Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • next time dont upload 19 single page pdfs use the sites listed on upload to merge them into one multipage pdf.. we aint got all day to download load single page files 2024-01-15 DBCLegal SAR.pdf
    • If you have not kept the original PCN you can always send an SAR to Excel and they have to send you all the info they have on you within a month. failure to do so can lead to you being able to sue them for their failure.......................................nice irony.
    • Thank you and well done  for posting up all those notices it must have have taken you ages.. The entrance sign is very helpful since the headline states                    FREE PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY in capitals with not time limit mentioned. Underneath and not in capitals they then give the actual times of parking which would not be possible to read when driving into the car park unless you actually stopped and read them. Very unlikely especially arriving at 5.30 pm with possibly other cars behind. On top of that the Notice goes on to say that the terms and conditions are inside the car park so the entrance sign cannot offer a contract it is merely an offer to treat. Inside the car park the signs are mostly too high up and the font size too small to be able to read much of their signs. DCBL have not shown a single sign that can be read on their SAR. Although as they show photographs which were taken the year after your alleged breach we do not know what the signs were when you were there. For instance the new signs showed the charge was then £100 whereas your PCN was for £85. Who knows, when you were there perhaps the time was for 3 hours. They were asked to produce  planning permission which would have been necessary for the ANPR cameras alone and didn't do so. Nor did they provide a copy of the contract-DCBL  "deeming them disproportionate or not relevant to the substantive issues in the dispute" How arrogant and untruthful is that? The contract and planning permission could be vital to having the claim thrown out. I can find no trace of planning permission for the signs nor the cameras on Tonbridge Council planning portal. and the contract of course is highly relevant since some contracts advise the parking rouges that they cannot take motorists to Court. I understand that Europarks are now running that car park which means that nexus didn't  last long before being thrown out.....................................
    • Hi,   I am not sure if I posted this already here but I don't think I did. I attach a judgement that raises very interesting points IMO. Essentially EVRi did their usual non attendance that we normally see, however the judge (for the first time I've seen in these threads) dismissed the notice and awarded me judgement by default because their notice misses the "confirmation of compliance" paragraph. in and out in 3 minutes (aside from the chat at the end with the judge about his problems with evri) Redacted - evri CPR loss.pdf
    • Just to update this. I did apply to strikeout and they did not attend the hearing. I won by defualt and the hearing lasted 5 minutes (court only allocated 15). The judge simply explained that the only matter he was really considering is if the Defendant could have any oral evidence to defend the claim. However he said he had decided that based on their defence, and their misunderstanding of law, and their non attendence he did not think they had any reasonsable chance so he awarded me SJ + Costs on the claim form + the strikeout fee. Luckily when I sent the defendant the order I woke up the next day to a wire trasnfer for the full sum of the judgement
  • 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

GMAC what can i claim back ?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4028 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

you can claim it all back all the way back to 1995 including any interest they have applied to the charges which they have taken from you.

 

Start reading the forum. Find out how to do it. It's not complicated. Get started now

 

letter from gmac

 

i note your decision to decline the offer we have put forward in respect of fees should you pursue legal action you need to inform fos 020 7093 5500

to pursue your complaint

it is our policy to defend cases that go to court

i would like to point out that the payment of £566 .69 was not an offer but is your entitlement arising from the FSA to redress scheme in respect of those fees that deemed unfair complaint associate gmac frc .co.uk

 

my fees go back to 2001 to 2008 arrears charges taken to court for arrears which were at £2000 pounds at one point

 

dd fee as bank no bank accont and £50 pounds a month arrears fees

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

i note your decision to decline the offer we have put forward in respect of fees should you pursue legal action you need to inform fos 020 7093 5500

to pursue your complaint

it is our policy to defend cases that go to court

i would like to point out that the payment of £566 .69 was not an offer but is your entitlement arising from the FSA to redress scheme in respect of those fees that deemed unfair complaint associate gmac frc .co.uk

 

my fees go back to 2001 to 2008 arrears charges taken to court for arrears which were at £2000 pounds at one point

 

dd fee as bank no bank accont and £50 pounds a month arrears fees

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Wishboneash

 

For me, it's not clear what their letter has said. Can you post the actual letter please - concealing any vitals? Thanks.

 

Also, please clarify what you are trying to do and what you've actually claimed for. Do you have a thread for it?

