Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks all. Think I have come to a plan dx please correct me if I am getting you wrong but I am going to go down the route you suggest. simply stop payments for now until I receive a DN and it gets marked on my file. Then contact each lender and start making token payments to each one. i then assume most like they will then at some point sell to DCA. Once they are sold I’ll be coming back to see how best I deal with it.  Let me know if I am making some error in judgment or missing anything with my plan 
    • while politicians trough at subsidised bars and canteens, claim thousaands in expenses while letting out their properties and tories vote to leave UK children hungry That ALL needs to stop
    • J&P Credit Solutions are specialists on debt recovery. Either way they seem to be swapping between the JandP and IDR whatever their exact definitions are.
    • Primary and secondary teachers are supporting pupils with their own money, buying food and warm clothing. Eight in 10 primary teachers in England spending own money to help pupils | Education | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Increasing numbers of children hungry and lack adequate clothing, with two-thirds of secondary teachers also supporting pupils  
    • I googled "prescribed disability" to see where it is defined for the purposes of S.92. I found HMRC's definition, which included deafness. I don't  think anyone is saying deaf people cant drive, though! digging deeper,  Is it that “prescribed disability” (for the purposes of S.88 and S.92) is defined at: The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations consolidate with amendments the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996...   ….. and sleep apnoea / increased daytime sleepiness is NOT included there directly as a condition but only becomes prescribed under “liability to sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting” (but falling asleep isn't fainting!), so it isn’t defined there as a “prescribed disability”  Yet, under S.92(2)(b) RTA 1988 “ any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of a licence to be a source of danger to the public" So (IMHO) sleep apnea / daytime sleepiness MIGHT be a prescribed disability, but only if it causes likelihood of "driving being a source of danger to the public" : which is where meeting / not meeting the medical standard of fitness to drive comes into play?  
  • 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...