Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, I've been reading the invaluable advice on this forum and reading about the problems with Evri and lost delivery of items.  From what I gather the initial steps after having exhausted every's own lost item claim process is to draft a Letter of Claim, I think it is called and to register with the government Money Claims.  I have got a login for Money Claims and have made an initial stab at the letter but I'm not certain I have got it right. Am I right to assume that having exhausted Evri customer service's claims process and having received the denial of any compensation because the laptop I was sending is on the non-compensatory list that my next step would be to send the Letter of Claim to them? Let me provide some basic details which I hopefully have addressed in the letter. I purchased a laptop through Amazon.co.uk which a business in Belfast sold refurbished laptops through.  They had a 30 day money back guarantee for a full refund if you have any issues with the laptop.  I have the invoice from Amazon showing the purchase.  On 27 April, 2024 before the end of the 30 day period I used their ParcelShop (inside a Tesco) to send the laptop back and have the tracking reference mentioned in the letter.  As mentioned in the letter there was they advised they could not give me or sell me any insurance because laptops are on the non-compensatory list so I just paid the normal delivery cost.  It was scanned as leaving the ParcelShop on 29 April and the tracking has been like that ever since.  After a 28 working day Evri claim process they gave the expected response that they could not provide any compensation and simply could not proceed with my claim. I was hoping to get some advice on whether I go ahead now and email this to Customer Services straightaway and should I send a hard-copy to the Evri address as well?  Or are there any steps I have missed out on first?  I believe 14 days is the reasonable period of time for them to respond so if I were to send it tomorrow, for example 12 June then I should expect a reply by 26 June, is that correct and fair?  And assuming they don't reply with a full refund then I would then go down the government Money Claims site to proceed with that? Sorry for all the questions, I want to make sure I go about it properly.  I'll continue to read through other cases on here so I can get an even better handle on the process. I attached a LOC, happy for any edits or updates that will make it even better. Thanks so much for anyone's help! Regards, Matt Evri letter of claim.docx
    • The date was 3 June. Get on MCOL now. The legal principle is that, even if you defence is late, if the other party hasn't requested judgement, then your defence takes priority and is accepted. You might be in time. When I say now I mean now.  Recently we had someone who was nine days' late and this was pointed out to them at 5:30pm.  They faffed around till 11pm.  When they went on MCOl they saw that judgement had been entered at 7pm. Every minute is vital. File the below standard defence if you still can - 1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]. 2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.    4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.  6.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
    • Hi friends,  I’m a bit worried I may have got confused with timings here. I thought I had 33 days from my acknowledgment to submit a defence but the date added above says 3/6/24.   have I missed the date?   if so how can I apply for an exception due to my disability and problems with deadlines and dates etc (ADHD)?   what should I submit as a defence?   I’ve had no reply from BW so far    just been back on MCOL and it says 28 days from service if I completed an acknowledgment of service so does that mean 28 days from that of acknowledgement (I.e. 16/5) which would make deadline for defence 14/6?   Thanks! Panicking here.
    • Normally we don't advise playing your cards early in a snotty letter, but as you have appealed we might as well use what you wrote in the appeal against them. There is no rush, you have until 6 July to get it to them.  See what the other regulars think too. How about something like this? -   Dear Rachael & Sean, cheers for your Letter of Claim.  I rolled around on the floor in laughter at the idea you'd actually thought I'd take such tripe seriously and would cough up! As usual you'll have been too bone idle to do any due diligence.  Had you done so you would have seen that I appealed to your client.  Indeed the driver on the day is a textbook example of having done exactly what you should do when you do not wish to be bound by the T&Cs in a private car park. Of course none of that mattered to the spivs you represent but do you really want to put such a useless case in front of a judge? To be fair, your clients are very useful members of the human race - as comedians.  How I loved the page turner of their antics at The Citrus Building in Bournemouth.  It was chuckle after chuckle reading about them, letter after letter, month after month, insisting they were legally in the right, even through someone who had done just the first day of a GCSE law course could have told them they weren't.  Until the denouement - BOOM - an absolute hammering in court.  In fact - SLAM, BANG - managing to lose twice against the same motorist for the same car park in front of two different judges. Your client can either drop their foolishness now or get yet another tolchocking* in court where I will go for an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and spend the dosh on a nice summer holiday, while every day laughing at your clients' expense. I look forward to your deafening silence. COPIED TO COUNTRYWIDE PARKING MANAGEMENT LTD   *  This word is used under licence from Brassnecked
    • Well yes, ... and the tax dodgers ... Trump May Owe $100 Million From Double-Dip Tax Breaks, Audit Shows A previously unknown focus of an I.R.S. audit is a dubious accounting maneuver that effectively meant taking the same write-offs twice on a Chicago skyscraper. nytimes.com WWW.NYTIMES.COM  
  • 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

Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4136 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

Which may explain why counsel for the bank objected so strongly to the orders we sought, and hoped to get the case dismissed.

 

The court was taken through the new ss.140A-B CCA case, and the substantially revised reg.5 case, and full legal argument took place in light of same. The bank was ordained to lodge defences in light of the new and revised grounds of claim, and a full evidential hearing was fixed.

Any chance that BOS will withdraw their defence before trial date?

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Any chance that BOS will withdraw their defence before trial date?

 

IF they did that,that in itself would speak volumes (conspicous by their absence)

 

The effect would be just the same as if they had made a return to making goodwill gesture payments AND NO PRECEDENT ...I could see banks resorting to this fall back position once again..BUT hey GRRRREEEAATTT!!! so what.

 

However it would mean no automatic right to repayment but upon individual application by debtors.

Edited by means2anend
Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, I guess they can be expected to do whatever is in their best interest!...which is what their lawyers will advise.

 

They were happy with this fall back initially but when it resulted in an avalanche of claimants, they decided to put up a fight.

 

It comes down to strength of argument and sadly, corruption of some members of the judiciary.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by GLC viewpost.gif

Which may explain why counsel for the bank objected so strongly to the orders we sought, and hoped to get the case dismissedlink3.gif.

 

The court was taken through the new ss.140A-B CCA case, and the substantially revised reg.5 case, and full legal argument took place in light of same. The bank was ordained to lodge defences in light of the new and revised grounds of claim, and a full evidential hearing was fixed.

Is this the one fixed for the June hearing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/251309-very-urgent-help.html

 

Halifax took this cagger back to court to have the original decision overturned. cagger now has to repay the monies awarded in respect of charges to Halifax :confused:

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets face it!!! The Libs can say they will do this that and the other. They can make all the statements and promises they like. They will never be in government, so will never be put to the test on anything they say!!!:rolleyes:

 

Good that this is actually being brought up though! Even if it is weeks from the Election!!!;)

 

Cheers,MARK

 

I hear what you say, but think the Lib Dems are the most honest party (out of the three) and have thought so over the last 20 years or so! One thing that does go against them being in government at any time soon is a lack of proportional representation in the present electoral system.

 

What have the 'main' two political parties, or their leaders, said about the current level of bank charges?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear what you say, but think the Lib Dems are the most honest party (out of the three) and have thought so over the last 20 years or so! One thing that does go against them being in government at any time soon is a lack of proportional representation in the present electoral system.

 

What have the 'main' two political parties, or their leaders, said about the current level of bank charges?

 

Hey PCB Hello! Only a Comment! This is a Forum on Dealing With Debt!!! And you are probably quite right about PR.

 

No offence intended M8!!!:-)

 

Cheers, MARK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Always seek the advice of an insured qualified professional. All my legal and nonlegal knowledge comes from either here (CAG),my own personal research and experience and/or as the result of necessity as an Employer and Businessman.

 

By using my advice in any form, you agreed to waive all rights to hold myself or any persons representing myself of any liability.

 

If you PM me, make sure to include a link to your thread as I don't give out advice in private. All PMs that are sent in missuse (including but not limited to phinishing, spam) of the PM application and/or PMs that are threatening or abusive will be reported to the Site Team and if necessary to the police and/or relevant Authority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the leaders debate last Thursday (yes I know I am sad!) but only to see if Banks and their charges were mentioned.

 

After reading what Nick Clegg said on April 9th I hoped he might put up a good performance- and he certainly did.

 

I hope that his good showing might encourage the other two parties to pinch some of his ideas- obviously the Bank charges.

 

I am not politically minded.

Anyone who knocks those thieving banks will get my vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that, like it or not, the Government needs the banks on their side. So far the banks haven't played ball and the Government appears to be very reluctant to make them. The main parties can't afford to upset the banks too much. Clegg can because he won't be Prime Minister after this election.

