Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi everyone, Apologies for bringing up the same topic regarding these individuals. I wish I had found this forum earlier, as I've seen very similar cases. However, I need your help in figuring out what to do next because we've involved our partners/resellers. I work as an IT Manager in a company outside of the UK. We acquired a license from a certified reseller (along with a support agreement) and also obtained training sessions from them. The issue arose when we needed to register two people for the training sessions, so we used an external laptop for the second user to keep up with the sessions for only a month. During this period, the laptop was solely used for the training sessions. After two weeks, my boss forwarded an email to me from Ms Vinces, stating that we are using illicit software from SolidWorks. Since this has never happened to me or anyone we know, I went into panic mode and had a meeting with her. During the meeting, we explained that we were using an external laptop solely for the training sessions and that the laptop had not been used within the company since her email. She informed us that for such cases, there are demos and special licenses (though our reseller did not mention these types of licenses when we made our initial purchase). She then mentioned that we had utilized products worth approximately €25k and presented us with two options: either pay the agreed value or acquire SolidWorks products. We expressed that the cost was too high, and our business couldn't support such expenses. I assured her that we would discuss the matter with the company board and get back to her. After the meeting, we contacted the company reseller from whom we purchased the license, explained the situation, and mentioned the use of an external laptop. They said they would speak to Maria and help mediate the situation. We hoped to significantly reduce the cost, perhaps to that of a 1-year professional license. Unfortunately, we were mistaken. The reseller mediated a value €2k less than what Maria had suggested (essentially, we would need to acquire two professional lifetime licenses and two years of support for a total of €23k). This amount is still beyond our means, but they insisted that the price was non-negotiable and wouldn't be reduced any further. The entire situation feels odd because she never provided us with addresses or other evidence (which I should have requested), and she's pressuring us to resolve the matter by the end of the month, with payment to be made through the reseller. This makes me feel as though the reseller is taking advantage of the situation to profit from it. Currently, we're trying to buy some time. We plan to meet with the reseller next week but are uncertain about how to proceed with them or whether we should respond to the mediator.
    • Thanks London  if I’ve read correctly the questionaire wants me to post his actual name on a public forum… is that correct.  I’ve only had a quick read so far
    • Plenty of success stories, also bear in mind not everyone updates the forum.  Overdale's want you to roll over and pay, without using your enshrined legal right to defend. make you wet yourself in fear that a solicitor will Take you to court, so you will pay up without question. Most people do just that,  but you are lucky that you have found this place and can help you put together a good defence. You should get reading on some other Capital One and Overdale's cases on the forum to get an idea of how it works.  
    • In both versions the three references to "your clients" near the end need to be changed to "you" or "your" as Alliance are not using solicitors, they have sent the LoC themselves. Personally I'd change "Dear ALLIANCE PARKING Litigation Dept" to "Dear Kev".  It would show you'd done your homework, looked up the company, and seen it's a pathetic one-man band rather than having any departments.  The PPCs love to pretend they have some official power and so you should be scared of them - showing you've sussed their sordid games and you're confident about fighting them undermines all this.  In fact that's the whole point of a snotty letter - to show you'd be big trouble for them if they did do court so better to drop you like a hot potato and go and pursue mugs who just give in instead. In the very, very, very, very unlikely case of Kev doing court, it'd be better that he didn't know in advance all the legal arguments you'd be using, so I'd heavily reduce the number of cards being played.
    • Thanx Londoneill get on to it this evening having a read around these forums I can’t seem to find many success stories using your methods. So how successful are these methods or am I just buying time for him  and a ccj will be inevitable in the end. Thanks another question is, will he have to appear at court..? I am not sure he has got it in him
  • 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 5222 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

Thanks for that excellent digest and contribution Mark.

 

I would add, though I am uncertain as yet, as to whether, as other posters have stated, Dunlop continues to apply.

 

Dunlop of course relates to 'penalties'. Insofar as I know this argument was dismissed early on in the High Court and this was affirmed in the CoA. Has the SC judgment done anything to insist that such charges are penalties and that Dunlop still applies. I'd hate to see anyone float this boat and get short shrift.

 

Anyone?

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

  • Replies 360
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks for that excellent digest and contribution Mark.

