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

£152.00 charge!


shane247
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5335 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

I just logged into my Natwest online banking account and went to view my statements and there was an option to read a 'pre-advice note'. This is what it said..

 

Details of the account charges for the period 1 August 2009 to 28 August 2009.

 

The total account charge we will take from account number xxxxxxxx on 30 September will be £152.00.

 

Breakdown of charge.

 

Unpaid Item Fees for the period 1 August 2009 to 28 August 2009.

 

The unpaid item fees accrued on account number xxxxxxxx are £152.00.

 

Items that have generated these fees:

 

4 Aug 2009 D/D Paypal 6.12

7 Aug 2009 D/D Vodafone 9.78

14 Aug 2009 D/D Paypal Payment 6.12

14 Aug 2009 D/D Vodafone 9.78

 

The amount we will take from account number xxxxxxxx on 30 September will be £152.00.

 

 

 

:eek: I'm a part time college student and this account is overdrawn by £60 already so if this happens then i'm well and truly you-know-whatted.

 

Is there anything i can do at all?

Any help is appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this won't really be considered help, but I would seriously consider changing banks when this is all resolved!

 

I know these charges are technically not legal however there are banks where you would have been a lot better off in this situation.

 

For example I bank with HSBC and for those 4 transactions occuring where there were no funds available, HSBC would have charged me £0.00. Any amount £10 or under is not charged and any above is never charged at more than the amount itself, up to £25 max per single transaction.

 

There are more lenient banks out there (while we wait for these practices to be reviewed for once and for all).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi shane247

 

Well its just that I had just over £500 in return direct debit charges applied to

 

My account in June of this year.....

 

So I first rang my local branch to ask for the return of the said charges and

 

They said no.

 

I then rang customer relations to complain and I said that I will take natwest to

 

Court if I don’t get the charges refunded...

 

They said no

 

So I then rang mr cunnane who is the manager of customer relations and I told him

 

That I would like the charges refunded to my account and that I will not stop

 

Complaining and that I would if necessary go to the next level until I get the charges refunded.

 

Three days later the £500 was refunded to my account :-)

 

hope this helps

 

regards william.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could point out that, in light of the current court case, thier recent revision of charges appears to be an admission that the charges were too high.

 

If you don't want to mention the court case just say how was it that £30-£38 covered thier costs before but now £5-£15 does? Not sure if this will work I'm just thinking damage limitation here.

 

Does anyone know if it would do any good to point out that, if the full charges are taken, the OP still won't be able to pay (as is a student) and so this will snowball?

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could point out that, in light of the current court case, thier recent revision of charges appears to be an admission that the charges were too high.

Which it isn't and I have said on the thread on the NatWest forum about the reduction of charges. It is a very good poker hand.

If you don't want to mention the court case just say how was it that £30-£38 covered thier costs before but now £5-£15 does? Not sure if this will work I'm just thinking damage limitation here.

Again, the banks' reduction in the cost of things is a commercial decision.

Does anyone know if it would do any good to point out that, if the full charges are taken, the OP still won't be able to pay (as is a student) and so this will snowball?

A student does not get maintenance charges, guaranteed card payments or referral charges since they are exempt from the account, only unpaid items.

.

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

"You could point out that, in light of the current court case, thier recent revision of charges appears to be an admission that the charges were too high.

Which it isn't and I have said on the thread on the NatWest forum about the reduction of charges. It is a very good poker hand."

 

I'm a pretty sure the banks first line of defence on this issue was that the charges reflected thier costs. Thier cost cannot be £38 one second then £5 the next.

 

I could be getting mixed up here as obviously I'm most familiar with Nationwide and they stick to thie arguement but I believe other banks said this initially.

Edited by indebtstudent

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"You could point out that, in light of the current court case, thier recent revision of charges appears to be an admission that the charges were too high.

Which it isn't and I have said on the thread on the NatWest forum about the reduction of charges. It is a very good poker hand."

 

I'm a pretty sure the banks first line of defence on this issue was that the charges reflected thier costs. Thier cost cannot be £38 one second then £5 the next.

 

I could be getting mixed up here as obviously I'm most familiar with Nationwide and they stick to thie arguement but I believe other banks said this initially.

 

The banks' argument is that the charges are part of the main bargain of the contract(OFT test cases defence) and not about price. The fact, as we both know, is that I do not go into a bank to open account based on what would happen if i went over my overdraft or if things went wrong, I go there for anj account that gives me services such as a cheque book, overdraft, the ability to pay in and take out, and perhaps a card. On that style of argument they will lose.

.

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

That's thier argument now but didn't that only surface when the test case got underway?

 

I agree with the last bit you said, in particular as has been mentioned before we can't exactly cross out the parts of the terms and conditions we disagree with.

 

Anyway what can we suggest to help the OP - is there any value in laying out the facts ie if you charge me £152, which I cannot pay, this will never end?

 

Put like that it does make them sound very unreasonable (shocker)

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They might want to argue that the breach does not fit the crime and if it is a first offence they MIGHT get some of it refunded as a GOGW, however, likelihood is standard reclaim process.

 

 

.

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

Total value of transactions £31.80, even if they had paid them this far outweighs the £152 they are charging.

 

I concur with my learned friend, make the best argument you can and initiate a claim if this fails. Beg, borrow or steal (no literally!!!) to ensure you have the money to cover the charges otherwise the spiral will get worse.

 

In future cancel a payment if it won't be paid, the most I have seen a non finance company charge for a direct debit which has ben returned TWICE is £6.

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you can and no its not illegal. You may have a problem if its in the contract that you pay by DD. Many companioes charge more if you don't pay by DD, or charge an additional fee if you don't pay by DD (much to my annoyance). However as I'm sure you've learned one returned payment more than wipes out any saving...

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it involves going online and clicking cancel!!!!

 

Well that's one way to do it, or you can go into the branch, or write to the bank, or ask the company to cancel them.

 

Best practice is to cancel with the bank AND the organisation, most banks allow you to do it online or by phone but I daresay there's one or two who insist you go in and sign to cancel it.

 

By whatever means you cancel with the bank the company can't claim the payments anymore. BTW the companies are required to notifiy you when the payments are coming out, if they didn't do that then they aren't complying with the direct debit guarantee.

 

Some companies charge more for people who don't pay by DD but, if the problem is about keeping control of payments, some people find this a price worth paying. I only have DD's with companies who've proven they are trustworthy to my satisfaction, with the notable exception of Virgin Media as I don't fancy a court case.

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...