Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi welcome to the Forum.  If a PCN is sent out late ie after the 12th day of the alleged offence, the charge cannot then be transferred from the driver to the keeper.T he PCN is deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch so in your case, unless you can prove that Nexus sent the PCN several days after they claim you have very little chance of winning that argument. All is not lost since the majority of PCNs sent out are very poorly worded so that yet again the keeper is not liable to pay the charge, only the driver is now liable. If you post up the PCN, front and back we will be able to confirm whether it is compliant or not. Even if it is ok, there are lots of other reasons why it is not necessary to pay those rogues. 
    • Hi 1 Date of the infringement  arr 28/03/24 21:00, dep 29/03/24 01.27 2 Date on the NTK  08/04/2024 (Date of Issue) 3 Date received Monday 15/04/24 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012?  Yes 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No  7 Who is the parking company? GroupNexus 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Petrol Station Roadchef Tibshelf South DE55 5T 'operating in accordance with the BPA's Code of Practice' I received a Parking Charge letter to keeper on Monday 15/04/24, the 17th day after the alleged incident. My understanding is that this is outside the window for notifying. The issue date was 08/04/2024 which should have been in good time for it to have arrived within the notice period but in fact it actually arrived at lunchtime on the 15th. Do I have to prove when it arrived  (and if so how can I do that?) or is the onus on them to prove it was delivered in time? All I can find is that delivery is assumed to be on the second working day after issue which would have been Weds 10//04/24 but it was actually delivered 5 days later than that (thank you Royal Mail!). My husband was present when it arrived - is a family member witness considered sufficient proof?
    • lookinforinfo - many thanks for your reply. It would be very interesting to get the letter of discontinuance. The court receptionist said that the county court was in Gloucester 'today' so that makes me think that some days it is in Gloucester and some days its in Cheltenham, it was maybe changed by the courts and i was never informed, who knows if DCBL were or not. My costs were a gallon of petrol and £3.40 for parking. I certainly don't want to end up in court again that's for sure but never say never lol. Its utterly disgusting the way these crooks can legally treat motorists but that's the uk for you. I'm originally from Scotland so it's good that they are not enforceable there but they certainly still try to get money out of you. I have to admit i have lost count of the pcn's i have received in the last 2 yr and 4 months since coming to England for work, most of them stop bothering you on their own eventually, it was just this one that they took it all the way. Like i mentioned in my WS the the likes of Aldi and other companies can get them cancelled but Mcdonalds refused to help me despite me being a very good customer.   brassednecked - many thanks   honeybee - many thanks   nicky boy - many thanks    
    • Huh? This is nothing about paying just for what I use - I currently prefer the averaged monthly payment - else i wouldn't be in credit month after month - which I am comfortable with - else I wold simply request a part refund - which I  would have done if they hadn't reduced my monthly dd after the complaint I raised (handled slowly and rather badly) highlighted the errors in their systems (one of which they do seem to have fixed) Are you not aware DD is always potentially variable? ah well, look it up - but my deal is a supposed to average the payments over a year, and i dont expect them to change payments (up or down) without my informed agreement ESPECIALLY when I'm in credit over winter.   You are happy with your smart meter - jolly for you I dont want one, dont have to have one  - so wont   I have a box that tells me my electricity usage - was free donkeys years ago and shows me everything I need to know just like a smart meter but doesnt need a smart meter,  and i can manually set my charges - so as a side effect - would show me if the charges from the supplier were mismatched. Doesn't tell me if the meters actually calibrated correctly - but neither does your smart meter. That all relies on a label and the competence of the testers - and the competence of any remote fiddling with the settings. You seem happy with that - thats fine. I'm not.    
  • 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 4083 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

Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

 

http://govanlc.blogspot.com/2010/02/...-to-proof.html

Friday, 19 February 2010

Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

 

THE BANK OF SCOTLAND has failed in its attempt to prevent a customer amending her claim for unfair bank charges, recalling the sist, and fixing a full evidential hearing at Glasgow Sheriff Court this morning (Friday, 19 February 2010).