Before you criticise another man you should first walk a mile in his shoes. Then, when you criticise him, you'll be a mile away and he won't have any shoes on.

 

Don't get me confused with somebody knowledgeable by all those green blobs. I got most of them by making people laugh.

 

I am not European, I am English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Took a while to get a reply but I challenged my bank re charges for the current account. I used the two new arguments s140 (1) a-e of the CCA 1974 and regulation 5 (1) of the UTCCR.

They have replied that I am arguing that the relationship is unfair by reason of the way I have operated my account. All their accounts operate under identical terms and conditions and they claim the fact I have operated my account in such a way as to incur unarranged borrowing charges does not mean that the relationship was unfair. They go on to say that any unfairness arises because of the terms of the agreement or the conduct of the creditor, not the conduct of the customer.

They also say that The Supreme Court ruled that unarranged borrowing charges are part of the price a customer pays for a package of services under a current account agreement. The charges can be said to come within the exemption to regulation 5(1) that is contained in regulation 6(2b) and the amount of the charge is not assessable for fairness.

They add my argument is another way of saying the charges are too high and so, as far as the Supreme Court ruling is concerned, they cannot be challenged on that ruling.

They totally ignored the personal examples I gave of where their actions actually led to these charges being applied which proved they were unfair and gave rise to an imbalance/unfairness in the relationship.

Of course under the new CCA law change it is up to them to prove they are not unfair...not me.

I think they are waffling and hoping this will suffice as an answer. It won't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely! There is so much wrong with their reply it is difficult to know where to start. But start I will. It needs taking apart line by line and chucking back at them. As I said before they are just waffling and hoping it will be OK as a fob off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely! There is so much wrong with their reply it is difficult to know where to start. But start I will. It needs taking apart line by line and chucking back at them. As I said before they are just waffling and hoping it will be OK as a fob off.

 

Rhia

 

Can I ask which bank you are dealing with ? Sounds just like the guff I got from Sharkleys !

 

LSP

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhia

 

Can I ask which bank you are dealing with ? Sounds just like the guff I got from Sharkleys !

 

LSP

 

Rather not say for now but it's one of the main ones who were involved in the Supreme Court case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Took a while to get a reply but I challenged my bank re charges for the current account. I used the two new arguments s140 (1) a-e of the CCA 1974 and regulation 5 (1) of the UTCCR.

They have replied that I am arguing that the relationship is unfair by reason of the way I have operated my account. All their accounts operate under identical terms and conditions and they claim the fact I have operated my account in such a way as to incur unarranged borrowing charges does not mean that the relationship was unfair. They go on to say that any unfairness arises because of the terms of the agreement or the conduct of the creditor, not the conduct of the customer.

They also say that The Supreme Court ruled that unarranged borrowing charges are part of the price a customer pays for a package of services under a current account agreement. The charges can be said to come within the exemption to regulation 5(1) that is contained in regulation 6(2b) and the amount of the charge is not assessable for fairness.

They add my argument is another way of saying the charges are too high and so, as far as the Supreme Court ruling is concerned, they cannot be challenged on that ruling.

They totally ignored the personal examples I gave of where their actions actually led to these charges being applied which proved they were unfair and gave rise to an imbalance/unfairness in the relationship.

Of course under the new CCA law change it is up to them to prove they are not unfair...not me.

I think they are waffling and hoping this will suffice as an answer. It won't.

 

 

YOU said THEY said;

''They go on to say'', ''that any unfairness arises because of the terms of the agreement or the conduct of the creditor, not the conduct of the customer.''

 

...oh my what a statement to make:D

 

m2ae

Link to post
Share on other sites

YOU said THEY said;

''They go on to say'', ''that any unfairness arises because of the terms of the agreement or the conduct of the creditor, not the conduct of the customer.''

 

 

...oh my what a statement to make:D

 

m2ae

In other words, it is YOUR conduct which creates the unfairness from which you suffer? They're not saying it's not unfair, they're saying that you create the unfairness. Oh my.

 

Is that what we're back to: "It's your own fault"? That the best they can do? :shock:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the OPPOSITE. It's the CREDITOR which causes the unfairnmess due to its terms or its conduct - NEVER the CUSTOMER.

