Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • TBH gotta be quite frank here as much as we hate BM world. why didn't you not simply change the battery? or come here FIRST before launch a court claim? or let them do it.? a flat battery is gonna be a hard case to win +£500 on     
    • Hi all, thanks for the feedback. I have now made the final amends and included the supporting evidence in this final version of the WS / court bundle. Attached is the redacted version of this final WS / court bundle. If there is any further feedback, please do let me know. If not, I will get 2 copies printed for posting - 1 to the court and the other to Evri. Final Draft - Witness Statement and Court Bundle redacted.pdf
    • We dispute the claim on the basis the claimant has made not efforts to mitigate their losses, nor did they obtain any prior authorisation. The claimant purchased a used Mini Cooper Convertible from our dealership on or around 21st April 2023. On or around 23rd April 2023 the claimant notified ourselves that the vehicle had failed to start, the claimant had since had this diagnosed as a battery. The Claimant proceeded to book their vehicle with Stephen James (BMW/Mini Main Agent) and authorised a battery replacement and paid a total sum of £597.42, the claimant obtained no authorisation for this cost beforehand, and has since tried reclaiming the full amount. We have advised the claimant we would not consider the cost of the unauthorised repair he has had completed. Had the claimant returned the vehicle to the selling dealer, it is likely we would have offered to replace the battery at no further cost to themselves, we have therefore agreed to offer a contribution of £165 towards the repair. This cost is in line with the cost of a replacement battery had the vehicle been returned to ourselves.    
    • You can only get a CCJ if you lose the case and then stick two fingers up to the court and refuse to pay. Even in the very, very unlikely event of you losing, as long as you paid within the 30 days ordered by the court you wouldn't get a CCJ. But you've come here very late and we need the sticky filling in please.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Ludlum Vs Abbey


ludlum
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6466 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

Hi. (and help)

 

Today I reveived a letter in response to my DPA request from Pam Speed of the Abbey. I would be grateful for some adice on the next step...

 

The summative points of the letter are as follows.

 

  • It only refers to one of the three Abbey Current Accounts that I have, I specified all three Account Numbers in my initial letter but the reply only refers to one of them.

  • The claim to be unable to provide a list of charges over the last 6 years only a list of transactions which will include any charges.

  • They say I will only receive data currently held on their systems free of charge. Earlier records are stored on micrfiche and not covered by the DPA and therefore not subject to the 40 day ruling.

  • They state that they can supply details of transactions held on microfiche for a fee of £10 for multiple monthly statements per account.

  • They offer to use the £10 to finance the microfiche records I require but do not specify if they will provide for all three accounts or just the one they have referenced in the letter header.

  • They are also "unable" to provide evidence of any "manual interventions."

I also received a separate letter to similar effect stating thus..

 

We can supply details of transactions held on microfiche on payment of an admin fee of £5 per account for 1 archived monthly statement or £10 per account for multiple monthly statments.

 

Could any of you kind folk advise me of the next step, particularly in the context of the fact that I have three accounts with them and they seem to want paying for each account and the fact that they have not acknowledged my two other accounts. Also, what should I be getting for my one off payment of £10 of which that have received?

 

Look forward to hearing from you. Please Help, itching to progress !!!!!!!!!!!

 

Ludlum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. (and help)

 

Today I reveived a letter in response to my Data Protection Act request from Pam Speed of the Abbey. I would be grateful for some adice on the next step...

 

The summative points of the letter are as follows.

  • It only refers to one of the three Abbey Current Accounts that I have, I specified all three Account Numbers in my initial letter but the reply only refers to one of them.

  • The claim to be unable to provide a list of charges over the last 6 years only a list of transactions which will include any charges.

  • They say I will only receive data currently held on their systems free of charge. Earlier records are stored on micrfiche and not covered by the Data Protection Act and therefore not subject to the 40 day ruling.

  • They state that they can supply details of transactions held on microfiche for a fee of £10 for multiple monthly statements per account.

  • They offer to use the £10 to finance the microfiche records I require but do not specify if they will provide for all three accounts or just the one they have referenced in the letter header.

  • They are also "unable" to provide evidence of any "manual interventions."

I also received a separate letter to similar effect stating thus..

 

We can supply details of transactions held on microfiche on payment of an admin fee of £5 per account for 1 archived monthly statement or £10 per account for multiple monthly statments.

 

Could any of you kind folk advise me of the next step, particularly in the context of the fact that I have three accounts with them and they seem to want paying for each account and the fact that they have not acknowledged my two other accounts. Also, what should I be getting for my one off payment of £10 of which that have received?

 

Look forward to hearing from you. Please Help, itching to progress !!!!!!!!!!!

