Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

If charges aren't fair in Scotland how could they be fair in England?;)

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes......but in the majority of cases it's the Law that matters. In this case both the UTCCR's and the CCA's are law both sides of the border :D

 

 

Correct...

 

 

I had to double check ....

There is one version of Reg5 and one version s140A,B,C,D CCA1974 and they ALL extend throughout England Wales Scotland AND NORTHERN IRELAND

 

m2ae:grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

How persuasive would a ruling from a Scottish Court be in an English Court?

 

TheyrCriminals

 

The same Provisions are being applied as mentioned in the above post.The Reasoning (RATIO) is very persuasive authority.

 

Taking for example the practice of smoking in Scotland in pubs was banned BEFORE it took hold over here.I suppose there are other examples but I am not gonna think anymore ...get some sleep..

 

I think your friend should apply for an extension if he has not already as was mentioned above in view of recent developments

 

cheerio

 

m2ae:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

GOVAN LAW CENTRE,

 

Thank you all for the superb work and outcome of the latest challenge to the Banks Unfair Charges debarcle. To you all, I say thank you for the renewed hope you are giving to us all in our endeavours to solve this ongoing problem and to you all I say "EXEMPLO DUCEMUS" You certainly do. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Mike and all at the GLC:

 

Superb work as ever. Please, please, please update this thread as soon as you can.

 

Caught between a rock and a hard place sums it up for the banks here: either they try and defend it, and we all know how much they like to do that in smaller courts - not -, or they cave as they used to do and send out a really really good message to the rest of us that they are running as scared now as they were 4 years ago.

 

I like it muy mucho!!! :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Mike and all at the GLC:

 

Superb work as ever. Please, please, please update this thread as soon as you can.

 

 

Good morning all,

I could not agree more - exceptional in every way. Very well done, looking forward to hearing more in due course.

 

As always very best wishes to all,

 

Dougal

Update: 2013 Following our recent (9/7/13) hearing about Bank Charges at the Court of Appeal, and refusal to grant permission to Appeal; an Application has just (23/10/2013) been made for a fresh hearing and the Court Location is yet to be confirmed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent news. S. 140 is going to be an interesting argument to develop........

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many congratulations Mike.

 

Thank you for restoring a wee bit of sunlight for this year.

 

Would this same argument apply to credit card charges. Remember when OFT gave out their report on credit cards, the identified costs were much less than the window of opportunity that OFT gave to credit card companies of £12.

 

Lo and behold all adopted this figure in a rush.

 

But what is the actual costs.

 

Back to same argument.

 

Thus would the case being formulated by GLC be similarly appropriate to other charges?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Josie8

Excellent news. S. 140 is going to be an interesting argument to develop........

But, very unfortunately, only if your claim elements fall within the date parameters "new charges from 6 April 2007, but only applies to people who had charges before April 2007 if the borrowing was still outstanding on 6 April 2008." I believe.

If else I will also be throwing my hat in the air.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, and then again not quite right Ken

 

We have never been able to find out what their costs were. However if they are extortionate post 2007/2008 they in all construction will have been so pre 2007/2008. That's the key I think?

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we not write to the courts asking them to deal under EU/EC directive 93/13

 

 

I dont think so The Directive has been implemented into National provisions...but still it has the same effect in terms of geographical extent.It's an EU provision.

 

The English Parliament was lawmaking for Scotland at that time too..I dont think Scotland had full Devolvement..I may be wrong if anyone could correct me on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I understand it, and please remember that EU law isn't my forte, the Directive is what led to the UTCCR 99 in the UK, as in all member states had to implement the directive in one form or another with the key elements in it, but of course with variations according to each individual country... and the end result for us here was the UTCCR 99.

 

Happy to be corrected if I am pedalling in the sauerkraut as we would say in French. :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking more of this part.

 

The aim of Article 6 of the Directive, which requires Member States to lay down that unfair terms are not binding on the consumer, would not be achieved if the consumer were himself obliged to raise the unfair nature of such terms. In disputes where the amounts involved are often limited, the lawyers' fees may be higher than the amount at stake, which may deter the consumer from contesting the application of an unfair term. While it is the case that, in a number of Member States, procedural rules enable individuals to defend themselves in such proceedings, there is a real risk that the consumer, particularly because of ignorance of the law, will not challenge the term pleaded against him on the grounds that it is unfair. It follows that effective protection of the consumer may be attained only if the national court acknowledges that it has power to evaluate terms of this kind of its own motion.

 

i.e the court should raise this of its own motion at no risk of cost to the consumer.

 

In the case of Pannon v Gyorfi [2009] c-243/08

 

it was ruled by an ECJ that it was the courts duty even if the consumer had not raised an issue with unfairness

Edited by rdm2006

HTH (Hope This Helps) RDM2006

 

THE FORCE (OF CAG) IS WITH YOU

;)

 

We've Helped You To Claim - Now Help Us Remain

A live Site - Make a Donation

 

All advice and opinions given by people on this site are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.

 

However, if you have found any advice you have been given helpful.

Why not show your gratitude And

Click the * on the post you found helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted by RDM2006

In the case of Pannon v Gyorfi [2009] c-243/08

 

it was ruled by an ECJ that it was the courts duty even if the consumer had not raised an issue with unfairness

This looks pretty definitive and in our favour. How best do we present this obligation as a duty of the court ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted by RDM2006

 

This looks pretty definitive and in our favour. How best do we present this obligation as a duty of the court ?

 

I am not a legally minded person but I am sure someone who is will check it out - perhaps GLC could ???

HTH (Hope This Helps) RDM2006

 

THE FORCE (OF CAG) IS WITH YOU

;)

 

We've Helped You To Claim - Now Help Us Remain

A live Site - Make a Donation

 

All advice and opinions given by people on this site are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.

 

However, if you have found any advice you have been given helpful.

Why not show your gratitude And

Click the * on the post you found helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys

maybe confused here but i have a

CLAIMANT’S RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION

to which i thought was a amended defence to any applications for a strike out if the banks were to apply.

I have a claim in court at the moment and admittedly i havent done anything of late, I was waiting for the defendant to apply for a strike out because of the lords judgement,

Could I post this up its a 8 page amendement, or is this now a out of date, I downloaded this in january and not too sure where it came from but thought it was usable, maybe Bankfodder ,Caro are aware of this.

I cant put this up on photobucket as its done in word but can post up on forum,

please advise.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

However a word of caution, I note that HSBC have already responded to one Cager That their Legal Team asserts that, charges cannot be challenged under Regulation 5 or 6 and that there is no unfair case under s.140A of the CCA. They have no doubt taken Counsel's advice in this matter and take comfort from it.

 

I've had the same. Three times.

 

They've failed to reply to why they cannot provide T's and C's from 2001 (when the charges were applied) and since the account was sold in 2007, how the current T's and C's and those from the test case are applicable to my claim (that's what they say) because they've sent them.

 

They also can't show any facility letters for the overdraft and state there is no executed agreement though they got a CCJ based on a 'regulated agreement'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The English Parliament was lawmaking for Scotland at that time too..I dont think Scotland had full Devolvement..I may be wrong if anyone could correct me on this.

 

Wait a wee minute Jimmy! Whit's this aboot an English Parliament?

 

There are currently 2 (twa) Parliaments in the UK the noo - wan in Edinburgh run by Scotsmen and the UK Parliament in London - also run by Scotsmen!

 

Wales and Northern Ireland only have Assemblies - because they were conquered - but Scotland was NEVER conquered - and never ruled by an ENGLISH Parliament.

 

BD

Edited by Bigdebtor
typos due to outraged fury
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...