Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • 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 4134 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

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."

Ah, that makes more sense with the sentence before.

 

But it doesn't make sense still. Turn things around, if the terms of the agreement and/or the conduct of the creditor create the unfairness, then they're unfair, regardless of what the customer does or doesn't do, like a sword of Damocles if you will.

 

On the other hand:

"All our current accounts operate under identical terms and conditions
seems to rather go against the "individually negoatiated" part, so that's good stuff IMO. :razz:

 

My head hurts. :oops:

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

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

Am in absolutely no hurry and quite prepared to wait this out. I did add an extensive list of incidents which establish the unfairness of their actionsin support of the legal bit. Obviously I won't add them here as the "target" will know who's who.

 

Poor Credit Borrower yes you can use this with Abbey but heed Dougal's advice before starting any court action. It doesn't hurt to send them a letter though and see how they respond.

 

Yep Bookworm my head hurt quite a bit too! :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys n Gals

 

I know your heads hurt trying to reason that one out...so I am just gonna take it on face value and literally!!!;)

 

it appears as though it was meant to be read that way....dont appear to be any slip of the tongue but quite deliberate.

 

m2ae

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

so it is really a non sequitur then.

 

I mean, we know that if they're fair, then the customer's actions can't make it unfair.

 

The argument is what when they are not fair, as we maintain? It remains that if we contend so, giving as Rhia as done multiple examples, then it is up to them to prove that they are fair, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites

reminds me of a nursery rhyme,

 

when YOU are good, WE are very very good but when YOU are bad, WE are horrid.

 

If "All our current accounts operate under identical t & c's"

 

Then they should be fair regardless of individual action - should they not ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

...then it is up to them to prove that they are fair, no?

 

The Regs say:

 

It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was

 

but are otherwise silent. When you think about it, it surely has to be the case that the consumer argues that a term is unfair - the Regs do after all set out examples of unfair terms, not fair ones. In practice when you are in court both sides put forward their argument. I cannot see a judge being happy with a consumer who turns up in court and simply says that a term is unfair and then sits down.

 

In any event, what the bank would have to show is not so much that a term is fair, but that it is not unfair within the meaning of the Regs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Regs say:

 

It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was

 

but are otherwise silent. When you think about it, it surely has to be the case that the consumer argues that a term is unfair - the Regs do after all set out examples of unfair terms, not fair ones. In practice when you are in court both sides put forward their argument. I cannot see a judge being happy with a consumer who turns up in court and simply says that a term is unfair and then sits down.

 

In any event, what the bank would have to show is not so much that a term is fair, but that it is not unfair within the meaning of the Regs.

Uh-uh. The fair/unfair argument is being presented under the CCA, I believe, not the UTCCR, where it is up to them to prove their case, although I am willing to get corrected by those who have actually used the argument, since I haven't paid close attention to the new arguments lately.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone:)

 

I too wrote to my bank (LTSB) using both the new arguments as per the GLC template, 'humanising' it with my own personal experiences so it was not just a template letter. After initially receiving the standard 'we hope to get back to you with a response in 4 weeks, but definitely no more than 8 weeks' type reply, followed by a 'we have passed a copy of your letter to our bank and card charges legal team who will respond shortly' letter, I'm still waiting 12 weeks on..............not sure if they've forgotten or just don't know how to respond to these arguments!

 

Landy x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone:)

 

I too wrote to my bank (LTSB) using both the new arguments as per the GLC template, 'humanising' it with my own personal experiences so it was not just a template letter. After initially receiving the standard 'we hope to get back to you with a response in 4 weeks, but definitely no more than 8 weeks' type reply, followed by a 'we have passed a copy of your letter to our bank and card charges legal team who will respond shortly' letter, I'm still waiting 12 weeks on..............not sure if they've forgotten or just don't know how to respond to these arguments!

 

Landy x

Time to hone that pitchfork, don't you think? :razz:
Link to post
Share on other sites

All across the land, pitchforks are being honed, scythes are being sharpend and torches are being lit by honest countryfolk gathering on village greens, ready for the cry to go out:

 

"To the castle!!"

 

(In the Hammer House of Horror idiom)

 

*noomill awards himself 10 points for knowing how to spell scythe*

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully before this year is over, I'll be able to send SH-Abbey Santandurr a postcard showing what I spent my charges refund+ interest on. :D

 

Just toying with the idea of also afterwards going after unlawful recission of the account, and compensation for the unlawful default that by then will have been on my credit file for most of 2010.

 

When it comes to the banks, I want to make them part with as much cash as possible.

These are video links to show how I deal with Debt Collectors.

 

Fly fishing for C.A.R.S

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zPtzK8FqE6k&feature=related

 

Frederickson International don't accept my card type

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eiZBULlWW6Q&feature=related

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
Hi Guys,

 

Do we know if the Scottish test case to hear the new legal arguments for bank charge reclaiming is still going to trial on June 11th?

 

TheyrCriminals

 

I got an update from Mike Thomas at Debtwizard.com and it appears so!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

Do we know if the Scottish test case to hear the new legal arguments for bank charge reclaiming is still going to trial on June 11th?

 

TheyrCriminals

 

 

There has been nothing said to suggest that it isnt.

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

  • 2 weeks later...
5 days and counting.

 

scotland.gif Do us proud. :-)

 

+1!

 

Go GLC!!

 

:cool:

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...