Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 12mph (beyond any UK limit) will certainly qualify for a Fixed Penalty. So you should received an offer of a FP for each of the remaining two offences. Be sure to submit your licence details as instructed when you accept the offer. If you don't your £100 will be returned to you and the police will prosecute you in court.
    • and it will be also now written off under age related criteria anyway.
    • @dx100ukThanks for this! I'm still not clear if I'm facing more than 6 points on my license though. Can you explain any further please? When I accept the 2nd speeding ticket, will they just charge me £100 and 3 points, or will they be more severe consequences since that offense took place the following day of the 1st offense? Similarly, when I accept the 3rd offense, will they look at my record or just charge me with the £100 fine and 3 points? @Man in the middleI've been searching the forum and you seem very knowledgeable. Would you mind giving a look at my query please? Thanks in advance!!
    • Yes of course. That's why it says cc:: BIg Motoring World at the bottom. Don't imagine that this solves the issue. It doesn't. He not have to force the finance company and big motoring world to accept the rejection to give your money back. I suggest that you get the letter off tomorrow. And let us know what you hear but on Friday you should then send a threat to the finance company.   Have a look what I have said here about your options and read the whole thread as well.  
    • Been perusing the actual figures on the polls above wondering where the '16% claimed for deform comes from? I understand that there are 'weighted' end results based on secret calculations ...   Probably going to repeat this later, but remember that the ukip/brexit/reform/deform party has ALWAYS had poll speculation FAR better than their actual  performance at elections - by large margins. SO: The labor and Tory votes come largely from simply the people who say they will vote for them - sorted Lab 43% Tory 20%, with maybe another small 1-2% coming from the weightings of the 'not sures' Greens largely get what is declared from 'other' , although with another declared green bit from the 'pressed' question   So as the share of the voting displayed in 'other' granted to reform/deform is around 11%, where does the '16% too often being reported come from? Seems that reform has been granted as beneficiary of effectively ALL the don't knows and wont says, who when pressed didn't actually declare for someone else ... effectively adding 40%+ to their reported polling % - rather strange given their consistent under-performance compared to polling - or perhaps that is the cause of the higher rating eh?   Now I admit the possibility (probability?) of wingers being ashamed of declaring their support for the yuckey lemon end of the spectrum ... but surely  that should affect the 'Torys as well? Maybe the statisticians have simply weighted in that deform wingers are simply more likely to lie?   But - without 'weightings' and assumptions that faragits will get everything that isnt declared as a definite and unequivocal 'not that Piers Morgan' - reform is on around 11% it seems.   Add to that the history of polling a lot less than the hype - and the simple fact that faragit wingers seem to be spread across the country (presumably skulking in their moms spare room despite being 45+) and greens and lib dems seem to be community minded - I think two seats will be an epic result for farage. Hardly the opposition - far more raving wingnut party.   and importantly - Has farage got a home in clacton yet?
  • 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

ABBEY REFUSES TO 'WAIVE' CHARGES


janna
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1929 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 there

 

First of all I sincerely apologise if this query has been answered already - have read through forum and not seen anything !( Please don't have a go at me!)

 

Just to fill you in - I wrote to abbey mid feb to request a refund of all bank charges and also requested statement/list of charges under DPA.( template has since changed) Did receive a letter a week or so later saying they were looking into it - and this (summarised) is what Igot.....

 

Just recieved a letter today-basically saying that I should have contested any charges at the time they occured - and that as the 'charges were prompted by payment requests against insufficient available funds.' and went on to state that after reviewing my account this is not the first time I have incurred charges ( never said it was!)

 

Finally it said ' if I took them to court, that each case would be reviewed individually, and if they feel that the relationship between me and them has broken down - they may give notice to close my account' and this was their final resoulution!

 

They also enclosed a form on which to request my bank charges, and said if I did not reply within 14 days the papers would be filed accordingly?

 

 

Okay - I am aware that they will try to frighten me off :o ( it's worked a liitle) but i still plan to go ahead - but I just want to know - is this the kind of standard reply they send out?. as I have read through the posts and have n't seen a reply like this. They are trying to turn the tables on me.

