Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I dont want to, i just wanted to relate with this person. The council just wants to rip off people
    • I paid for the furniture with a visa debit card so not sure if this is the same consumer rights as a credit card? The furniture is without a doubt unfit for purpose because of the reclining mechanism not working correctly. I suspect that I may be offered either a repair, a replacement or a credit note (that's if they accept that there are problems with the furniture). Do I have to accept a credit note or can I insist that I want a full refund?
    • Hi @Dislao As advice for everyone is different and tailored to your situation, please make your own thread and describe your issue.
    • Ok so they have given you the contract of you and packlink. your enforcing the rights of the contract between evri and packlink.... so I don't really think this contract makes a smudge of difference. unless ive missed something @BankFodder   Also on the bit that says "Evri also cite Clause 23 of the pre-exiting commercial agreement between the Defendant and Packlink,"   such agreement hasnt been provided so can't be considered. judges arent goign to consider a term that the defendant has just said exists. thats not how it works.    
    • I think Stockford Anderson are the land owners there. You could ring their London number 020 3443 8500 to confirm. if so the CEO paul Anderson and his son Aaron are about to climb Mount Everest to raise money for Dementia UK. There have been a number of fatalities on the mountain recently though the CEO of Iceland did complete the UK Dementia challenge last week. However the winds over Everest are going to increase in the next few days so anyone not on the way up at the moment are likely to be prevented from climbing.
  • 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

Bank charges–EC law–Fairness–Unfair contract terms


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5493 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

From Law Society Gazette

 

Bank charges are deemed Unfair contract terms

Consumer law

 

 

Thursday 12 March 2009

 

Bank charges – EC law – Fairness – Unfair contract terms

Abbey National Plc & seven ors v Office of Fair Trading: CA (Civ Div) (Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, Lords Justice Waller (vice-president), Lloyd): 26 February 2009

The appellant banks appealed against a decision ([2008] EWHC 875 (Comm), (2008) 2 All ER (Comm) 625) that the respondent Office of Fair Trading was entitled to assess the fairness of certain bank charges.

The charges comprised unpaid item charges, paid item charges, overdraft excess charges and guaranteed paid item charges (the relevant charges). The charges were made when the banks were requested or instructed by customers with current accounts to make a payment for which the customer did not have the necessary funds and which was not covered by a facility arranged with the customer. The issue was whether an assessment of the fairness of the relevant charges related to ‘the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange’ within regulation 6(2)(b) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, in which case such an assessment would be precluded.

Held: It was common ground that the 1999 regulations were to be construed so as to give effect to the terms and purpose of Council Directive 93/13. It followed from the reasoning of the House of Lords in Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank Plc [2001] UKHL 52, (2002) 1 AC 481 that what article 4(2) of the directive was seeking to exclude from the assessment required by the national authorities (here the OFT) was the core bargain or the core price but not ancillary or incidental provisions, First National Bank applied. Regulation 6(2)(b) should be so construed. That view was supported by the travaux preparatoires to the directive and by numerous academic writings. It was therefore necessary to decide whether the relevant charges were part of the essential bargain between bank and customer.

Having regard to all the circumstances, the answer was no. The contingent nature of the charges and the fact that the relevant terms were not specifically negotiated were strong pointers to the conclusion that the charges were not ‘the price or remuneration’ within the meaning of article 4(2) of the directive and regulation 6(2)(b) of the regulations. Accordingly, an assessment of the fairness of the relevant charges was not excluded by regulation 6(2)(b).

Appeal dismissed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its currently under appeal to the HoL. That article is a good summary btw. The documents have to be handed into the HoL by Wednesday at the latest.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread moved...............

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Can anyone please advise if and how the unfair contract issue may apply to an impecably maintained credit card account opened in 2002 where interest rates have doubled over time and the cardholder is no longer able to afford the demanded monthly minimum payments? Comment will be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The current test case focuses on whether the OFT can investigate or decide on the fairness of bank charges relating to going over your overdraft because of for example a direct debit and not escalating interest rates on credit cards.

 

You probably know this, but you need to move that debt off that credit card. Others may come along and ask is that credit card debt enforceable?

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to let you know that I got the above case notes from the Law Society gazette. The link is below. It was given to me by a solicitor in the law centre, when I asked him for a copy of the article which he had on the desk, but his copier broke down that day!

 

The link may be useful for other articles too.

 

www.lawgazette.co.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...