 

UK banks have been telling over one million of their customers in the UK that they now had no legal basis to reclaim unfair charges in light of last November's Supreme Court ruling. However, the Supreme Court itself had suggested that charges could still be challenged under different legal grounds, and Govan Law Centre (GLC) had sought to amend their client's claim to incorporate a revised 'regulation 5' case under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR), and significantly, an additional claim under the new section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA, as amended in April 2007).

 

Counsel for the bank, instructed by Dundas and Wilson CS LLP, had objected strongly to the pursuer's substantial amendments, arguing it would be 'improper' to allow the customer to amend her claim in this way. GLC's Mike Dailly, representing the customer, explained to the court that it was necessary to amend the claim in order to take on board legal developments, and although consumers could no longer attack charges as 'excessive in price' under the UTCCR, they could do so under the s.140A of the CCA. The ability to do so was hugely significant, as was the fact the onus of proof to show charges were not excessive was on the bank under the CCA.

In
Sharp v. Bank of Scotland plc
, Sheriff Baird, a senior sheriff at Glasgow Sheriff Court, rejected the submissions for the defenders, and granted the pursuer's application to substantially amend her Statement of Claim and Crave, recalled the sist, and fixed a full evidential hearing (know as a 'proof' in Scotland) for 11th June 2010.

 

Mike Dailly, Principal Solicitor at Govan Law Centre said:

 

"Over the last few weeks, UK banks have been telling one million customers that there were now no grounds to reclaim bank charges, standing November's Supreme Court's decision. Of course, the Supreme Court itself had explained that charges could still be challenged under different legal grounds, and that is what Sheriff Baird has permitted our client to do today at Glasgow Sheriff Court".

 

"But besides a challenge under reg. 5 of the UTCCR, the Bank of Scotland now faces a fresh challenge that charges were excessive and unfair under the Consumer Credit Act. That is a potentially devastating case for them to answer, because under this new law the onus of proof is on the bank to show that charges were fair. Given that our banks have admitted they subsidise 'free-if-in-credit banking' by squeezing more money out their poorest customers through bank charges, they will now have to defend the indefensible. And, they will have the added problem that we are asking the court to prohibit them from imposing future charges under the CCA".

 

"In a nutshell, our new arguments are hugely more powerful than the ones deployed by the OFT in their unsuccessful test case. Evidentially, the new arguments require the bank to prove their charges were fair - which is tactically significant for consumers. The new arguments not only enable consumers to seek a refund of past charges, but entitle them to ask the court to prohibit future bank charges. That is hugely significant, and in many respects, we believe the new bank charges campaign is going to be a tougher propsect for the banks than the pre-July 2007 campaign. And of course that previous campaign saw refunds in excess of £1bn for consumers across the UK - so we are incredibly optimistic".

 

Not quite as earth-shattering as the headline suggests - only been granted permission to amend their POC's as opposed to the bank being ordered to show their charges were fair, but one more step in the right direction

 

  • Haha 1
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

  • 3 months later...
  • 1 month later...
Sorry, can't find it.

Bookworm Report

 

Subject: Research

 

Must try harder.

 

What is this all about?

 

As CAGlink31.gif has grown it has become increasingly clear to us that there are a great number of fantastic contributors out there who would make great Site Helpers/Mods but who simply never come to our attention. We feel that this can contributelink3.gif to a feeling of being ‘passed over’ for some people and so we have decided to open up the selection of site Helpers to anyone who cares to nominate themselves. The result is this thread where we will post the names of everyone who wants to become a Site Helper.

 

The role of a Site Helper is not fixed - there is no job description and we make little in the way of rules for you. Essentially, we look for people who give consistently good advice, are helpful to other users, encourage those in need of a little more help than usual and who generally show an ability to handle conflict and help to create a little calm in those situations that all too easily become heated.

 

 

What sort of people are we looking for?

 

We are not setting any criteria or minimum levels before consideration, but as a general guide we think it likely that you will have been a member of the site for a number of months, have quite a substantial post count (from outwith the Bear Garden) and be able to offer around 5 hours of your spare time per week. You don't have to be an expert in anything and you don't need any qualifications.

