Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You should start putting everything in writing. Even the ombudsman, to begin a serious complaint by telephone is quite frankly crazy. I hope you have taken a copy of at least the advertisement that you have posted above.  I don't suppose that you kept a copy of the original AutoTrader advertisement.  How much in writing have you got of anything? I would suggest also that you telephone the ombudsman tomorrow and ask them for details of the complaint that they have received from you and tell them that you want it in writing.  You will be amazed how scant The records of which are kept by these people. Read our customer services guide and at least actually give you some idea of how you should deal with customer service people or any call handlers on the telephone.  It is very important that you get a written summary of the report which you made to the ombudsman so that you can see exactly what they are investigating. The complaint to the ombudsman should have been very carefully considered over a period of time rather than simply made in a phone call
    • Funnily enough the ad is still available online Range Rover 4.4 SDV8 Autobiography LWB Previously Sold | Clinkard Performance Cars WWW.CLINKARDCARS.CO.UK Performance, Prestigious and Specialist cars Dealers in Romsey, Hampshire but the autotrader version isn't which was probably slightly different potentially with more information. Reported to FOS over the phone but essentially gave them the same information I've stated here, updating them that I'm paying for a car I haven't had for nearly a month now etc I'll certainly come back with an update. Fingers crossed they will realise it's not worth taking to court. So the inspection among other things found a hairline crack across a load bearing section of the chasis which at the minute to the naked eye looks tiny but could turn out to be catastrophic and has had some filler chucked on top of it but we'll see what Clinkards inspection comes back with. Distance wise I believe they're around 165-170 miles away from me. Also I'm sure many people will have PCP agreements as it's the most common way to buy cars under 5 years old but they just forgotten the terminology or name for it. Pay deposit, choose a length then pay the difference between value today and guaranteed future value at the end of that agreed term   Whole experience has scarred me and moving forward I'd be tempted to pay for a pre purchase inspection myself because these guys are bigggg traders with a lot of top end cars. I just hope they don't make any more silly offers
    • Strange final response. They say that they are still investigating but they are giving you their final response anyway. Seems like a load of nonsense. Have you got a copy of what you then sent to the ombudsman? Anyway, for the moment although would like to know – it really is all for curiosity because as you have put it into the hands of the ombudsman it's probably not worth doing anything more until you have a reply. I would suggest that when you decide to spend this kind of money in future on a used car, that you understand exactly what your rights are before you make the purchase. When you buy anything – and maybe especially used car you should realise that you aren't only paying for the car, you are also paying for a bundle of consumer obligations which are intended to bind the dealer. You are paying for a vehicle which is of satisfactory quality and remains that way for a reasonable period of time and you are paying for any defects which emerge to be addressed and repaired at the expense of the dealer. We've already pointed out that by purchasing the warranty, they have effectively persuaded you to pay for something for which you have already paid. Very decent of you not to want to cause trouble in respect of defects which manifested themselves within the first few weeks. I have no idea why. For £78,000…. This you say that they were age-related problems – that is still no reason why those defects should have been there or why the dealer should not have been responsible for them. It seems to me that you have a clear case against the dealer/the finance company. We don't have many or any PCP purchases on this forum. However, it seems to me that the finance company is probably responsible for the condition of the vehicle because effectively you have bought it from them and to that extent it should be the same as HP. With a hire purchase agreement, it is as if you bought the vehicle directly from the finance company not from the dealer and it is the finance company which bears all the consumer obligations. I think the only thing you can do is to monitor the situation. Update us when you hear from the financial ombudsman and if you need to take the matter to court then we will help you. In principle it should be straightforward – but certainly there is a risk of a serious bill for costs if you lose. I don't see you losing. Did you say somewhere that the report suggested that the vehicle was unroadworthy? Have you got the advertisement for the vehicle? Does it make claims for the vehicle which are clearly untrue? And by the way, four hours away from you is what kind of distance? Have you read our used car guide? Have you looked at the video?
    • there's one in this thread.. i wonder if its the same, they seem to be identical regardless each time we have a thread with one Vehicle Control Services Privacy Notice, Brooke Retail Car Park, HA4 0LN - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group  
  • 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

