Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • There is a letter offering  HM Court and Tribunals Mediation by telephone Does anyone use this? Its free
    • Morning guys As Bank suggested, I've now re-worked my POC to include details of my parcel's original loss,  miraculous rediscovery a month later and subsequent delivery, albeit having been opened and the contents removed. Grateful for your thoughts please, as (P2G having gone very quiet) I intend to initiate court proceedings against P2G tomorrow - 1 May. Claim Claim number: xxxxx Reference: P2G MAY 2024   Claimant xxxxx   Defendant Parcel2Go 1A Parklands Lostock Bolton BL6 4SD  Particulars of Claim The defendant failed to arrange for the safe delivery of the claimant's parcel containing 8 second-hand golf clubs (valued at £265) that was sent to a UK address using their delivery service (P2G Reference xxxxx). The defendant contracted Evri to deliver the parcel (Evri Reference xxxxx) and whilst Evri collected the parcel for delivery on 18 March 24 they then ‘misplaced’ it a day later, formally declaring it lost on 27 March. On 16 April they found it and delivered it on 17 April but, at some point before delivery, it had been opened and the contents removed . The defendant refuses to reimburse the claimant on the grounds that the claimant did not purchase their secondary insurance contract. The defendant seeks to exclude their liability in breach of section 57 Consumer Rights Act. The secondary insurance contract is also in breach of section 72. The claimant seeks reimbursement of £265, plus P2G fees of £9.10, plus postage costs for two first class letters to P2G of £2.70, plus court fees, plus interest. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from xxxxx to xxxxxx on £276.80 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx   Details of claim Amount claimed £276.80  
    • Odd one this, I recieved 2 notice's for the 18th and 19th April stating that I overstayed on Wigan Robin Retail Park. Permitted Minutes 180. They state I was there 355 minutes on the 18th and 388 minutes on the 19th. Both times I was there around 10 minutes getting my wife a brew from costa after dropping the kids off at school.  On both days I had passed through there a second time around 3pm, again to get a brew then left. Both notices have 2 images each, Entrance and exit.  This is the interesting bit. The Entrance images both timestamped actually clearly show I am exiting the retail park not entering it. And the exiting images they provided show me leaving the carpark after visiting a second time later in the day. In the attachments You'll see all 4 images show that I am exiting, none of them are of me entering. I understand most if not all that see this post won't know the area but if the look at the map link i gave you'll see the road I was on leading up to the main road. g24 ltd 1.pdfg24 ltd 1.pdf GoogleMap view of the road I am on in the entrance images I would have had dashcam footage but I since formatted the memory card. I tried recovery tools but I couldn't get the files back.  
    • An update: I just got another PCN. I get the feeling that someone in the residence is calling OPS, as it's dated for a few mins after I parked. I won't appeal of course. Interestingly, our cleaner was also parked but didn't get a PCN. I asked them why and apparently they're whitelisted. I did ask the MA if they could whitelist me and they said they couldn't. Clearly they decided not to tell the truth. Surely, this would resolve all of the issues entirely i.e. we'd keep non-residents from parking, whilst allowing for residents to park without issue? Also, could OPS now take me to court for both PCNs separately, or could it be one case?    
  • 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

100mel v Yorkshire Bank


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5265 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'm posting the following which I've just received from the FOS in response to my claim against Yorkshire

 

As outlined in our last letter, the bank recently told us that hereon in it proposed to 'defend' complaints that its default charges were illegal or unlawful as it did not believe that it had done anything wrong, nor that any refund of those fees was warranted. However, in response to our enquiries, the bank undertook to provide fuller details/evidence to support its position once it had obtained advice from its external legal advisers.

By way of further explanation the legal action brought by the OFT against the banks is to determine whether it has the power to investigate default fees levied on personal bank account customers. Whilst the judge found in favour of the OFT at the hearing in April 2008, the banks subsequently appealed that decision and the matter has been referred to the Court of Appeal. Because business accounts do not form part of the current OFT investigation, as industry regulator the FSA instructed banks to resume dealing with such complaints. It is for this reason that we have been able to consider complaints about default fees on business accounts.

I acknowledge that you contend the default fees levied by the bank are disproportionate to the cost it incurs of performing the task - your argument therefore appears to be that by acting in this manner the bank is charging a penalty and thus is breaching 'common law'. However, the gist of the bank's initial response is that at the OFT High Court hearing in April 2008, the judge expressed the opinion that such charges would not be considered to be penalties; it follows that the bank is of the opinion that it has not breached common law, nor done anything unlawful. Consequently, its argument appears to be that there is no requirement for what it charges to approximate to its costs.

Nevertheless, until we have received and considered the bank's submission in detail, it is not possible to assess properly the validity of those arguments. In the circumstances the purpose of our last letter was to make all those customers so affected aware of the bank's stance given the effect it undoubtedly will have on the resolution of their complaint. We will keep you updated as matters develop.

 

 

Mel

Link to post
Share on other sites

They clearly haven't heard of the Plain English Society.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I referred my claim for unreasonable penalty charges to the FOS back in April 08. To date Yorkshire Bank have refused point blank to settle or discuss with FOS

 

The latest response YB refers to the OFT case and says that the penalties have not breached common law nor have they done anything unlawful. I had asked them for a precise breakdown of its costs on such charges - the response is that it is not required to justify how they are calculated. It believes that the decision in the courts in relation to personal accounts applies equally to its business terms and conditions and that it has done nothing unlawful...........

 

I would be interested in anyone's comments on this or any other experiences with YB on business charges

 

Mel

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

After over 12 months I have finally had a response from FOS to my complaint on business charges from YB. In short they have refused to uphold this in any way. They make several points but say that charges are in line with terms and conditions

 

I can scan the letter if anyone is interested. It is looking as if business charges cannot be reclaimed unless someone knows differently

 

Any advice welcome

 

Mel

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So can anyone clarify what exactly is the current situation on business charge claims? Has anyone succeeded - particularly with YB and how did they do it

 

My response from FOS would seem to indicate that this route is a waste of time?

 

Mel

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Are you a sole trader?

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you a sole trader?

 

Hi

Caro, would being a sole trader make a difference...? As a sole trader myself (with no employees, not limited company), I would be interested to know how this might affect my case.

 

I'm very interested in new approaches to business claims...will it be possible to include these approaches 'in the alternative' when amending POCs after the SC judgement?

 

Need to sharpen all possible angles of attack.

 

Best,

Gandolfi

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...