 

Any advice would be appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a new approach. Could you let us have a scan of the charges form which they sent you. This is new.

 

I gather that they haven't complied with your DPA request. I expect that their threat to close your account is actually their counter to your DPA request. They obviously think that there is a chance that you will back off in the face of their more aggressive approach.

 

Well don't worry. And don't worry about their charges form. We have a charges form of our own, don't we boys and girls? It is called an N1 and there is a template in the library. :twisted:

 

Send them an abrupt reminder of their duty under the DPA. Did you send then a £10? Send it now with the DPA reminder. Make sure that you have a parachute account and progress your claim in the normal way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds rather like the attitude the black donkey is taking with me. Relationship? What relationship - slave to master?

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for replying so quickly!

 

I thought it was a new approach too! Wonder why they picked me?

 

Anyway -the form they sent was a Subject Access Request Form - on which I can request my bank charges under the DPA for the standard £10.

 

 

I will fill it in and send it out on Monday. I don't have a scanner so cannot send it straight away - but will try to get a copy sent to you asap

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget to ask for records of all manual interventions in these charges.

Could come in handy later.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's OK. I thought that it was a form for you to claim your charges back with. Not necessary to scan it to us now.

 

You also don't need to use the form. If you have sent the letter, then ther is no need for a form and they are already violating the DPA.

Send them the money and tell them to get a hurry on. Don't play their game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was a new approach too! Wonder why they picked me?

 

They didn't. Another poster (thanks, Seminole) sent me an identical one, word for word, this morning. New approach maybe, but it's not just you, don't worry! :)

 

On the bright side, you'll notice they have kindly admitted they ARE penalty charges (paragraph before the threat of closing you down if you have the cheek to take them to court), ain't that just peachy? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay! Glad Abbey are not just after me.

 

So now I won't bother filling in the form, and will just remind them of my original request for list of charges.

 

I will regain control of the situation.

 

Will keep you posted!

 

Thanks again

 

Janna

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep it going Janna!!

 

i'm in the same boat as you, i'm just awaitng my statements, they also sent me that form but not that letter as i orginally sent my DPA request straight to the data protection team, they just forwarded my request onto customer complaints.

 

Best wishes and keep us updated

Natasha

 

Abbey-received DPA letter on 13/03, received some breakdown till 2004 waiting for the more recent ones(where most charges occurred)

sent reminder email on 17/4/06

called abbey on 19/04/06 to remind them:rolleyes:

sent another email on 26/04/06:mad:

Approx charges £2500

received £500 refund in dec 06

sent LBA

Capital one- sent DPA letter 17/03

Sent prim letter for charges of £260 14/04

Received a refund £109 awaiting further refund of £151

Settled IN FULL

Barclay card- Sent DPA letter 17/03 sent reminder 14/04

received info claiming £120

settled in FULL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes sure i will do!

Natasha

 

Abbey-received DPA letter on 13/03, received some breakdown till 2004 waiting for the more recent ones(where most charges occurred)

sent reminder email on 17/4/06

called abbey on 19/04/06 to remind them:rolleyes:

sent another email on 26/04/06:mad:

Approx charges £2500

received £500 refund in dec 06

sent LBA

Capital one- sent DPA letter 17/03

Sent prim letter for charges of £260 14/04

Received a refund £109 awaiting further refund of £151

Settled IN FULL

Barclay card- Sent DPA letter 17/03 sent reminder 14/04

received info claiming £120

settled in FULL

Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems to be a very new approach from Abbey. I'm a bit further down the road with my claim against them - but not much, and I haven't had any of these nonsense letters. I've kept things extremely curt with them and left as little opportunity as possible for them to enter into a debate about it. Also, Janna, DO NOT let them make you feel threatened or intimidated. There are many many people on this forum who can give you all the moral support and assistance you need! Keep a steady nerve and you WILL prevail.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert,

 

thanx so much for your support! I do feel really supported by everyone on the forum - just people taking the time out to leave a message for me really makes such a difference! :D

And no, I will not let the Abbey get the better of me - I intend to fight them all the way......watch this space.(.. and the Halifax board!) :wink:

 

Janna

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/06/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1929 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...