Charges raised account to account clydesdale


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5388 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, (great site)

 

I have a few accounts in the Clydesdale Bank PLC up here in Scotland. I had set up a weekly standing order which transfered funds from my current account to my budget account, the budget account being my main source of paying, via standing order, all my creditors. I am now paid monthly, and have been for a few months now, and therefore sometimes (a lot of times) my current account has insufficient funds to cover the weekly standing order to the budget account. I know the simple most expedient method would be to cancel it and administer it myself via internet banking, an option I shall do at a later date, however, as this "insufficient funds" scenario appears I am charged £35 every time. I am effectively fining myself via the bank because I am not paying myself every time. Now this was going to be my test letter to the bank asking (begging?) for these charges to be reimbursed without prjudice to any future claims to any other accounts to any other charges.

 

Is it "legal" for them to charge £35 for what is essentially me paying myself via another account, is it essentially the same as me not paying an external creditor regards status of "crime" and punishable with the regular £35?

 

Please advise on this, it would be most appreciated. What are the chances of getting this back from the bank?

 

baba484

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment it is lawful for them to charge you since the OFT test case is still ongoing, but as you tell from the £35 especially as it is going between both accounts, I can hardly see the service is stopping the payment and charging £35, can you? I think you have to start the standard bank charges reclaiming. If it was the first time, then the bank might consider refunding as a one off, however, if it isn't then they won't.

.

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

Hi yourbank,

Thanks for your prompt reply and advice. I was going to send them this letter (reproduced below) as an opening salvo before I went full on nuclear attack, test the waters and their will. My point is the internal transaction and not an external one. I am paying from one of my accounts to another one, if I don't have funds then they shouldn't attempt to take any.

XXXXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXXX

XXXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXXXXX

08/05/09

Clydesdale Bank PLC

30 The Foregate

Kilmarnock

Ayrshire

KA1 1JH

Ref: internal bank charges raised against account XXXXXXXX

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to you with the greatest of respects and wish to highlight to you the punitive actions you are raising against my account as referenced above; surely this must be an error. A £35 charge is being levied against this account for every unpaid internal branch transfer I cannot meet due to insufficient funds. I accept that having insufficient funds to pay external creditors is subject to some nominal charge however, considering this is an internal mono-branch transfer I must be regarded as both payee and creditor, where you effectively fine me for not paying me.

I would have expected the very slightest audit of my banking arrangements to have highlighted this to you earlier however this has not happened. I would have assumed that my annual bank charges would have included some kind of auditing and suggested tailoring of my accounts to maximise them and, as the saying goes, “make my money work for me”, I have evidently slipped through the net.

I therefore request, most humbly, that you review my accounts and reimburse them the levied charges of £35 where I have, to my cost, authorised an automated internal bank transfer when funds where unavailable. I feel sure that you will agree with this thinking and return these inappropriate charges accordingly, I would be most grateful, furthermore I would appreciate documented data of your appraisal with regards the number of times this charge has been levied. I do of course make this request without prejudice to any future claims that may or may not be made against your company with regards any of my accounts and any other charges that have been levied for whatever reason.

Yours sincerely,

Baba484

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The blue touch paper has been lit, stand back and wait to see what is shaken from the tree!!:)

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

 

19/06/09

Clydesdale Bank PLC

30 The Foregate

Kilmarnock

Ayrshire

KA1 1JH

Ref: internal bank charges raised against account XXXXXX

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to you with the greatest of respects and wish to highlight to you the punitive actions you are raising against my account as referenced above; surely this must be an error. A £35 charge is being levied against this account for every unpaid internal branch transfer I cannot meet due to insufficient funds. I accept that having insufficient funds to pay external creditors is subject to some nominal charge however, considering this is an internal mono-branch transfer I must be regarded as both payee and creditor, where you effectively fine me for not paying me.

