Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Bank Charges


Ma Griff
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5311 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

A bit of background first -

 

My daughter is a single parent who has a 6 year old son with disabilities. He receives DLA and she receives Carers Allowance. He does not attend school at present because of his disabilities so she is educating him at home. The only income is their benefits.

 

My daughter recently discovered that her bank account was nearly £400 overdrawn, when it should not have been overdrawn at all. She went into the bank and found out that this was because of bank changes, which had all been taken out in one big lump. It seems that a company called Lowell Portfolio tried several times a day, over the space of two or three days, to remove money from her account by direct debit. As there was only a matter of a couple of pounds left in her account, these claims were rejected and the bank charged her for each rejected attempt.

 

The thing is though, although my daughter does have some debts, she has never given this company permission to remove money from her account, she has never set up a direct debit agreement with them.

 

The bank say that they cannot prove that she did not set up the direct debit so they will only refund part of the charges they made.

 

The charges have caused my daughter and my grandson great hardship. They have been without money for the past few weeks and when my grandsons DLA goes in, this will only help to clear some of the overdraft, it will not be money that can be used and so the problem will continue because bills will have to be paid and there will not be money in to cover them, and also she will not be able to buy food etc.

 

I have tried to help as much as I can but I do not have money to spare so I am very little help. She managed to get a crisis loan but this was only £30 so that she could buy some food. She has had to go and stay with her dad for the past two weeks, just so that she and my little grandson can eat, but he isn't well off either so it is a strain on his finances as well.

 

So, I have several questions and I pray that someone can help us.

 

How can a company set up a direct debit without the permission of the holder of the bank account?

 

How can we prove my daughter did not give permission for the company to attempt to withdraw money from her account?

 

How can we get the bank charges back in full as quickly as possible before the situation gets worse?

 

The bank involved is Natwest.

Edited by Ma Griff
Adding information
Link to post
Share on other sites

My initial feeling is what the hell have Lowell Portfolio got to do with the account or any of the OP's daughter's financial dealings?

If the answer is nothing whatsoever then it is a fraud case.

.

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

Lowell Portfolio are a debt collection agency- what has your daughter had from them?

 

For a start and as a matter of extreme urgency, I would advise your daughter on Monday to get a BASIC account with another bank unconnected with her current one and make sure that all future benefit payments are paid into her new account.

 

They will keep taking anything they can get out of her old one.

 

Ask you daughter to come on here because we need more details of the background to all this before we can give constructive advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This needs some nuclear advice from the CAG big guns - and fast.

We need the OP to give us some more information first. To be honest, I did see the thread yesterday but didn't see enough info to give advice.

.

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

Where did Lowells get your daughters bank account number from?

 

has she had any contact from Lowells before?

 

Who are they collecting money for?

 

A catalog company or what?

 

Ask you daugther to collect all letters about this from whoever and Lowells. We need to get to the bottom of this.

 

Contact Natwest and cancel whatever direct debit Lowells have got and tell them this was set up fraudulently.

 

Come back soon and let us know what Ive asked- better still get you daughter on here. We can help but need your help to get to the bottom of this and as fast as possible before this escalates any further.

 

Both Lowells and Natwest need to be slapped down and fast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We need the OP to give us some more information first. To be honest, I did see the thread yesterday but didn't see enough info to give advice.

 

 

In which case, just a bit of support for the OP would have been nice, she must be terrified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In which case, just a bit of support for the OP would have been nice, she must be terrified.

 

Well, she has the support of her mother which is more than some people have so I am sure her mother will come back with more information when she has asked her daughter and that is when we can offer help.

 

To be honest, I did start to reply but because the words "LOWELL PORTFOLIO" is mentioned and the paranoia around signatures here on CAG, meant that the advise I would have had would have been shot down in flames. In the end, I chose that best form of an answer was nothing because without the information of why they are involved it is impossible for me to give any adequate advice.

.

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 all

 

My daughter has a couple of debts with catalogue companies, she got things for my grandson for Christmas but then failed to keep up with the payments (I've already given her a serious talking to about this). Lowell have sent her some letters asking for payment. I think she has ignored them on the whole (another serious talking to from me).

 

She has never given Lowell Portfolio permission to take money from her bank, thats for sure. I don't know how they got her bank details, thats one of the mysteries in all this.

 

She has already contacted DWP and they are sending my grandsons DLA by giro but she hasn't sorted out her Carers Allowance yet.

 

She has told the bank that she didn't set up a direct debit with the company but the bank (even though they have said themselves that they consider the company to be of 'dubiuos reputation) say that they have no proof that she didn't set up a direct debit, so they will only refund part of the charges they took out. Seems very strange to me, surely if they can't prove she didn't set up a direct debit, they should be able to prove it if she did (which she didn't), or can anyone just tell a bank a direct debit has been set up and take money out of an account, without having proof that they have the account holders permission?

 

She is at her wits end about it all. She knows she was a fool in the first place to run up the catalogue bills but she just wanted to make sure her son didn't miss out at Christmas, and then realised she couldn't afford to pay it all. A tough lesson to learn.

 

Thank you for all the replies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

 

My daughter has a couple of debts with catalogue companies, she got things for my grandson for Christmas but then failed to keep up with the payments (I've already given her a serious talking to about this). Lowell have sent her some letters asking for payment. I think she has ignored them on the whole (another serious talking to from me).

