Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Welcome to posting on CAG cabot, people will be along soon to help you try to sort this out. Please complete this:  
    • Quotes of the day penny mordaunt came out swinging with her broadsword, and promptly decapitated sunak while Nigel Farage, representing Reform UK, made contentious claims about immigration policies, which were swiftly fact-checked during the debate.   Good question though raised at labour about the 2 child benefit cap, which I broadly agree with, but the tory 'trap' assumes tory thinking - rather than child centric thinking. There should be no incentives to have kids as a financial way of life paid for by everyone else ... ... BUT the kids should not be made to suffer for the decisions of their parents Free school meals would feed the kids, improve their ability to learn, and incentivise them to go to school. As an added benefit ... it would invest in our nations future.   How far this should go is a matter for costing, social intent and future path of the nation, but not feeding our nations kids is an abomination. There should be at least one free school meal per day for every child who attends school. Full Stop. Its the cheapest and most effective investment in our future we could make.
    • Hey people, I've been browsing this amazing forum for the past year and recieved a letter today which has made me require some help. Received a claim form from Cabot in the Civil National Business Centre in regards to an Aqua Credit Card taken out in 2018. I failed to make payments due to financial hardship and have not taken out any credit or uses any forms of credit since. Received a lot of letters from Cabot and their solicitors Mortimer Clarke which I've ignored    By an agreement between New Day Ltd RE Aqua& the Defendant on or around 26/03/2018 ('ths Agreement) New Day Ltd RE Aqua agreed to issue Defendant with a credit card. The Defendant failed to make the minimum payments due. The Agreement was terminated following the service of a default notice. The Agreement was assigned to the named Claimant. Cabot Credit Management Group Limited, acting as servicing agent of the named Claimant through its Appointed Representative (Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited), has arranged for these proceedings to be issued in the name of the Claimant. The named Claimant may be entitled to claim interest under the Agreement but does not seek such interest and instead claims interest under Section 69(1) of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% p.a.from03/03/2023 until date of issue only, or alternatively such interest as the Court thinks fit THE NAMED CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS 1. 3800.82 2. INTEREST OF 379.84 3. Costs How would I go about this and what could happen? I don't remember much details about the card either.
    • cause like you said in post one, 99% of people think these are FINES (it now reads charge). and wet themselves and cough up. they are not, they are speculative invoices because the driver supposedly broke some imaginary contract by driving onto privately owned land which said owner may or may not have signed some 99% fake contract with a private parking co years ago, thats already expired or has not been renewed or annually paid to employ them dx  
    • My car DVLA details are 100% correct and up to date, guaranteed.  I lived at my address longer than I have owned the car and made sure the details were correct when we transferred ownership of the car, so it's not that.  It must be their second-hand eBay cameras.  I've emailed the CEO with evidence and laid it on.  I will keep this post updated with the outcome.  Thanks again FTMDave .  I appreciate the guidance. I hate these predatory parking cowboys.  How are they even legal?
  • 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

OFT reply to Halifax new overdraft charging structure


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5300 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 sent a letter to the office of fair trading and this is what they replied with. Sorry if a similar reply has been posted somewhere already but I can't seem to find any.

 

Thank you once again for your email of 27 October 2009, further to our email of 17 November 2009, regarding the above named Company to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT). We apologise for the delay in responding to you.

*

As we understand from your correspondence, you are unhappy with Halifax's decision to amend its terms and conditions in relation to its arranged overdraft charging structure from 6 December 2009. You may be concerned that the changes have been unilaterally imposed and that, if the daily charges were translated into an interest rate, then the rate would be very high, particularly for small overdrafts. This may be contrary to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations Act 2008, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and to the terms of the waiver agreed between Halifax and the Financial Services Authority (FSA) while the test case between the OFT and Banks is continuing.

*

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

*

Office of Fair Trading’s (OFT's) work on Personal Current Accounts

*

The OFT's market study "Personal Current Accounts in the UK", published in 2008, identified a number of concerns with the personal current account (PCA) market. These include the way in which unarranged overdraft charges function but do not relate to arranged overdrafts.

*

To address concerns about unarranged overdraft charges, the OFT is conducting an investigation into the fairness of Banks’ unarranged overdraft charging terms under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCRs) and has brought a test case with seven banks and one building society.

*

The UTCCRs protect consumers against unfair standard terms in contracts they make with traders. The Banks have argued that the unarranged overdraft charging terms cannot be assessed for fairness due to an exemption in the UTCCRs. On 25 November, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment overturning previous High Court and Court of Appeal rulings that unarranged overdraft charging terms can be assessed in full for fairness by the OFT.

*

The OFT will now consider the detail of this judgment before it makes a decision on whether or not to continue its investigation into unarranged overdraft charging terms. It will also explore with others the implications for consumers and for existing and future legislation and regulation. The OFT expects to make a further announcement in December.

*

In relation to the test case, you are concerned that the changes Halifax has made to its terms and conditions breach the terms under which the Financial Services Authority (FSA) has allowed banks, in respect to complaints involving the application of the UTCCRs to unarranged overdraft charges, to waive their normal obligations to respond. The FSA granted this 'waiver' to assist the orderly or resolution of complaints while the test case is ongoing. However, the FSA waiver relates to changes to the level or structure of unarranged overdraft charges, not charges that relate to arranged overdrafts. Further, in light of the Supreme Court judgment, the waiver has now ended.

*

You may be interested to know that despite the fact that you may have an overdraft with the Halifax does not necessarily prevent you from switching to another PCA provider. A new provider may be prepared to offer you a current account with an overdraft facility that you could then use to repay your existing overdraft with Halifax. It may be worth discussing this with PCA providers that you could consider switching to. The OFT has worked with the industry to improve the switching process.

*

Further information about the OFT's work on personal current accounts can be found on the OFT website at:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/marketstudies/completed/personal/personal-test-case/

*

Further information about the waiver can be found on the FSA website at: Unauthorised overdraft charges : FSA Money made clear ? News

*

Consumer Credit Act

*

The OFT’s powers under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended by the Consumer Credit Act 2006) may be of relevance to the concerns you raise. The OFT has a duty to license and regulate businesses involved in consumer credit activities provided that they satisfy the OFT they are fit to hold a licence.

*

The OFT has recently issued draft guidance on the irresponsible lending element of the fitness test set out in section 25 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This sets out the standards for all form of lending, including overdrafts, and covers the need for lenders to only vary interest rates when there is objective justification to do so. Further information about this can be found at: The Office of Fair Trading: Irresponsible lending

*

The OFT, as the regulator of the Consumer Credit Act, can investigate any behaviour of a licence holder which may appear to us to be deceitful or oppressive, or otherwise unfair or improper.

*

We are considering whether the Halifax terms raise concerns, but have not reached any views at this stage. The OFT cannot normally disclose details of action that is being contemplated or underway, however, we can and do publicise formal action on our website (The Office of Fair Trading: making markets work well for consumers).

*

We hope this information has been helpful. If you are unhappy with how the Halifax deals with your complaint, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) may be able to help. They can be contacted on 0300 123 9123 or at:

[email protected]

*

We hope that this information proves to be useful to you and would like to thank you once again for writing to us and bringing this matter to our attention. The information you have helpfully provided will add to our intelligence about this Company and it may prove to be useful to us in the future.

*

Yours sincerely

*

*

*

Samit Patel

Enquiries and Reporting Centre (ERC)

Office of Fair Trading (OFT)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, what's missing is a comment on Halifax ignoring customers clear instructions that they do not accept the new terms.

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...