Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • worthy to not forget Just to let you know this bunch Kensington have been fined £1.225m by the financial regulator for treating borrowers who were in arrears unfairly. Claim those charges back plus the interest and tell them not to add any more to the account. There are a few news stories here you can get the info for a letter to send to them. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8615870.stm  
    • Hi All. I went to visit a family friend in Rochdale on a new housing estate opposite a old row of houses. The location is Royle Road, Postcode OL11 3PE. I was originally parked in parking bays outside the old houses, then moved the car, when I noticed my tyre was flat, so parked on what looked like double yellows to use his air pump to check and inflate the tyres before we left the house.   In the time i went inside to sort the pump and power supply i got a PCN.  The tyre then got changed (has a puncture) and we left. PCN Number:         RE######## Date:             04/05/2024 Time:             20:36 Observation:         20:34 to 20:36 Reported location:     Royle Park Road Reason:        Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours (Code: 01) I believe this PCN is not correct and has grounds to appeal: 1. My friend who moved into the property around 6 months ago, swears that even though it has old double yellows marked, they are not current or council marked.   He said the property development company had said they had marked them for ease of access during development. 2. The road i was parked on was Royle Road.  The PCN was issued for Royle Park Road, which is about 400 yards up the road. 3. There are no sign posts or marking showing parking  restriction hours in the entire area (there maybe on Royle park Road). I have attached a map of the Location where i parked as a red dot. I have 2 questions: a.  Is there a way to check where double yellow lines are marked on some register to check if they are current? b. Can my grounds of appeal simply be, wrong location, wrong offence? Thanks in advance. Map_20240505.pdf
    • you made it very confusing, though i doubt any of it was ever read by the delivery franchise for DPD. your saving grace might well be you didn't select your own address (though if you are all the same postcode..??) and neither mentioned a safe space other than another neighbour. but with the actual delivery address on the parcel, it appears the driver had a choice of 3 addresses, all under the same post code with differing house numbers. so chose the label one but left it on your doorstep. play it carefully and along with the photo and the retailers requirement you should be ok.   dx  
    • Are Resident car parks subject to Planning permission under Town and Country Planning {control of Advertisements ] Regulations? SCHEDULE 1CLASSES OF ADVERTISEMENT TO WHICH PARTS 2 AND 3 DO NOT APPLY Class A "1.  The advertisement is not readily visible from outside the enclosed land or from any place to which the public have a right of access." As a private residential site does the public have a right of access? This particular Act has so many caveats that even many Councils do not understand it and that includes me. Though I do understand it better than many council planning departments.
  • 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 4098 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

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Oh I never get too excited at the thought that Judges may actually be on the consumer's side as have been let down too many times both personally and via others.

 

However we can but hope that this morning, in Glasgow Sherriff's court justice and fairness will actually prevail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Rhia I'm not building my hopes up on this one - but then I am known to my family as the eternal pessimist :(

 

Hopefully I'll be proved wrong on this occasion!

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing which makes me a little bit more upbeat is that Scottish judges have been a lot more helpful in the bank charges cases then the English ones, with some blinders in our favour over the last 4 1/2 years. Not all of them, not all of the time, and we've also had some stinkers throwing out cases because they were not turned out in precisely the right legalese, but generally speaking, they haven't been as lenient towards the banks' contempt of the judicial process either, so that works both ways.

 

Also the GLC are GOOD. If anyone can win this, it is them. Unlike us poor LIP sods, this is what they do for a living AND they are passionate about protecting the lickle peeps.

 

So, all we can do is wait... :-|

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm keeping everything crossed anyway Bookie - I hope your faith in the Scottish judicial system and GLC pays off :D

 

How quickly do you think this case will be resolved - are we expecting too much to have it resolved in one day do you think?

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully GLC's web site will son have an update of how today goes - but I really don't think everything will be "settled" today. You can bet the Banks will appeal if they lose!

 

BD

They can only appeal on a point of law, not because they don't like the outcome, remember. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys - that's what I suspected.......as BD says hopefully GLC will update their website with any news, good or bad. I just have a pessimistic inkling it will be adjourned or something :(

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...