Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I repeat, the seller has the right under the CRA to repair. That is exactly what they have offered.   The OP doesn’t even know what the fault is, you cannot simply reject if a light has appeared. OP is being completely unreasonable.   The CRA is designed to be fair to both parties, it is not one sided.         
    • I only got the car 3 weeks ago, had the car serviced as it was coming up to the service date and was advised by the garage that the Tyres were illegal so I think it’s cut and dry really. The fact is I was allowed to drive a car off the forecourt with 2 bald tyres and I was told by dealer the car had been checked and surely Tyres should have been part of the check.
    • Less than 100 miles not enough miles or time to wear the Tyres enough according to the garage. I’m more angry I could have got up to a £5000 fine and 6 points, what would the dealership responsibilities be then? 
    • If the OP follows king’s advice and then the neighbour’s roof leaks, who do you think the neighbour will blame? a) the dodgy “roofers” (who will be long gone), b) the OP for “damaging a perfectly good repair” (even if they don’t damage it, and it wasn’t a good repair!), or c) someone else   King may be technically correct, but the OP following their advice isn’t likely to end well if the neighbour is already ‘difficult’. 
    • I sent a SAR. which also provided a copy of proof of ID, last month to Northumbrian Water, and received no reply whatsoever.   After the 30 day deadline passed i sent off a complaint form to the ICO and sent a letter of claim to NW for breach of statutory duty. (As up until today they had failed to respond in any way to the request that was made)   Today i received a reply saying the my ID wasn't in the standard format and they could not accept it,   (The exact same copy of ID has not been an issue before and the exact same image was accepted perfectly fine by a previous energy company i SAR'd), and that they required i give them 2 forms of I.D, 1 from list A and from List B Along with questioning the alternative address like i mentioned above.   I wanted the request to be sent to the alternate address, as i work full time and i'm not always at my home address, i'd most likely not be in at a time when it can be delivered and can't get to the delivery office easily enough before it would be returned back undelivered. (Which i wanted to avoid happening again as this happened to the last SAR i made.) The address is my partner's address, where i regularly go and who also works from home and wouldn't have issues receiving/collecting mail.
  • Our picks

    • My personal experiences of Future Comms 
       
      Don't touch them owe me £500 since January 2019 make excuse after excuse. Seem they always have software problems sending money out. Keep saying they will call back or email nothing been chasing it now for 6 mths the phone staff always have the same banter we will chase it up and get back to you then nothing!
      • 0 replies
    • Future Comms is a Big Con. How to get out of it. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/417058-future-comms-is-a-big-con-how-to-get-out-of-it/
        • Like
      • 4 replies
    • Future Comms issues. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/416504-future-comms-issues/
      • 5 replies
    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
Michael Browne

Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2317 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Yes,....BUT please please please:pray2: DO NOT LET the OFT ANYWHERE near it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So that's 3 now settled cases ??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SFU...yes but surely GLC has only ltd manpower and resources to do this?

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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


 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

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

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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


 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

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

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

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.

Share this post


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.


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!


£50k saved and £7k charges refunded:

MBNA & A&L 35% F&F direct - saved £23k. Birmingham Midshires £1700 charges refunded

Abbey Loan/BCW 50% - saved £2k. Barclaycard/CSL 40% - saved £6k

Monument/DCA 35% - saved £1k. LTSB/Wescot 50% - saved £4k

HBOS Visa £5k charges refund via Blair Oliver Scott

RBS Direct Line/(genuine) solicitors June 2010 40% - saved £3k

Morgan Stanley/Aktiv Kapital £11k SB Nov 2010

Over £40k balance write off and charges refunds to fight for:

HBOS O/d Charges £5k. Egg Loan/Aktiv Kapital CCA Dispute £8k

Egg Card/Fredrickson taking £5 monthly but CCA & Charges Dispute £4k

Goldfish/1st Credit DN/TN Dispute £9k. Capital One/CSL charges claim £4k

Barclaycard/CSL taking £5 monthly on £10k debt

 

I hope I have helped - if I have please hit my star - and recognise the others who have helped too.

Bigdebtor

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks to me that the Banks have won again.

Our whole system of justice needs a complete overhaul.

 

Carningli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

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

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

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.

Share this post


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. :-(


 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

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

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...