I would have expected the most modest of audit of my banking arrangements to have highlighted this to you earlier however this has not happened. I would have assumed that my annual bank charges would have included some kind of auditing and suggested tailoring of my accounts to maximise them and, as the saying goes, “make my money work for me”, I have evidently slipped through the net.

I therefore request, most humbly, that you review my accounts and reimburse all the levied charges of £35 where I have, to my cost, authorised an automated internal bank transfer when funds where unavailable. I feel sure that you will agree with this thinking and return these inappropriate charges accordingly for which I would be most grateful, furthermore I would appreciate documented data of your appraisal with regards the number of times this charge has been levied. I do of course make this request without prejudice to any future claims that may or may not be made against your company with regards any of my accounts and any other charges that have been levied for whatever reason.

Yours sincerely,

Baba484

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well written letter,

 

I myself have written many to my bank and in hindsight I must be the most sarcastic customer that exists?

 

One day we might all have a laugh and share our communications to these banks!:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

A response!!!:D

 

Copy below the banks letter of response.............

 

1 July 2009

Dear Mr Baba 484,

I refer to your letter dated 19 June 2009

First of all accept my apologies that you found it necessary to raise a complaint with the Bank. I have completed my investigations into your concerns and would like to present my findings.

My understanding of the issue you have raised is as follows:

~ Charges that have been levied to the account

I have today spoken with Advice Quality Unit who have confirmed that they have written to you advising of the procedure which is in place for any charge queries.

After checking your account I can confirm that our Current Account Management Unit have refunded £105 of charges after your recent conversation with them. This was due to 2 of the payments going internally and the other payment being for a small amount.

At this time we are not in a position that we can refund any more charges as they have been applied within the terms and conditions of the account however, Advice Quality Unit will be in touch with the final decision.

I have enclosed for your information a copy of our Internal Complaint Handling Procedures. These procedures confirm how to pursue your complaint if you remain unhappy with this response and how to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service if we cannot resolve the matter.

If we do not receive a response from you within eight weeks of the date of this letter, your complaint will be considered closed.

I trust this clarifies the matter and thank you for taking the time and trouble in bringing this to my attention.

Yours sincerely

XXXX XXXX (baba484 note, ß those aren’t kisses)

Copy below my response to the response................

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

15/07/09

XXXX,

Branch Supervisor,

Clydesdale Bank PLC

30 The Foregate

Kilmarnock

Ayrshire

KA1 1JH

Ref: internal bank charges raised against account XXXX

Dear Mrs/Miss XXXXX,

Many thanks for your reply to my letter dated 19 June 2009 regarding internal bank charges to the above referenced account.

I note you make reference to my contact with the Current Account Management Unit however feel I must point out that that contact was at their “urgent” insistence rather than my own dull witted initiative and actually not related to any charges whatsoever but rather the state of my account at that time. During the course of my conversation however, internal charges were discussed and I also referred to my recent correspondence to you, and without any fuss whatsoever I was given the £105 refund you reference in your correspondence. Furthermore you have acknowledged in your correspondence that these reimbursements were “due to 2 of the payments going internally and the other payment being for a small amount.” I am naturally pleased that you have acknowledged that these internal payments should not be subject to punitive sanctions, which was, indeed, the main thrust of my initial request for review.

My initial letter was perhaps unclear, for which I apologies, to whit I was inquiring about one specific type of payment, viz a viz branch internal specifically from account XXXXXXXX to account XXXXXXXX. As a result of your reply to my initial letter and your clear and unambiguous explanation of why I was reimbursed by your Current Account Management Unit I would request that you carry out a most urgent review of account XXXXXXXX and continue the course of corrective action that you have initiated.

I assure you that there are numerous instances of this sanction being levied and I am sure your audit shall attest to this fact.

I look forward to your reply regards this matter which, gauging by the establishment of banking conditions for and against punitive sanctioning, I feel we are close to resolving. Once again I reiterate that I do of course make this request without prejudice to any future claims that may or may not be made against your company with regards any of my accounts and any other charges that have been levied for whatever reason.

Yours sincerely,

Baba484

See what falls from the tree this time!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...