Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So it is currently with a repair garage near to your home. Presumably the hire purchase company know about this – and have they expressed any view. It's very important to try and notify the hire purchase company of everything you do – well in advance – including likely costs of any action so they have an opportunity to object or to propose an alternative. If you have put it into a garage of your choice, then you certainly need to make sure that the hire purchase company know about this and have had an opportunity to express a view. Waiting to see your draft letter
    • I typed it on my phone, ironic. I’ll use my laptop for more substantive updates.   I have another car - I’d rather not splurge out multiple thousands at an already expensive time of year - the service was £1000 in itself.   My immediate concern is their inspection company. Do I pre-empt and pay for my own to coincide with theirs, even though its not needed in anyone with common senses eyes? It just seems like knuckle dragging.   I’ll take you up your offer, thanks. Communication has been mostly via email, and I have followed up calls immediately with an email of what was discussed. Got it the 7th of July if I recall, notified them of the issue on the 25th November.
    • I hope you notice that in your first post I had to restructure the solid blocks of text that you posted. It will be very helpful if you would make sure you  introduce better spacing because we have lots of people who come to this forum using telephones and it is extremely difficult for them to read. The fact that you assert your six months right to reject does not mean that you are then obliged to reject the vehicle. It simply reserves your position on that matter. You always retain the option to reject or to keep the vehicle. However it puts more pressure on the dealer or the hire purchase company – whoever happens to be the responsible party. If you are doing things on the telephone then make sure you have read our customer services guide and implement the advice there. It really is important and if you don't then at some point you will regret it. if you are strapped for the car and if you haven't have the money then probably a good option might be to pay for the repairs yourself and then proceed directly get the hire purchase company for reimbursement. However this means that you would be out of pocket for a while. Also if you did this then we would have to be very careful about giving the hire purchase company advance notice of what you are doing and of the expenses you are about to incur on their behalf. In any event, you are just within the six months and if I were you I would assert the right. If you want, draft a letter and then we will have a look at it here
    • Thanks for the reply except for distance part.   Not a fail when it’s only one of a few in the UK(at the time only 3 where for sale from dealers in the uk- I would never buy a car privately or at the least on a credit card). I only tend to splurge big (to me)bucks on what I actually want and I am a bit of a petrol head. It’s more than a form of transport for me.   I am not naming dealers at this time as they have yet to do anything wrong and the one acting (more than) reasonably is the main dealer that identified the issue, not the one I got the car from so no need to name them at all. They have in fact worked with me to get a very good price to replace the head with support from the manufacturer - to the point of the original dealer would not be able to buy just the head for the all in price on offer. So I have done half their leg room for them too. I will phone the dealer myself today to get their story and if they play silly buggers up their name will go. As I said in the original post - I am hoping for the best, expecting the  worst and want to be prepared.    Finance company is Oodle. I did say I am contacting them under my rights from the consumer credit act but didn’t say I am rejecting, but did say the outcome I am looking for is for it to be repaired.
    • I'm really not clear as to what you want to do here. You clearly have a way of gaining some compensation if you want. If you'd rather just get it shut down then as you say the best thing to do is to send them your mother's death certificate – but as they are completely wrong about everything, it seems – and also on the dates you have given anyway, they are breaching the backbilling code, you can hit back if you want. You have just said that it is the principle of it all. If that is really what it is then that might be sufficient basis for striking out at them. I don't think there's much else to be discussed on this thread
  • Our picks

Men in Tights................... ......


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4548 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

Banks 'not Robin Hood in reverse'

 

 

_45958081_jex_390930_de01-1.jpg Billions of pounds of past and future bank income are at stake

 

The House of Lords has been told that banks are not "Robin Hoods in reverse" when they levy overdraft fees. Seven banks and the Nationwide Building Society have started their Appeal to stop the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) regulating their overdraft fees.

Jonathan Sumption QC claimed the banks were not taxing the overdrawn for the benefit of others.

However, he told the Law Lords that overdraft fees involved a large element of cross-subsidy.

The outcome of the hearing may decide if millions of bank customers are able to reclaim billions of pounds in past charges from their banks.

'Fairness'

Mr Sumption, for the banks, argued that existing consumer contract regulations did not give the OFT the power to regulate prices.

 

o.gifTHE STORY SO FAR...

Nearly a million people have claimed for the return of their unauthorised overdraft charges but their cases are on hold

If the banks win this week's appeal, these people are unlikely to get any money back

If the banks lose, then the legal arguments should move on to a key stage - a case to determine whether these charges were fair or not

Only then will people have a clearer picture as to whether billions of pounds will be handed back to customers

 

inline_dashed_line.gif

 

Crunch time for bank charges case

 

He said that bank overdraft fees were required to be clear but were not necessarily required to be fair.

The High Court and the Court of Appeal have both previously upheld the right of the OFT to scrutinise the fairness of bank charges under the 1999 Consumer Contract Regulations.

Mr Sumption said both of the lower courts had been wrong, and had both over-refined and overcomplicated the interpretation of the regulations.

He pointed out that the regulations were not designed as a mechanism of price control and were not aimed at regulating what services were offered or the price charged.

They did not, he argued, apply to the main subject matter of a contract or the price being charged for it - only to ancillary or contingent charges.

"The overdraft charges are too fundamental to the bargain to be declared unfair," he said.

Cross-subsidy

He told the five Law Lords hearing the appeal that overdraft fees involved a large element of cross-subsidy.

 

_45957399_000305063-1.jpg Jonathan Sumption QC is arguing the banks' case

 

People who went overdrawn without permission were paying part of the cost of providing current accounts to people who always stayed in the black.

So the charges exceeded the cost of dealing with an overdrawn customer because "the revenue stream is essential to the whole of the current account structure".

Mr Sumption explained that cross-subsidies were common in the banking industries of other countries such as France, Canada, Australia and the US.

He said they were common in the charging structures of many other complex sets of services such as airline ticket prices or mobile phone tariffs and were not objectionable.

One of the Law Lords asked if it was the case that bank charges included a surcharge to subsidise those who did not go into the red.

Another Lord suggested overdrawn customers were being taxed for the benefit of others.

But Mr Sumption said it was "tendentious nonsense" to suggest that banks were operating as Robin Hoods in reverse.

He went on to say that a victory for the OFT might render all past overdraft payments unenforceable and might lead to "restitution".

"The OFT has significantly raised the stakes," he said. "The issues are of considerable importance to consumers and the future of retail banking."

Earlier rulings

Mr Sumption spent the rest of the day picking apart the earlier rulings by the High Court judge Mr Justice Andrew Smith and the three judges in the Court of Appeal.

In particular, he said the Appeal Court had been "fundamentally wrong" to draw a distinction in the regulations between essential terms and prices, which could not be scrutinised by the OFT, and non-essential or incidental terms and prices - such as overdraft fees, which could be regulated.

"The distinction between core and non-core prices have no place in the regulations," he said.

"No such distinction can be found in the language of the regulations. All prices are by their very nature essential as the contract cannot work if the price is unenforceable."

Mr Sumption went on to describe the Court of Appeal's approach as "opaque and impractical" which might lead to "absurd" conclusions.

"The courts are not authorised to treat some prices as inessential," he said.

The hearing is expected to finish on Thursday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...