Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Actually you making me go back and double check the Arnold Clark thing rang a bell and the trust took all the payments off my wages. 2 months £111 & 2 months at £115. Im fairly sure that means its paid off?
    • nothing to be scared about at sll... what are you scared over ... lets get that out the window then p'haps we can be given some logical answers as this is all mad. who is the owner on the cars v5c document?..have you got a copy of it? when someone get's a pcn, it will go to the registered keeper of the car, (as whomever issued the pcn will log a reg number, then ask the dvla whom is said person on their database for a fee)  if the RK are a lease company, the lease company should inform the pcn sender of the details of the named HIRER.  the pcn issuers then must reset everything and write a new pcn to the stated hirer including a copy of the relevant hire agreement. if the hirer was not the driver, then they should write back to the pcn issuer stating who the driver at the time of the PCN was. the PCN issuer should then reset everything again and sent a new pcn to the named driver. thats how things work by LAW. if someone in one of the stages has messed up then any pcn is void. lets just assume that the nhs trust is the hirer, the nhs trust just cant payt any pcn they get whereby they know the driver was you and then dock it from your wages!! thats THEFT!! any PCN is solely a matter between whomever was the DRIVER and the PCN issuer, NOTHING to do with any hire company who should be transparent. nothing to do with your employer the hiree, they should be transparent.  now if the pcn issurer has written to the DRIVER and they fail to pay a PCN , eventually the registered keeper ONLY could be held responsible. but that doesnt fit any of your PCN's esp this one!! neither should pay anything to anyone not doc your wages nor add admin fees. again something is not right here. dx   nothing to do with    
    • Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss will become co-owners in the ninth-tier club.View the full article
    • yes send a letter explaining your business losses as a result of the NFU error and say that you want to avoid taking this to Court, therefore hope that a settlement can be negotiated.  Send as much information as you can to evidence the loss and how these have been calculated.
    • Ok this email was sent with it and the trust have been claiming something off my wages for ages (i did warn you i was bad)  Please find attached a copy of a parking notice that has been issued against your lease vehicle.  we would encourage you to take immediate action to prevent the notice escalating from £50.00 to £75.00 on 31st January 2024.  All information is contained within the notice including instructions on what to do next.  Please note if you do not pay this fine or an appeal is denied and  receive a further notice, the value of the further notice will be paid in full and you will be recharged the full amount, including any increased fees/administration costs. I work for an nhs trust who i lease my car from. They get their cars from a number off agents, mine is from Arnold Clarke. I am the leaseholder, the renter of said car, the NHS trust/Arnold Clark is the owner. Apologies as i mentioned, im new to this, totally unorganised and grieving tbf doodoo scared.  I really appreciate the help 
  • 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 4076 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

No t5hink its two - Sharp v Clydesdale, as well (now) Reid and BoS. Walls, last I heard, was heading to the ECHR on the basis that the refusal of the Scottish Legal Aid Board to grant legal aid when the Bank had taken the case out of summary cause (exposing the claimant to unlimited expenses if they lost), was a breach of Human Rights. Like many ECHR cases, goodness only knows when there will be an outcome.

Taking Sharp and Reid together with the news earlier that GLC is moving toward stage 2 where multiple cases will be brought, presumably on the same bases as Reid and Sharp, is significant progress. Clearly the banks - as they often dont - didnt want to take their chance on their day in court. Having used a variety of scare and delay tactics, they have decided to fold. It would be interesting to learn what issues were raised for Sharp and Reid, but given the agreement that has been struck with the bank that is impossible. However, when multiple cases start going in (and not just in Glasgow?), strategies of delay and causing concern, simply wont work and the banks will either have to decide whether to be dragged through court any number of times to either lose or give up at the entrance to the court (which is going to impose costs on them no matter what), or do the decent thing and return the money they have in effect stolen to their customers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes their manpower is limited - its "only" a local advice centre. However, if you go here (http://govanlc.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/glc-unfair-bank-charges-update-phase-2.html) you will find that they now have a partnership with the Glasgow Advice Agency Ltd, which they say will allow them to bring "much larger groupings of litigations on behalf of consumers in the East of Glasgow, and across the South of Glasgow." The East End in particular is likely to produce any number of cases from people in the most severe financial hardship, many of whom will have had a right kicking off the banks - it will illustrate the "unfair relationship" beatutifully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AND should hopefully get the press attention needed to bring this back onto the front pages of the news papers.