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi i took out a morgage from halifax 1997 then went to gmac because of arrears GMAC 20001 for 74,000

 

2002 i was charged 15 pounds none direct debit 50 pounds arears fees At one point they went to £2700 and taken to court 2003 ( suspended order ) i went on a intrest only for a while these fees were added to the loan

the letter from Gmac

as follow i sent them a letter requesting my fees back i went through i claim company xxx but they are usless

 

letter from

gmac rfc i note your decision to decline the offer we have put forward in respect of fees should you pursue legal action you need to inform foslink3.gif 020 7093 5500

to pursue your complaint

it is our policy to defend cases that go to court

i would like to point out that the payment of £566 .69 was not an offer but is your entitlement arising from the FSA to redress scheme in respect of those fees that deemed unfair complaint associate gmac frc .co.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank for you letter

i note your desion to decline the offer we have put forward in respect of the fees

 

it is our policy to defend cases that go to court and this being the case you may wish to contact the FOS for impartial advice

i wuld like to point out the payment of £566.59 was not an offer but your entitlement arising from fsa authority redres scheme in respect of those fees that they deemed unfair

 

yours faihfully

compaints associate

 

nonthing about charges going on the loan no 8% either

 

i have some of my old statements

not sure what the other charges were when i moved to ge capitol

when mortgage was closed

 

thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Wishbone

 

Have you read any of the threads regarding claiming back mortgage related fees? The ones with template letters etc? If not that's a great place to start.

 

What do you wish to do?

 

The way I see it, there are two main bases for mortgage related claims

a) Regulatory directives (FSA redress for unjust arrears charging)

e.g. Arrears charges refunds, MEAF overcharging etc

b) Statutory - Refund of unjustifiable and disproportionate charges

 

Both are recoverable but a) is paid much quicker as the FSA can fine and shut the lender down if they misbehave too much. To my knowlegde they have fined a number of lenders over the years but never shut any one down.

 

It appears that b) however, is only paid if you either threaten legal action or actually initiate it.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Guys,

 

Reading this thread with great interest.

 

Have any of you read the FSA's final notice to GMAC? It details the charges that the FSA deemed unfair. I've attached a pdf copy of the FSA's final notice here for those interested. See para. 4.17 at page 9.

 

It appears that the FSA did not deem the £50 Arrears Fee unfair. The unfair fees were the (1) Direct Debit fee; (2) the Solicitor's Instruction Fee and (3) the impostion and calculation of the Early Redemption Fee.

 

It is astonishing in the extreme that the FSA have not held the £50 per month Arrears Fee, particularly in view of the fact that the FSA found that the accounts in arrears were supposed to be review once every 2 months, hence, the month £50 Arrears fee charge means that it cost you £100 for a GMAC member of staff to look at the account - but worse - GMAC staff didn't review the accounts anyway. See para. 4.14 of the FSA's final notice.

 

Anyway, I would like to put out a request to all current and ex GMAC customers. If any of you have a copy of their published fees Tariffs dated any time between 2004 and 2009, could you post up a copy. I'd be very grateful.

 

I especially would like to know how much they charged for the Solicitor's Instruction Fee during those years. Please note that the GMAC Solicitor's Instruction Fee is a different charge from the legal charges that the solicitor's also stuffed everyone for.

 

Manythanks

Supersleuth

FSA Final Notice - gmac_rfc.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

]Hi - this might be of use to start with, sure Ive got those terms somewhere, will have a sort out :)

 

[ATTACH]18744[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]18745[/ATTACH]

 

Hi Campari2,

 

Thank you soooo very much for this and for your quick response to the request for info.

 

Very kind regards

Supersleuth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - I probably asked this question before somewhere but this thread looks more relevant - so - i had a mortg. with gmac that was sold to oakwood under the same terms etc, and its operated on those terms - therefore why doesnt the ruling of fsa apply to my contract? any ideas:?

 

Hi Campari2

 

I know that Bustthematrix has already responded to you on this question, but I have recently noticed the following which proves that BTM is right.

 

See Treasury Select Committee where Ms Titcomb of the FSA says at para. 9:

 

9. In October 2009, we fined GMAC £2.8 million for failing to treat their customers fairly. We also secured redress of up to £7.7 million (plus interest) for over 46,000 mortgage customers. 16,712 of the 46,000 customers involved in the redress programme remain live in the GMAC-RFC balance sheet and securitised accounts as at 31 March 2010. The loans made to 429 of the 46,000 customers involved in the redress programme were sold to Bradford & Bingley.

 

So if 16,712 of the GMAC customers remain "live" with GMAC, it means that the other 29,288 GMAC customers are with other lenders BUT they are still part of the redress programme. E.g., Ms Titcomb specifically identifies 429 of those as being with B&B.

 

Here's the link to Ms Titcomb's written reply testimony to the Treasury Select Committee.

 

House of Commons - Treasury - Written Evidence

 

Hope it helps

Supersleuth

Link to post
Share on other sites

S/S - thank you. I keep coming back to this issue and will write again to the FSA/FOS and hope for a favourable response next time. Meantime, my goal is to get the legal costs removed for an action that was taken prematurely by the lender, and to get the suspended repo removed.

 

I believe both of these issues would have to be handled by the court and thus i would simply incur more legal costs of both mine and theirs unless FOS look at this for me. I had a good case but was advised to drop my defence by the community law centre on grounds of potential costs to me - but the matter of oakwood not following the pre-action protocols was not advanced and furthermore this lender has since capitalised said arrears along with the legal costs and thus increased our mortgage by some ten thousand pounds - grrrrr - why the **** didn't they do that in the first place and save us all those legal fees?? - I kinda think that as it has been rubber stamped thru court I'm on a loser here. any thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
It appears that the FSA did not deem the £50 Arrears Fee unfair. The unfair fees were the (1) Direct Debit fee; (2) the Solicitor's Instruction Fee and (3) the impostion and calculation of the Early Redemption Fee.

