Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi mackem67   This came out last Friday on gov.uk - hope it can help.  https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/covid-19-cancellations-package-holidays   Be interesting to know if this actually works ✍️
    • Thanks D.   This has got me all of a dither   I feel very naive,  I thought common sense would rule the day!  CST LAW.pdf Smart Parking Rejection.pdf POPLA_Rejection.pdf
    • yes I have used a pay as you go card and my bank card. I have to sent them my banks statements to show them?  And when you say "to show them some financial reason " you mean my part-time job salary?  
    • Okay, that will suffice as a letter of rejection – although I don't understand why you have to write pages and pages of everything instead of simply making the point that you need to make. The same with your claim form. It's a great shame that you haven't actually stated your your main cause of action on your claim form which is that you asserted your statutory right to reject and that the dealer breach their statutory duty by not accepting the rejection and refusing to refund. This is a glaring omission and at some point you have to remedy it. If you haven't actually claimed that then you haven't given the dealer an opportunity to defend on that particular point – and of course by not bringing it up now, in principle you are not asking the court to address that point. You should amend the claim. Once you sue on the basis that you have asserted your right to reject and that the dealer refuses to comply, then you have pretty well 100% chance of winning. However, you are not exploiting this because you have not raised this in your particulars of claim. Strictly speaking you should amend the claim and then the dealer should have a further right to put in a defence. Of course I may have missed it in your nine page particulars of claim so please will you confirm that you did not raise the issue of rejection in your claim form.
    • Thanks - I got this off ABTA website   If there are significant changes to the main characteristics of the holiday that mean a significant change to the holiday as whole you are entitled to an offer of an alternative holiday, or a refund of your holiday cost. ABTA cannot determine what is and isn’t a significant change to your particular package holiday, however a general overview of what might be a significant change is below:   a change of resort;  a change of accommodation to that of a lower category and/or price;  a change of flight time or delay of flight of more than 12 hours (in respect of a 14-day duration.  A change of flight time less than 12 hours may still be regarded as a significant change in respect of a lesser duration) or involving a reduction in time spent at the resort which is significant in relation to the length of the holiday;  a change of airport that's inconvenient to you.  If the holiday or trip can’t actually be provided due to closures and limitations, then you have a right to a refund.   On Jet 2 T & C's it does say a change of accommodation is a minor change,   however,  I think that is subjective as what is minor to one person is possible significant to another and to me it is significant that the hotel is closed.   They have not even said what they would offer me so I agree I don't think we should pay any balance until this is at least discussed.   There are only 2 other hotels in Punta Prima which offer all inclusive and both get poorer reviews that the one we booked.   I know this won't make a difference to Jet2, however one of them is also 1.5km from the beach! Our booked accommodation was actually on the beach.   I am so frustrated with Jet 2 and unsure where to turn now.
  • Our picks

    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 5 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
      • 7 replies
    • The courier industry – some basic points for customers. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421913-the-courier-industry-%E2%80%93-some-basic-points-for-customers/
      • 1 reply
    • The controversial sub-prime lender says the City watchdog is investigating its practices.
      View the full article
      • 0 replies
Bookworm

OFT v Foxton - Discussion here!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4017 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

To save us hijacking the test case thread even further, I think this might be useful to start a different thread here.

 

First, the judgment itself:

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1681.rtf

 

Read, digest, discuss. :-D

 

Personally, it worries me that the judge leant on the transparency + plain English side itself than on the intrinsic unfairness of the clauses, as it brings the possibility that all the banks would have to say "but we told you in detail about the charges" and we wouldn't have a recourse. PIL is all very well, but there is a lot more to it than that.

 

On the plus side, the fact that it was agreed that the OFT DOES have jurisprudence is good, although no doubt the banks will say that it is completely irrelevant to their business model and that they are nothing like estate agents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, the judgment itself:

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1681.rtf

 

Read, digest, discuss. :-D

 

Read it. A fine example of judicial sagacity.

 

Personally, it worries me that the judge leant on the transparency + plain English side itself than on the intrinsic unfairness of the clauses, as it brings the possibility that all the banks would have to say "but we told you in detail about the charges" and we wouldn't have a recourse. PIL is all very well, but there is a lot more to it than that.

 

I think, with respect, that the point you are missing is that, whilst the UTCCR (and indeed the law in general) affords the consumer significant protection it still allows a man to drive a hard bargain. What is required though is that the consumer knows he has agreed to a hard bargain. All this goes to the very heart of the question of whether the UTCCR will prove to be of assistance to the consumer in the matter of bank charges. As you are beginning to suspect, and as I have tried to point out, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that they will.

 

On the plus side, the fact that it was agreed that the OFT DOES have jurisprudence...

 

Think you meant jurisdiction. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did, thank you. Brain all over the place today, blame the DLA tribunal. :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did, thank you. Brain all over the place today, blame the DLA tribunal. :-(

 

 

sub


You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ollie Gunnar Solskjaer ;)


.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think, with respect, that the point you are missing is that, whilst the UTCCR (and indeed the law in general) affords the consumer significant protection it still allows a man to drive a hard bargain. What is required though is that the consumer knows he has agreed to a hard bargain. All this goes to the very heart of the question of whether the UTCCR will prove to be of assistance to the consumer in the matter of bank charges. As you are beginning to suspect, and as I have tried to point out, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that they will.

We'll have to wait and see, but I still don't see how they could get past the not individually negotiated part. It's one thing to drive a hard bargain, it's another to be placed with a fait accompli, where you have a choice to sign on the dotted line or... sign on the dotted line elsewhere where they will impose virtually identical terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ollie Gunnar Solskjaer ;)
I had to google that to get it. :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to imaginative ;)


.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...