Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yep, true to form, they are happy to just save a couple of quid... They invariably lose in court, so to them, that's a win. 😅
    • Your concern regarding the 14 days delivery is a common one. Not been on the forum that long, but I don't think the following thought has ever been challenged. My view is that they should have proof of when it was posted, not when they "issued", or printed it. Of course, they would never show any proof of postage, unless it went to court. Private parking companies are simply after money, and will just keep sending ever more threatening letters to intimidate you into paying up. It's not been mentioned yet, but DO NOT APPEAL! You could inadvertently give up useful legal protection and they will refuse any appeal, because they're just after the cash...  
    • The sign says "Parking conditions apply 24/7". Mind you, that's after a huge wall of text. The whole thing is massively confusing.  Goodness knows what you're meant to do if you spend only a fiver in Iceland or you stay a few minutes over the hour there.
    • Hi and thanks It looks like they ticked all the boxes to me but I'll try and upload the notice. I was wondering if a witness to late delivery might be considered proof - I'm assuming they posted it as normal but Royal Mail stuffed up delivery. If not then they're really saying it just has to be posted within 12 days of the incident, regardless of when it is received. Annoying! edit ok thanks Honeybee here's my 2nd (actually 3rd) attempt at anonymising, copying and uploading the notice! Sorry about the state of it - I sat on it while distracted by my dog 🙃 pcn front.pdf pcn back page.pdf
    • ROFL - dont get upset just because someone (quite a lot of someones) dont want smart meters - well unless you get paid for it .. in which case ...   I assume you haven't been with Octopus long enough to be on one of the very long fixed price tariffs they offered before the prices went bonkers .. and that you dont use your electricity in the evening/lunch time if you think the 'agile type tariffs are good value .. let alone worth installing a smart meter for - high price a good disincentive for an evening cuppa eh? Let alone all your computer/tv etc time in the peak price evening or lunch time. - and boy do those peak prices instantly hammer your bill when those Russian and middle eastern issues kick off.   I would only have considered a smart meter if solar panels had been an option for me - but roof is oriented completely the wrong way. Oh - and My opinion hasn't changed since the smart meter trials 40 years ago, because neither have the issues (well not enough) but I'm happy for you. Be happy for me.
  • 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

Amex Platinum Charge Card


alangee
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5258 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

Can monies be transferred from a regulated agreement (Amex Flex Account attached to the charge card) to the unregulated agreement (Charge Card) each month? My thinking is that they are two separate accounts and should be treated so. Otherwise what is to stop Amex transferring all the regulated credit facility into the unregulated credit facility?

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Letter from Amex informing me they have sold the account. Surprised that they would sell a charge card account, but not overly bothered. I wonder if they got a good price for it, as they offered me 60% off.

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Alan!

 

Mmmm...that's interesting!

 

Must be something wrong with the alleged Agreement in that case, because Amex don't tend to sell their alleged Debts!

 

I'd have a good slow and long look through all of your paperwork, and also get a SAR off to Amex soon. Not just yet, wait a little while for the Sale to appear in their documents, so that you get to see anything useful.

 

Be on standby to CCA/S.A.R. any DCA pond life that appears, and have the no harassment strategy ready as well.

 

The hassle will start all over again when the DCA tries to collect, so let them start, then get ready to prod them in both eyes once they have made a few calls and you have a sequence of harassment established.

 

Also, hunt out the Default Notices and Cancellation letters, because they could well add some real meat to your counter-attack against the DCA when they come collecting.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

BRW do you think section 173 could be appropriate in this case?

 

Alan

 

Contracting-out forbidden

 

173

 

(1) A term contained in a regulated agreement or linked transaction, or in any other agreement relating to an actual or prospective regulated agreement or linked transaction, is void if, and to the extent that, it is inconsistent with a provision for the protection of the debtor or hirer or his relative or any surety contained in this Act or in any regulation made under this Act.

 

(2) Where a provision specifies the duty or liability of the debtor or hirer or his relative or any surety in certain circumstances, a term is inconsistent with that provision if it purports to impose, directly or indirectly, an additional duty or liability on him in those circumstances.

 

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a provision of this Act under which a thing may be done in relation to any person on an order of the court or the [F1 OFT] only shall not be taken to prevent its being done at any time with that person’s consent given at that time, but the refusal of such consent shall not give rise to any liability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They issued their normal invalid Default Notice for the Flex account, and then terminated about three weeks later.

 

At the time it was terminated, they had transferred three payments from the Flex account to the charge card. It is this part where they appear to be overcoming CCA1974.

 

Alan

Edited by alangee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Alan!

 

They issued their normal invalid Default Notice for the Flex account, and then terminated about three weeks later.

 

That's good as far as that one goes.

 

At the time it was terminated, they had transferred three payments from the Flex account to the charge card. It is this part where they appear to be overcoming CCA1974.

 

Yes, it does indeed.

 

I would think this must go against the OFT Debt Collection Guidelines, i.e. they are using Debt to pay off other Debt, so that could be a breach on those grounds perhaps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Hi Hestia

 

I am still corresponding with CapQuest - the DCA they sold it to. I am still trying to confirm if it was an absolute or equitable sale. Neither Amex or CapQuest seem to want to answer my question, which is interesting.

 

The DN is faulty - I have never seen a good one from Amex yet. They do not have an agreement for the Flex account, and the application for the charge card was for another card that was fully paid up about 8 years ago, so, I just answer their threat letters with 'Account in Dispute'.

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...