekend which is good news.A&L wrote to me saying they would like me to repay the money again but understood my concerns about bank charges and until the test case is heard with the banks and the OFT they are willing to put it on hold until the outcome is decided. Good news! but to be honest,I never had any intention to repay anything that I dont owe.But at least its a worry off my mind!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...