Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Dx100uk according to the ICO office, who I spoke to at some length earlier today after getting the email from the court, Equita are the data controller if they have instructed the contracted EA. The ICO have noted the case, and stated very clearly that the court has the higher standing in terms of dealing with, and punishing either party if they fail to adhere to the district judges order and any action they take will not be criminal.    but they also stated very clearly that with what I’ve told them, and on the basis of accepting what I’ve told them as gospel (which it is with written confirmation from both the courts and the police) then there is some major red flags being raised on both sides with them blaming each other.    they’ve advised me to essentially keep my powder dry until there is a charging decision and an outcome from the seperate proceedings with the EAC2 complaint, and then come back to them with the case and they will be in a stronger position to act against Equita and the EA as there will be established facts and evidence that have already been laid before a court.     
    • urm.. i seem to recall another assault case whereby the approved bailiff company claimed the body camera was nor theirs but a pers one of the bailiff, i think they got in serious trouble for it. i believe that breaks certain gov't approval for a bailiff company/firm regulations/laws  if memory serves me right?
    • have a look at  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/451423-pra-letter-of-claim-old-barclaycard-debt/?do=findComment&comment=5256506 the docs in this thread are what you should get. if the agreement the correct date for signup and does the PRA or BC cover letter use the word reconstructed? dx
    • sounds like lesley. They'll respond some rubbish I'm sure.  
    • Even if they have crawled back under the stone, remember they have six years to bring a claim. Let them know if you ever change address.
  • 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

Abbey Charges - what next?


spinks37
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6597 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

Having followed the advice in here, and sent the letter complaining about their charges on March 8th .... got the interim letter that 'we are dealing with your complaint .....'

 

Today have had a reply from Abbey refusing my claim for £220 of charges back, stating "We don't believe that Abbey charges are unfair uder these (Common Law, Statute or recent Consumer Regulations)"

 

But it also states:

 

"If the complaint escalates into a claim in the County Court, we will review each case individually, and if we feel that our relationship with our customer has broken down completely, we may decide to give notice to close the account under the Terms and Conditions".

 

Now what??????

 

Need to keep my account, but cannot realistically afford to lose £220 to charges.

 

Any ideas????????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Open another account elswhere now The co-op and Natwest seem to be prefered options for ease of opening accounts.

 

This is the first time that I've seen Abbey write this. They are trying to scare you.

 

Obviously, this your decision and your money.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"If the complaint escalates into a claim in the County Court, we will review each case individually, and if we feel that our relationship with our customer has broken down completely, we may decide to give notice to close the account under the Terms and Conditions"

 

Sounds like a thinly veiled threat to me. Bullying tactics

 

Need to keep my account, but cannot realistically afford to lose £220 to charges.

 

It's your call at the end of the day, it's your account.

 

If you want to continue your pursuit, If you can open an account at another bank now then you should do so and conduct your business there. You need to be prepared for the fact they may close your account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"If the complaint escalates into a claim in the County Court, we will review each case individually, and if we feel that our relationship with our customer has broken down completely, we may decide to give notice to close the account under the Terms and Conditions".

 

So do you think this is in response to the Court case last week against Lloyds TSB???

 

Or have they cottoned on to the fact that this site is fully behind Abbey customers complaining????

 

And would I have grounds to negotiate with Abbey, as I have the following accounts and products with them:

 

E-Saver A/c

My son has an a/c

Have a second saving a/c for son's care needs

Home Contents Insurance

Child Saving Bond

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your finances are closeley wrapped up with Abbey then you probably want to get alternative arrangements in place before getting your cash back. The amount you're after is small enough that they almost certainly won't waste any resources defending it, so they will probably just give you your money and close your account.

 

From the accounts you list, it would seem unlikely that they would, or even could, close any account in your son's name, because presumably the contract for service is with him and not you. Obviously, they can't cancel your insurance out of spite, as this will be governed by a seperate agreement. It looks like the biggest risk is to your e-saver account, in which case all you need to do is open a basic bank account somewhere (I use HSBC, because they don't have penalty charges on their basic accounts). Incidentaly, if you open an account with HSBC they automatically give you a savings account to go with it.

 

Having followed this forum for a couple of months now, it seems that Abbey in particular are constantly evolving their tactics to deal with what is presumably a massive increase in the number of people demanding their money back. This might mean that just because they're threatening to close people's accounts this week, doesn't mean they won't abandon that strategy and try something else next week.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have gone into my local branch of Abbey National, where they know me well ................ and they said to put the request in writing to the branch, and they will seriously consider writing the charges off, or at least consider reducing them. They said they 'consider I am a good customer'!!!

 

Am not hoping too much, but have faxed a letter to my local branch this afternoon and will await the outcome before taking any next steps!

 

Will keep this thread updated as and when

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you that one of our Users has just had nearly £5000 returned after Abbey submitted their defence

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news to this thread - went to speak to my local branch of Abbey about the matter, instead of the in-human Customer Services Centre's in Bradford & London.

 

My local branch was really reasonable, and the letter that I had received they said was something new to them too.

 

They have agreed to refund the charges ..... and today they were refunded to my account!!

 

SUCCESS

 

Very happy with the result.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news to this thread - went to speak to my local branch of Abbey about the matter, instead of the in-human Customer Services Centre's in Bradford & London.

 

My local branch was really reasonable, and the letter that I had received they said was something new to them too.

 

They have agreed to refund the charges ..... and today they were refunded to my account!!

 

SUCCESS

 

Very happy with the result.

 

Congratulations. Well done. Can you please complete the poll in the General Forum - it encourages others and have you thought about a small contribution to the Law book fund?

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/07/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6597 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...