Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

We're Having An Effect!!!


zsellors
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6510 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

Just to let you all know that it appears some banks and credit card companies are taking notice of our claims and doing something about it. I am in the process of claiming charges back from Barclays and Natwest with the help of this site. However, I received a letter from Capital One credit card company yesterday (whom I have a nil balance account with) informing me that any charges applied to accounts from now on will be at the rate of £12. Also, my mum has received a letter from her bank recently (Yorkshire) saying that they are reducing the rate of charges to £12!!

 

So, it seems the are taking note! Anyone else had anything??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Got the same letter from Cap One. Personally I think that £12 is still excessive and it seems that the OFT have basically scr*wed us all by suggesting that figure unilaterally. I suspect most Banks/CCs will jump on the same bandwagon if they have any sense.

Can anyone offer an opinion on whether:

1. This will lead to judges staying cases with the implied suggestion that parties settle on the difference between the applied charge and this new "acceptable" figure? This would be bad...

2. To that end, is it relevant that it be applied retrospectively and you would only ever to be able to claim back charges in excess of £12 no matter how often they were applied by the offending bank? (E.g. you couldn't recover 3 days @ £10 per day even though it totals £30)

It certainly doesn't seem right that banks can instantly reduce their exposure on this whole business based on this new-found moral high ground :-(

Any info much appreciated!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, just a quickie. My Amex Card sent a letter today saying they've reduced the fee from £25.00 to £8.00 !!!

 

Realising they CANNOT JUSTIFY THE CHARGES !!!!!

Parachute Deployed !!! :-D

Data Protection sent to Barclays - 04/07/06

Reply from Pete Townsend - 06/07/06

Statements received - 12/08/06 - Claiming £200

Prliminary Letter sent 27/09/06

Reply from Martin Bennett 03/10/06

LBA sent 16/10/06

Partial settlement offered 25/10/06

MCOL Claim 04/11/06

 

OH NatWest Credit Card - Paid in full

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I also received reduction in charges letters from MBNA and Barclaycard so far. It seems credit card companies are reacting, but not the banks.

Barclays Bank

13/9/06 - ACCEPTED HALF ON BOTH A/Cs

HSBC

21/10/06 - SETTLED IN FULL

Preferred Mortgages

11/8/06 - prelim let sent - redemption fee

12/07 - case dropped

Halifax B/S

2/07 settled in full

Halifax visa card

MCOL due

Citicards & Hillesden

2/07 Data Protection Act & CCA let sent

3/07 Prelim let sent

4/07 LBA sent

Barclaycard

04/07 offer received for 1/3 - refused

Argos Card services

Half offered - refused

PPI Claims:

8/12 MBNA Loan settled in full

7/12 Barclayloan settled in full

9/12 Liverpool Victoria settled in full

7/12 Barclaycard claim rejected

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,

I had the exact same letter from Capital One Bank, though too little too late. Im still gonna get my money back and just cut all the cards up.

Prelim letter sent to Ulster Bank for £1734.00 on 18 September

Received offer of £150 - 30/09/06

LBA sent 02/10/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the price can't be justified then it will always be too much!

Halifax settled

Halifax (again) settled

Nationwide settled

Natwest settled

Don't forget to donate to this site, they gave us the backbone to put up a fight, we've learnt how to reclaim our rights and proved banks are all nothing but........ rubbish <wink>

Link to post
Share on other sites

So say a bank charged £24 each time for example and so over 6 years they had taken £2400 off us, does this now mean when we claim back they will half it to £1200, (because of the new £12 charge) even though they have originally had the many £24's off us over the years?

 

I am not sure i have explained this well, hope you all catch my drift.:-?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to read the OFT statement, it only applied to credit card charges, not bank charges and regardless of any figures quoted by the OFT the charges are unlawful because they are not a true estimate of the banks costs or liquidated damages.

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...