 

I would add, though I am uncertain as yet, as to whether, as other posters have stated, Dunlop continues to apply.

 

Dunlop of course relates to 'penalties'. Insofar as I know this argument was dismissed early on in the High Court and this was affirmed in the CoA. Has the SC judgment done anything to insist that such charges are penalties and that Dunlop still applies. I'd hate to see anyone float this boat and get short shrift.

 

Anyone?

 

Penalties still applies to the older contracts where the banks did actually use the term 'penalty fee', or 'additional administration charges/fees'. Ruling yesterday included reference, as did Smith's Appeal ruling. Smith ruled out the later use of common law, except where the UTCCRs don't protect the consumer. It's all down to the wording of the contract... hence why most banks reissued their T&Cs when the balloon went up.

I'm often a sarcastic SOB and speak my mind (and I don't do PC at all), but I have a laugh as I go. I won't be intimidated, and I don't take prisoners... so live with it, or go get yourself a humour implant :p

 

Copy of Law book from Amazon…£19.95, Refund Request stamp...32p, LBA stamp...also 32p, Court fees...£750.00,

The look on the bank's barrister's face, when they lost the '£25k Mother-of-all unfair charges' cases...(plus his £8k+ of costs)... Priceless!

 

The legal bit: These are my opinions and own view of legislation and process. I accept no liability whatsoever for any outcome as a result of anyone invoking any or all of the advice given - clarify your own personal stuation with an insured legal professional.

Saying that, I've used these methods against many of these corporate crooks:evil: and won hands down!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SurlyBonds

 

Penalties still applies to the older contracts where the banks did actually use the term 'penalty fee', or 'additional administration charges/fees'. Ruling yesterday included reference, as did Smith's Appeal ruling. Smith ruled out the later use of common law, except where the UTCCRs don't protect the consumer. It's all down to the wording of the contract... hence why most banks reissued their T&Cs when the balloon went up.

 

Thanks, understand this point. However to be absolutely clear: If I were to cite Dunlop, as I have done before the 'test' case, would I still have a leg to stand on, on the notion of a penalty charge. My reading was no. Others are saying Dunlop still applies. Clarification please from anyone?

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

Thanks Mark, Thats been by far the easiest post to understand with all the relevant information. =)

 

BTW folks, what Mark posted above is taken from Stephen Hones website, he was the chap who first fought and won his charges back... he is a lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by sequenci

 

This is the last time I'll ask, please keep this thread on topic. If I see any more trolling I'll be placing people on moderation.

 

?:confused:

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

Thanks, understand this point. However to be absolutely clear: If I were to cite Dunlop, as I have done before the 'test' case, would I still have a leg to stand on, on the notion of a penalty charge. My reading was no. Others are saying Dunlop still applies. Clarification please from anyone?

 

I'd suggest that we wait and see. There are numerous QC barristers, that specialise in banking, looking over the verdict in defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW folks, what Mark posted above is taken from Stephen Hones website, he was the chap who first fought and won his charges back... he is a lawyer.

 

Sorry it wasn`t my intention to take credit for that piece. The kudos is all Stephen Hones. I was emailed the piece and with everybody running around with heads up bums ( so to speak) I thought it would help put things in perspective.

 

I then had to edit it because I had left my email address in the message.:razz: I will now go back and re- edit and give Stephen his right and proper recognition. He is much, much cleverer than me. A Wizard by any other name.;)

 

Cheers, MARK:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The courts would be foolish to do so, that may happen, BUT if they do once a valid arguement has been put to them demonstrating that the OFT case doesnt have a real impact on our claims, I would hope their decision will be overturned, nothing I have read in the judgement says that clims should be stopped, in fact it actually guides slightly as to the next move.

:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I am reading, it is right that we need to basically sit tight a wait for all the info.

 

My case has been stayed in the county court since July 2007, I am worried that County Court will start throwing cases out before we have a chance to do anything. Is this likely to happen?

 

Hi WHITEHART80:)

 

From what I have read on the HoL discussion thread it would be an idea to check your paperwork from the court as some Caggers have said that their paperwork states that they must inform the court of their intentions of how they want their claim managed within 28 days of the final determination of the OFT test case.