 

She has never given Lowell Portfolio permission to take money from her bank, thats for sure. I don't know how they got her bank details, thats one of the mysteries in all this.has she payed anything to them by card or cheque? at all?

have they kept the details and tried to help themselves.

 

She has already contacted DWP and they are sending my grandsons DLA by giro but she hasn't sorted out her Carers Allowance yet.get her to sort as soon as poss.

 

She has told the bank that she didn't set up a direct debit with the company but the bank (even though they have said themselves that they consider the company to be of 'dubiuos reputation) say that they have no proof that she didn't set up a direct debit, so they will only refund part of the charges they took out. Seems very strange to me, surely if they can't prove she didn't set up a direct debit, they should be able to prove it if she did (which she didn't), or can anyone just tell a bank a direct debit has been set up and take money out of an account, without having proof that they have the account holders permission?do the bank not have a copy of DD mandate,not sure how it works maybe yourbank will look back in.:)can she now instruct the bank not to allow any payment to them?

 

She is at her wits end about it all. She knows she was a fool in the first place to run up the catalogue bills but she just wanted to make sure her son didn't miss out at Christmas, and then realised she couldn't afford to pay it all. A tough lesson to learn.

 

 

Thank you for all the replies.

 

SAM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again

 

I will check some more details tomorrow and let you know but as I understand it, she has never paid them anything, she just ignored them.

 

By what I can tell, from what the bank have said so far, they presumably don't have a copy of a mandate, otherwise I would have thought they would say they have proof that she set up a DD, rather than saying they can't prove she didn't (if you see what I mean), it's all very confusing :confused:. I don't know much about how these things work either but I am beginning to think that they work in whichever way the bank wants them to work at the time.

 

She is still staying at her dads at the moment but once she gets back I am going into the bank with her to tell them we would like to see the proof of a DD mandate. At least the bank have stopped the mysterious DD so they shouldn't be able to do it again.

 

Pam

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK- get the details of all the catalog debts.

 

The plan is to make them prove they have a right to collect- you can do this by send a request for a copy of the credit agreement under section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act.

 

This is the law that sets out the rights and duties of creditors and borrowers.

 

They have to provide or they are going to be in deep trouble.

 

Problem for them is, catalog companies never keep copies of credit agreements...so Lowells is going to be in very deep water.

 

We call them the Leeds Losers on here!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again

 

I will check some more details tomorrow and let you know but as I understand it, she has never paid them anything, she just ignored them.thinking,as it has been known for them to take payments and claim that it was arranged over the phone.

can you find out if the catalouge had ger bank details and past them on.

these cretins have got the details from somewhere:mad:

 

By what I can tell, from what the bank have said so far, they presumably don't have a copy of a mandate, otherwise I would have thought they would say they have proof that she set up a DD, rather than saying they can't prove she didn't (if you see what I mean), it's all very confusing :confused:. I don't know much about how these things work either but I am beginning to think that they work in whichever way the bank wants them to work at the time.

 

She is still staying at her dads at the moment but once she gets back I am going into the bank with her to tell them we would like to see the proof of a DD mandate. At least the bank have stopped the mysterious DD so they shouldn't be able to do it again.

well they have stopped it,and presume they will be told that under no circumstances is another to be set up.

 

but she still needs that money back,all of it:mad:

find out as much as you can about contact with lowell.

 

and get them to bloody answer.

am fuming over this.:-x

 

 

Pam

SAM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would happily rip all their arms and legs off, including the Banks.

 

So:

 

1) Natwest think Lowells are of "dubious reputation"

 

(Thus admitting that they should have known better than to give your daughter's money away.)

 

2) They have agreed to refund "part" of the charges

 

(thus admitting that theyve made a big mistake and should really refund the lot but are too mean spirited, but will do when push comes to shove)

 

and

 

3) Natwest admit that they dont have any evidence of a DD mandate.

 

(Thus admitting they should have told Lowells to "do one" as soon as they appeared)

Edited by noomill060
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would happily rip all their arms and legs off, including the Banks.

 

So:

 

1) Natwest think Lowells are of "dubious reputation"

makes you think if this situation as arose before?

2) They have agreed to refund "part" of the charges

(thus admitting that they should really refund the lot)

defo

 

 

and

 

3) Natwest admit that they dont have any evidence of a DD mandate.(Thus admitting they should have told Lowells to "do one" as soon as they appeared)

or at least checked with the account holder first.

 

 

half refund as a goodwill gesture is not good enough.

 

lowlifes are 100% to blame here.:-x

this has to be reported.

how much more can they get away with.

 

ma griff.

assure your daughter that she will get all the help that she needs here in sorting these ******* out.

 

SAM:pLOWELL DETESTER

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would happily rip all their arms and legs off, including the Banks.

 

So:

 

1) Natwest think Lowells are of "dubious reputation"

I won't comment on this part of your post ;)

(Thus admitting that they should have known better than to give your daughter's money away.)

 

2) They have agreed to refund "part" of the charges

 

(thus admitting that theyve made a big mistake and should really refund the lot but are too mean spirited, but will do when push comes to shove)

That part is wrong, they have taken circumtances into consideration and the fact that it left her with hardly any money into consideration when refunding some charges. They aren't doing it because there is necessarily a mistake.

and

 

3) Natwest admit that they dont have any evidence of a DD mandate.

Have you read about AUDDIS? The DD provider would hold the mandate.

(Thus admitting they should have told Lowells to "do one" as soon as they appeared)

See above but I am sure things will become clearer with the post today.

.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...