Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You can counter a Judges's question on why you didn't respond by pointing out that any company that charges you with stopping at a zebra crossing is likely to be of a criminal mentality and so unlikely to cancel the PCN plus you didn't want to give away any knowledge you had at that time that could allow them to counteract your claim if it went to Court. There are many ways in which you can see off their stupid claim-you will see them in other threads  where our members have been caught by Met at other airports as well as Bristol.  Time and again they take motorists to Court for "NO Stopping" apparently completely forgetting that the have lost doing that because no stopping is prohibitory and cannot form a contract. Yet they keep on issuing PCNs because so many people just pay up . Crazy . You can see what chuckleheads they are when you read their Claim form which is pursuing you as the driver or the keeper. they don't seem to understand that on airport land because of the Bye laws, the keeper is never liable.   
    • luckily like this thread VCS/DCB(L) PCN spycar capture - PAPLOC Now claimform - no Stopping in Restricted Zone - Bristol Airport ***Claim Dismissed*** - Page 4 - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group although no on the crossing, same applies to you so WS time. there are numerous threads here on pedestrian crossing claimforms by VCS at Bristol and at other airports so use our enhanced google searchbox and find them. really a bad idea to vanish for SIX months and not been have reading up here.....................  
    • Not at all.  The onus is on them to ensure that their invoice respects the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability.  Which it can't as the area is covered by bye-laws. Spot on. Irrelevant as to whether you entered into a contract with VCS to pay them £100 if you didn't obey what was written on their silly signs. Who cares?  What about their ridiculous generic Particulars of Claim where they deliberately mix up driver and keeper. And where do they mention this?  You haven't shown us anything. Of course you have to prepare a Witness Statement and you'd better get on with it. This is the problem here - you've disappeared for months & months, haven't kept us updated and presumably haven't read other VCS threads.  That needs to change - now. Otherwise you will lose - simple as that. For a start - please upload the court order which fixes the hearing date plus plus where "VCS mentioned my initial defence was generic and clearly copied from the internet".  We're not mind readers.
    • New bank notes featuring King Charles III will enter circulation for the first time today - here are the codes of the very first printed.View the full article
  • 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

Supreme court rules


Consumer dude
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5242 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

  • Replies 360
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

What a travesty of justice. This is a disgrace. The Supreme Court? It's a stitch up. They are crooks! This is bent as hell. Is Mark Gander 'Bankfodder'? He said the Supreme Court had said so and so and that was fine (in the sense of that avenue is closed). You are a hero mate, but that isn't fine. You need to change the name of this site to 'Citizen Action Group' and we need to take back our country! :mad::mad::mad:

 

THIS IS ACTUALLY BAD FOR MY FECKING HEALTH!

Edited by renegotiation

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI

 

I've only read the brief note on the BBC news website so I don't understand why they reached this verdict

 

One thing I do know is that my claim against Barclays for unfair charges will now be rejected (which leaves me with an overdraft to battle against )

 

hey ho. I can't give them what I don't have.

 

I'll be watching with interest (no pun intended)

=================================================================

remember

 

the Sun is always shining, it's just that you can't see it sometimes

Link to post
Share on other sites

another question then - where there are cases before the court where part of the defence is that there are unfair charges included in the balance - what's the impact of this judgement?

=================================================================

remember

 

the Sun is always shining, it's just that you can't see it sometimes

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely nothing...the OFT have gone as far as they can on that legal point. If they ever thought they could win using the issues they did, when the banks hold the whole economy over a barrel, then they were kidding themselves.

 

A lot of desperate people out there that relied on this ruling are going to be heart broken and there are going to be a lot of red faces from promoters of getting your charges back from the banks. It's just ended up costing people more money and time.

 

Time to vote with your feet and invest in a fireproof mattress instead of bankers bonuses.

 

Up their own backsides and it just proves the law is an ass when it comes to common sense and consumer rights.

:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have pending claim with Lloyds and I guess they will now contact me to repay. A hearing in our favour would have have reduced the deby by over 50 %.

 

If I understand it correctly this means the banks are free to charge what they want for their services.

 

If this is the case then a law should be passed immediately to ensure that charges are appropriate to recover reasonable costs not as a revenue generator.

 

Obviously the Unfair Contract Terms Contract Act does not cover this but by the sound of it the Supreme Court had decided it is not possible to unravel the true cost of the banks products and services.

 

Given, I lost my job in August and not working this is a very poor outcome for me and got knows what I will do when they come calling.

 

Should i contact them or wait for them to come to me?

 

ST

RBS/Triton - Gone Away No CCA

RBS/Moorcroft - Gone way No CCA

RBS/AIC - Gone Away No CCA

RBS/Intrum - Gone Away No CCA

RBS/Regal - Gone Away

 

Cahoot/Link - CCA in Dispute

 

Capital One - Settled

 

Lloyds Bank - Awaiting Outcome from Supreme Court Hearing.

 

Lloyds Credit Credit - Repayment Plan

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what will happen now? Can we still try and get some money back? Does it count for financial hardship? Or am i just banging my head against a brick wall?

 

I feel like sending a mask and stripy jumper to the supreme court judges and the 7 banks and building society involved because that's all it amounts to...daylight robbery!!

 

I am absolutely gutted......and i still cant pay the charges they ask for...:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they say it's part of the 'service' then you should have the right to withold that payment if you are unhappy with it, not just have it stolen and then have to fight to get it back.

 

If only everyone would stop using the banks and withdraw their money where possible. Just for a day or so and then watch them panic when the share prices fall.

 

We'll just go back to being sheep again. I want to see queues like those at Northern Rock....I can but dream.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but lets look at this calmly, we now know the oft cannot asses the FAIRNESS of the charges, but lets go back to when we first started claiming our charges back, i for 1 never claimed unfairness on my court papers, i claimed under the fact that penalty charges where not enforcable under english contract law. is that not an option still????

TOTALLY debt free as of 2007, Fantastic,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not all over yet,

we need to see the full ruling, it still doesnt detract that the charges are a penalty, lets wait til we get the full text.

However, having said that, this Supreme court is just what the government wanted in place to hide their misgivings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Penalty charges as were were also dismissed very early on. Stitch up.

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...