 

Ludlum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Niklowe

    • It only refers to one of the three Abbey Current Accounts that I have, I specified all three Account Numbers in my initial letter but the reply only refers to one of them.

    • The claim to be unable to provide a list of charges over the last 6 years only a list of transactions which will include any charges.

    • They say I will only receive data currently held on their systems free of charge. Earlier records are stored on micrfiche and not covered by the Data Protection Act and therefore not subject to the 40 day ruling.

    • They state that they can supply details of transactions held on microfiche for a fee of £10 for multiple monthly statements per account.

    • They offer to use the £10 to finance the microfiche records I require but do not specify if they will provide for all three accounts or just the one they have referenced in the letter header.

    • They are also "unable" to provide evidence of any "manual interventions."

As you have asked for the Data from all accounts that is the data they have to give you.

 

As long as they give you the details of the charges, amount, date, what for etc, that's all you need.

 

Point three is their standard microfiche fob off. The OFT is visiting them on the 6th Sept to see if this can be classed as a relevant filing system. There is a letter from Alan from Derby in the Abbey section that has a reply to this fob off.

 

It's a regular ploy to try and use the £10 to send you the microfiche statements, but they can take their time.

 

They haven't revealed any manual intervention to anyone. If they did it would blow their case for the charges out of the water.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hiya kia here thought your thread looked a little lonely so thought id put a little comment on it you need to ask things as well like me and suz mind you we need more help than most eh!!!and i am commenting on two threads at the moment they keep me busy what stage are you at and if your viewing this suz ive not abandoned you honest!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all.

 

Sorry for my impatientness, just itching to get on I suppose. Am about to draft my next letter in response to microficeh business from Abbey.

 

Any copies of templeted letters that have proven results would be greatfully received.

 

Lud/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi lud I think im in the same boat as you I keep asking questions but im getting all worried cos no-one is answering my questions what stage you at ive got 11 days till the original 40 days is up & im struggling on the prem letter!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Ludlum

 

I think you find that you won't see any 'results' to any of your letters that you send shABBEY. What you are doing at present is following all the steps that you need to cover yourself, so that shABBEY can't really come back with much of an argument or defence to your actions at getting these unlawful charges back.

 

The most important thing to do throughout this process is to keep to your timetable, whether or not shABBEY are replying to any of your correspondence, as they will try to shake you off at any chance you give them to seize upon!!! At least by doing this, if you ended up in court, you can give them a full run down to what you have done, what you have sent etc. and they won't be able to argue against it.

 

Click on the link below, copy and amend it and get it off to them. This is what I did. Once the 40 days are up (from the date they would have received your SAR) then you can send them a LBA for non-compliance if they have'nt sent you all the information that you have asked for.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/4031-abbey-microfiche-argument.html

 

Have you received any info so far? If you have then there is no reason why you can't put a claim in now with an estimated schedule of charges. Copy the Prelim letter from the bank templates library, and send it off with a copy of your estimated schedule. This will at least get the ball rolling, if you are comfortable with putting in an estimated claim!

 

Don't forget, stick to your timetable, not theirs! Hope this helps!

Phil:)

This is only my personal, honest opinion!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

Did not receive any statements in my first reply from them, they just tried to defer my £10 fee to cover the cost of routine statment requests. Have just typed my response to the microfiche argument which after asking for tips on a location of the template, noticed it two lines above my thread (so off to specsavers next!)

 

Thanks for all those who have chipped in with help to get me going.

 

Lud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Threads merged -again-

 

Please stop multiple postings, and keep all your queries and updates on the one thread per claim. If everyone did this, we would have to answer 10 000 posts a day instead of 5 000 and we're already struggling to keep up as it is.

 

You are not "lacking in answers compared to others". IF, after 24 hrs or so, you haven't had an answer to your query and you haven't found the answer yourself by searching around (which would be surprising), then please write "bump" in your own thread, so that it comes up again in the "new posts".

 

Sorry for being abrupt, but we're struggling to answer everyone as it is, and your multiple posting creates a lot more work for the volunteers on here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there all right none of the letters produce any results youll probably end up like the rest of us taking them to court for it sorry couldnt offer any easy answers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted resonse to microfiche letter today by FCRD.

 

I have three accounts with the Abbey and got Pam Speed microfiche letter sent separately for each blimmin account. Is it me or does that seam a touch inefficient...?

 

Lovin it......

Ludlum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ahy ha the old microfish ploy another fob off by the scabby if itis held on seperare files why when you phone up they can see your file in front of them seperate building my ar*e they must think there dealing with idiots.Im just as impaient as you be you gotta go one step at a time steady as you go!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...