 

Additionally one member stated that their paperwork states that within 28 days of the final decision the bank will file at court and serve on the claimant -

 

'(a) a case summary of not more than 500 words setting out the effect of that decision

 

(b) their proposed directions in this claim'

 

and that the documents will then be referred to the District Judge to consider further directions.

 

Either way it would be a good idea to check your paperwork from the court to see what, if anything, it says you need to do - otherwise if there's something you should be doing and you don't, the banks will achieve what they want.....particularly as some banks (LTSB for example) are already stating their intentions to apply to the courts to have all cases dismissed.

 

Other than that you are correct in saying that we sit tight and await further instructions from the site team!

 

Hope this helps!

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Landy.

 

When you say the paperwork from the court do you mean the original notification of the stay or do you think it is likely that I will receive something from the court.

 

It seems a real grey area at the moment for those of us with claims already lodge with the county court.

 

As I said my biggest fear is them getting my case thrown out before I can do anything about it.

 

I dont see how they would have the grounds to have cases thrown out anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, can anyone look at this from the disabled angle?

 

For those of us who are ill or disabled can we use disabled law in our cases? Its hard for us to access bank websites to find information we need on for example right of appropriation. For many of us its hard if not impossible to even go into a bank to discuss our situations. To even do a SAR request and chase it up in my case can take months. We receive no help from the banks, just harrassment and of course what they are taking is our benefits.

 

Would a seperate class action from disabled customers be appropriate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Landy.

 

When you say the paperwork from the court do you mean the original notification of the stay or do you think it is likely that I will receive something from the court.

 

It seems a real grey area at the moment for those of us with claims already lodge with the county court.

 

As I said my biggest fear is them getting my case thrown out before I can do anything about it.

 

I dont see how they would have the grounds to have cases thrown out anyway.

 

Hi WHITEHART:)

 

From what I read on the HoL discussion thread, the reference was to paperwork already received - which I took to be the notification of the stay - so I should have a check through your existing paperwork first.

 

I'm in the position where I only filed at court last month and paid my (£200) AQ fee the day before the judgment was handed down, so hadn't even got as far as the staying of my claim, therefore I don't have that actual paperwork myself.

 

I fully agree that the banks don't have the grounds to have cases thrown out, but it seems like they're going to have a damned good try:(

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Landy_Alert

 

I fully agree that the banks don't have the grounds to have cases thrown out, but it seems like they're going to have a damned good try

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

 

They certainly are...

 

 

BBC News - Lloyds to ask local courts to dismiss overdraft cases

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

Absolutely. But you can bet your last that is exactly what they will do. They should be made outcasts and not be able to rely on any law for their abuses of the legal process.

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

 

Thanks for the link EIE;)

 

God I hate LTSB -

 

First they refer to my OH's suicide attempt that was caused by previous financial problems (partially brought on by their own actions, I hasten to add) as trying to 'top himself' in the notes in my SAR, then they turn down our Financial Hardship charges claim, despite our priority debt arrears and full knowledge of what our financial problems led to before.....and now this little gem:evil:

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Landy

 

I have to tell you that I stuck one on these barstewards during the stay and there is so much more coming their way. I hate them with a passion and what you've said confirms I was right to do so. 'Top himself.? How dare they?.

 

I've caught them red handed bare faced lying on a massive issue which could see them fined bigstyle by the EU. Seriously. Watch this space.

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

Well Landy

 

I have to tell you that I stuck one on these barstewards during the stay and there is so much more coming their way. I hate them with a passion and what you've said confirms I was right to do so. 'Top himself.? How dare they?.

 

I've caught them red handed bare faced lying on a massive issue which could see them fined bigstyle by the EU. Seriously. Watch this space.

 

Glad to hear I'm not the only one EIE.........and I certainly will be watching;)

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

read all threads. .amazing with the exception of vegnomeat who is a moron....what pees me off is they keep talking about overdraft charges. on current accounts....but what about people with basic accounts..no one can go overdrawn because they are not allowed an overdraft. so a direct debit is presented...bank says no..then charges 35.00 for it!!! basic acc. customers have not borrowed any unauthorised money from banks, but are still charged the 35.00... would these people have a case??? would sooooooo go on a march....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...