 

If you think you're still interested, read on....

 

This role is NOT a bed of roses. You may find that once you join us you will become more hooked than before. Whilst this is great for us, it probably won't be so great for your family / partner / dog or whatever else is important in your life, when they realise that you spend more time with us than you do with them!

 

As a team member on CAGlink31.gif, some people will expect you to work magic, know everything and always be there for them. Others will assume that 'the power has gone to your head' simply because your username turns pink or, heaven forbid, green. Other people will be far worse. A fairly thick skin is useful too.

 

 

You will play a part in shaping the future of this forum. Your work behind the scenes in helping us to keep the forum running smoothly, identifying users in trouble, bringing new ideas and opinions to the table etc will start to rub off on you too. Your knowledge of many issues will likely rise very quickly - you'll soon find new confidence in your own ability and the experience of helping out in this way can even benefit your "real" job and might even open up new roads for your future career.

 

You would have access to other team members and would receive help and guidance in developing your own role here.

 

You would get to take part in meetings held around the country, meet face to face with those of us who live in dark cupboards, you might even decide to take part in subsidised, professional training courses.

 

Let us know

 

If you would like to be considered as a CAG Site Helper all you have to do is send a pm to NOMBot stating the areas/subjects you consider yourself most able to help with. For example, you may have developed a lot of experience in dealing with HSBClink3.gif or perhaps you have a good knowledge of the Northern Ireland court system. This is the type of information we need to know about you. If you are not sure how to send a PM, there's a fair chance you might not be suitable just yet. Of course, if you would like your name to be removed from the list, just send another PM to NOMBot.

 

 

IMPORTANT

 

THIS IS NOT A ‘WAITING LIST’, and you should not assume that people will be asked to become Site Helpers in the order in which their names were added. People who can contributelink3.gif in areas of particular need will be given priority.

 

Under no circumstances will we enter into any discussion whatsoever about any nomination – so don’t ask.

 

There will be no "Dear John" letters to anyone who we don't feel is suitable and we will not discuss any reasons why you may have been overlooked. We are not Human Resources professionals and we don’t have the skills or the resources to manage a proper formal selection process, so you will either be asked to become a Site Helper or you won’t. Please don’t be offended if your name stays on the list longer than you might like. All it means is that you are not what we’re looking for at the moment. DO NOT NOMINATE YOURSELF UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THIS.

 

Thank you for taking the time to let us know that you may be interested. We very much appreciate the help that all our users give and remember, you don't have to have a title to do that!

 

How are Moderators selected?

Moderators are selected by invitation only from among the Site Helpers

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 2 months later...
Bearing in mind Mike Dailly's post (#933) on 10th December at 19.33, can I ask why the CAG newsletter states quite clearly "Scottish Legal Aid Board kills off hope of reclaiming unfair bank charges in Scotland"

 

I think Mike's point was that clearly the decision was a set back but that it was being appealed and could be subject to judicial review.

Could it possibly be that the headline of the Govan Law blog is:

 

 

Access to justice denied: Scottish Legal Aid Board kills off hope of reclaiming unfair bank charges in Scotland

 

 

http://govanlc.blogspot.com/2010/12/access-to-justice-denied-scottish-legal.html

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

GLC has settled a claim in full for the refund for overdraft charges with Santander UK plc. The claim was extra-judicially after proceedings had been raised utlising new legal and factual arguments.

 

Some of these arguments (but not all) are scheduled to be test in the cases of Reid v. Clydesdale Bank plc, and Sharp v. Bank of Scotland plc.

 

A debate will take at Glasgow Sheriff Court on 2 April 2012 in the case of Reid v. Clydesdale Bank plc, with GLC's Mike Dailly appearing for the pursuer, and Clydesdale's in-house legal team and counsel appearing for the defender.

 

The case of Sharp v. Bank of Scotland awaits a fresh hearing date.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

It means some posts (may be off-topic or abusive) have been removed. The post numbers within the thread are re-adjusted but the total page nos and post nos at the top are not.

 

Thus this is the last page (page 71) even though at the top is showing Page 71 of 74 pages and 1465 posts

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...