The FSA may not have found such fees to be unfair, but that does not mean they are fair. This is extremely important. It is in fact similiar to the OFT saying they would not challenge Credit Fees of £12 or less so all the Card Companies reduced their fees to £12 or thereabouts and claimed they were valid as the OFT approved them.

 

But the OFT did not explicity approve them at £12 or less and that was never the point. The point is that they were not reflective of i) their true costs and ii) their supposed losses. They were therefore unjust and is why Card Companies continue to refund these fees even where banks (for personal current accounts) won't (for the time being).

 

To me, unless a lender can properly justify a charge, it is unfair and subject to being reclaimed one way or another.

Edited by bustthematrix
Clarity

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
My previous mortgage was with Gmac and after a few weeks of negotiation they have agreed to repay me nearly £400 of excess charges.

Non Payment by D/D Fees, Arrears Charges and Redem Admin Fee are the fees I have been refunded + 8% interest.

 

 

gmac are refusing to pay me the redem admin fee, what was your arguement here? they said they are costs which i signed up for in when the mortgage was taken out

HALIFAX: PRE 6 year claim 1991-2006 WON 21/3/07 £2616

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £800.22

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £325.75

AQUA - MCOL 2/3/07 £172.79

ABBEY - MCOL 2/3/07 £261.37

HALIFAX VISA - WON default removal 19/3/07

PARAGON - LBA 11/3/07

CABOT -SAR 26/2/07

ROCKWELL -OFFER 20/2/07

GMAC -MCOL 7/2/07 £189.85

WESTCOT - SAR 25/2/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

i am battling with gmac aswell and stuck at present. they are nightmare. i want £370 off them but they have offered me 180 as gesture of goodwill.

I claimed charges back from them in 2005, and I am doing it again. They have however stated I signed a consent order indicating that I would not pursue any further claims against them. What can my argument be here?

HALIFAX: PRE 6 year claim 1991-2006 WON 21/3/07 £2616

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £800.22

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £325.75

AQUA - MCOL 2/3/07 £172.79

ABBEY - MCOL 2/3/07 £261.37

HALIFAX VISA - WON default removal 19/3/07

PARAGON - LBA 11/3/07

CABOT -SAR 26/2/07

ROCKWELL -OFFER 20/2/07

GMAC -MCOL 7/2/07 £189.85

WESTCOT - SAR 25/2/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Ask for a copy of the consent order.

2. Examine it to be sure it covers only the past charges you had claimed at the time and not future charges.

3. Even if you signed it, it may not be valid. The charges you claimed back in 2005 would not necessarily be the same ones that the OFT and now the FSA have ordered them to refund.

 

It's not so black and white. Settlement offer letters usually will require you to accept that your complaint has been fully resolved and you won't bring the matter up again.

 

However it's impossible for this to cover future breaches which you/they don't even know about at the time!!!

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Ask for a copy of the consent order.

2. Examine it to be sure it covers only the past charges you had claimed at the time and not future charges.

3. Even if you signed it, it may not be valid. The charges you claimed back in 2005 would not necessarily be the same ones that the OFT and now the FSA have ordered them to refund.

 

It's not so black and white. Settlement offer letters usually will require you to accept that your complaint has been fully resolved and you won't bring the matter up again.

 

However it's impossible for this to cover future breaches which you/they don't even know about at the time!!!

 

hi

thanks

 

1. i have emailed them so hopefully i get soon

2. on the consent form it states i agree to not pursue them for any further claims. if i took further they would highglight that they believe my behaviour to be unreasonable.

3. the form does not list the charges, just 'claims' so that could mean everything couldnt it

 

will i accept their offer or continue

HALIFAX: PRE 6 year claim 1991-2006 WON 21/3/07 £2616

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £800.22

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £325.75

AQUA - MCOL 2/3/07 £172.79

ABBEY - MCOL 2/3/07 £261.37

HALIFAX VISA - WON default removal 19/3/07

PARAGON - LBA 11/3/07

CABOT -SAR 26/2/07

ROCKWELL -OFFER 20/2/07

GMAC -MCOL 7/2/07 £189.85

WESTCOT - SAR 25/2/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

went through a claims company offered two payments 459 and 559 my cost was over £3500 65 pounds a a month 50 pounds arrears and 15 non dd

 

the ombudsman said this is fine because of my eractic payments from me did not budget for car repairs road tax insurance other bills etc short time work though made payments as much as i could was under that much stress

that gmac informed them that they where getting erractic payments from me

 

any thoughts any one thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

???

what this all about?

 

have you a previous thread with the history of your troubles.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

mine went to ombudsman who told me to take offer because of erractic payments was charged over £3500 65 pounds a month one momth my car engine blew and nnede a replacement engine as i work shifts no public transport put me in arrears again

 

has any one used a mortgage claim company bad mortgages

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...