 

Am I wrong (again)? Tell me... I can take it! I'm used to hearing it. Ive been married for over 35 years since I met "Miss Right all the time".

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning all,

 

This Cagger states:

 

''They go on to say'', ''that any unfairness arises because of the terms of the agreement or the conduct of the creditor, not the conduct of the customer.''

 

In my own humble opinion, if this is accurate and exactly what is written down in their response, then for the Bank it is a case of ' Game over' = Customer - 1 Bank - 0....or have I misread this??

 

As always, best wishes to all,

 

Dougal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning all,

 

This Cagger states:

 

''They go on to say'', ''that any unfairness arises because of the terms of the agreement or the conduct of the creditor, not the conduct of the customer.''

 

In my own humble opinion, if this is accurate and exactly what is written down in their response, then for the Bank it is a case of ' Game over' = Customer - 1 Bank - 0....or have I misread this??

 

As always, best wishes to all,

 

Dougal.

 

.............

Edited by xp1
re-read and understood correctly
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I wrote one letter challenging them under s140 CCA and s5(1) UTCCR and apart from adding some personal evidence to support my stance I kept it brief but it's based on the GLC's letter. This is the EXACTLY what they said (my comments in blue):

 

"Your argument is that the relationship between you and NastyBank is unfair by reason of the way you have operated your account" (In other words it's my fault)

 

"All our current accounts operate under identical terms and conditions. The fact you have operated your account in such a way as to incur unarranged borrowing charges cannot give rise to the relationship being unfair. Any unfairness must be "because of" the terms of the agreement or the conduct of the creditor, not the conduct of the customer."

(Now I thought the new s140 of the CCA puts the onus on the creditor to prove they are being fair NOT the other way around)

 

"The Supreme Court ruled that unarranged borrowing charges are part of a price customers pay for the entire package of services under the current account agreement. The charges come within the exemption to regulation 5 (1) that is contained in regulation 6(2b) and therefore the amount of the charge is not assessable for fairness. The Supreme Court has stated that the charges cannot be challenged on the basis that they are too high and your argument is just another way of saying they are too high."

 

As has been pointed out they have also ignored the fact that a term is deemed unfair unless it has been individually negotiated.

 

Over to you CAG...

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I wrote one letter challenging them under s140 CCA and s5(1) UTCCR and apart from adding some personal evidence to support my stance I kept it brief but it's based on the GLC's letter. This is the EXACTLY what they said (my comments in blue):

 

"Your argument is that the relationship between you and NastyBank is unfair by reason of the way you have operated your account" (In other words it's my fault)

 

"All our current accounts operate under identical terms and conditions. The fact you have operated your account in such a way as to incur unarranged borrowing charges cannot give rise to the relationship being unfair. Any unfairness must be "because of" the terms of the agreement or the conduct of the creditor, not the conduct of the customer."

(Now I thought the new s140 of the CCA puts the onus on the creditor to prove they are being fair NOT the other way around)

 

"The Supreme Court ruled that unarranged borrowing charges are part of a price customers pay for the entire package of services under the current account agreement. The charges come within the exemption to regulation 5 (1) that is contained in regulation 6(2b) and therefore the amount of the charge is not assessable for fairness. The Supreme Court has stated that the charges cannot be challenged on the basis that they are too high and your argument is just another way of saying they are too high."

 

As has been pointed out they have also ignored the fact that a term is deemed unfair unless it has been individually negotiated.

 

Over to you CAG...

 

Good morning again,

 

Yes you are 100% right Rhia, the onus of proof in a case for unfairness, ( Under CCA 2006) is on the Creditor and NOT on the debtor.

 

I think that the wording of the POC needs to be very accurate and detailed, with every 'unfair' action by the Creditor set out - this will minimise 'strike-out' applications by the Creditor

 

We are still waiting for the new 'POCs' which should be with us soon - I hope!

 

Also it may be foolish to 'rush into' any action until the new info from Counsel is received.

 

Kind regards to all

 

Dougal

Link to post
Share on other sites

''that any unfairness arises because of the terms of the agreement or the conduct of the creditor, not the conduct of the customer.''

 

I take that to mean:

 

Either the terms of the contract are fair or unfair; if they are fair there is nothing the customer can do that makes them unfair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...