If in doubt, contact a qualified insured legal professional (or my wife... she knows EVERYTHING)

 

Or send a cheque or postal order payable to Reclaim the Right Ltd.

to

923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE

 

 

Click here if you fancy an email address that shows you mean business! (only £6 and that will really help CAG)

 

If you can't donate, please use the Internet Search boxes on the CAG pages - these will generate a small but regular income for the site

 

Please also consider using the

C.A.G. Toolbar

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully, though so far the banks havent let the cases get to a final court decision. Will they do the same now in the face of some more (but at this point hardly an onslaught)? Who knows.

I suspect they will do what they can to keep it out of mainstream media, but its on this kind of matter that sites like this are worth their weight in gold.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes their manpower is limited - its "only" a local advice centre. However, if you go here (http://govanlc.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/glc-unfair-bank-charges-update-phase-2.html) you will find that they now have a partnership with the Glasgow Advice Agency Ltd, which they say will allow them to bring "much larger groupings of litigations on behalf of consumers in the East of Glasgow, and across the South of Glasgow." The East End in particular is likely to produce any number of cases from people in the most severe financial hardship, many of whom will have had a right kicking off the banks - it will illustrate the "unfair relationship" beatutifully.

 

GLC is one of the largest law centres in the UK, and Mike Dailly is involved in financial issues at a national (UK) level, so I think it's likely that he'll be working to improve things for the masses, and not just locally.

 

http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/2641/Solicitor_of_the_Year's_appointment_in_FSA_role_made_via_Facebook.html

 

http://www.fs-cp.org.uk/about_us/mike_dailly.shtml

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

I think Caro you must have missed the quote marks around "only". GLC, whether its one of the biggest, or even the biggest law centre clearly punches way above its weight, and that it does so is testament to the work of Mike Dailly, though not only him as I am certain he would be the first to acknowledge.

On the other hand GLC does have to focus on cases from the inhabitants of its local area - see for instance http://www.govanlc.com/glasgow.htm - this is why the partnership with Glasgow Advice Agency is important since it allows a larger geographical "footprint" to be covered. But at the same time, I dont think Mike Dailly will need telling about the significance of his work (and not only on bank cases) for much further afield than Govan or even Glasgow as a whole.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry sfu - I missed the significance of the quote marks. Had a bit of a blonde moment I think. GLC have also been heavily involved in repossession issues. As you say, Mike and the team clearly punches above it's weight. :-D

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

so, as suggested before, and what the glc seems to be working towards, need an authority, like the ppi case for eg, for things to be universal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
No t5hink its two - Sharp v Clydesdale, as well (now) Reid and BoS. Walls, last I heard, was heading to the ECHR on the basis that the refusal of the Scottish Legal Aid Board to grant legal aid when the Bank had taken the case out of summary cause (exposing the claimant to unlimited expenses if they lost), was a breach of Human Rights. Like many ECHR cases, goodness only knows when there will be an outcome.

Taking Sharp and Reid together with the news earlier that GLC is moving toward stage 2 where multiple cases will be brought, presumably on the same bases as Reid and Sharp, is significant progress. Clearly the banks - as they often dont - didnt want to take their chance on their day in court. Having used a variety of scare and delay tactics, they have decided to fold. It would be interesting to learn what issues were raised for Sharp and Reid, but given the agreement that has been struck with the bank that is impossible. However, when multiple cases start going in (and not just in Glasgow?), strategies of delay and causing concern, simply wont work and the banks will either have to decide whether to be dragged through court any number of times to either lose or give up at the entrance to the court (which is going to impose costs on them no matter what), or do the decent thing and return the money they have in effect stolen to their customers.

 

I've been away for a while (no - not that kind of "away" - I'm sure they've got better broadband than any of us can afford in there anyway) - so I'm just catching up on threads of interest. The thing is it now seems to me that we are back into a two tier justice situation - the Banks will cave in when people can use legal aid - but will continue to prevaricate when cutomers need to risk their own money in fighting them.

 

I think these kind of "confidential" deals should be made illegal - after all surely "justice" must be seen to be done - and apply to all - not just to those who can use legal aid?

 

Hopefully GLC "phase 2" might help the rest of us? I'm puzzled though that in this anti-Bank culture there has been nothing in the papers or media even to report that there is nothing to report other than two cases have been withdrawn. Perhaps CAG should be more pro-activae in publicising things like this.

 

BD

 

PS - Totally agree - OFT please BUTT out thsi time around - leave it to those more competent - i.e. everyone else!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • 4 months later...
Has there been ANY developments which have not been 'gagged'?

 

I don't think so kenny. I understand GLC are trying to find a way round this.

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

Agreed kenny. It's been a long time and I know no more than anyone else. It's all very frustrating. :-(

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...