Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
  • 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

Can I take an EU company to court in the UK


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4589 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

My mother recently contacted a company advertising on National TV as a timeshare resaler calling themselves ETOO (European Timeshare Owners Association). She has a timeshare which she has been trying to sell without success. After contacting them, she received a call-back from them advising her that they had a company that were looking to purchase 15 weeks of timeshare holidays and were offering £8500 per week (she has two to sell).

 

They asked for £950 for advertising fees in advance which she would get back when the sale went through. That rang alarm bells, but the seller provided her the name of the regulatory body which would provide a reference, the ITRO (International Timeshare Retail Association). Using the phone number provided she contacted them, and got a glowing reference about their services.

 

I have since found out about this and done some research. It appears that ETOO were the subject of an OFT warning this January regarding the advertisments being carried on National TV. Additionally, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint earlier this year that their adverts were giving the impression that the company was being overseen by a regulatory body, the ITRA, which was not the case. The ITRA is the creation of ETOO and two other companies and has not legal standing whatsoever.

 

After she had received the "glowing reference" from the ITRA, she agreed to their terms and provided her credit card number and agreement for the £950 payment. About 20 minutes later, the firm called back and told her that her bank had declined the transaction and asked her to contact her bank which she did. This was yesterday.

 

Having found aout about all this today, I advised her to tell the back that she believed the transaction to be fraudulent and to do a chargeback. The bank (Co-op) has refused to do this because it was she who authorised the transaction by phoning them.

 

Can anyone advise if she is still covered under the CCA 1974 in these circumstances, and can the bank refuse the chargeback.

 

Thanks

 

(Note to mods. I've also posted this in the holidays section as a warning regarding ETOO and the ITRA)

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Old_andrew2018

Hi

Just to be quite clear the original transaction was declined by your mothers bank, she then telephoned and arrange payment, is that correct or have I missed something, please advise.

 

Regards

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's correct Andrew. The original transaction was declined by the banks security system, although they won't say why it was declined. She was then contacted by ETOO and asked to confirm to the bank that this was a genuine transaction.

 

At that stage, she was still under the impression, aided by the reference that she had received from the ITRA, that this firm was reputable so she was happy to comply.

 

I've since found this on the internet which gives a clear idea of how the ITRA and ETOO are linked. Note that it is written by the person who set up the ITRA.

 

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/TonySedgwickG180.doc

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Old_andrew2018
That's correct Andrew. The original transaction was declined by the banks security system, although they won't say why it was declined. She was then contacted by ETOO and asked to confirm to the bank that this was a genuine transaction.

 

At that stage, she was still under the impression, aided by the reference that she had received from the ITRA, that this firm was reputable so she was happy to comply.

 

I've since found this on the internet which gives a clear idea of how the ITRA and ETOO are linked. Note that it is written by the person who set up the ITRA.

 

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/TonySedgwickG180.doc

Hi

How can the ITRA get away with this, I feel your mother has been poorly treated, however I can't see the bank moving at all on this, I'm sure they will argue that the transaction was authorised at your mothers request.

With luck another more experienced member will come along with useful advice, so if nothing else our replies have bumped the thread.

 

Regards

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately we also have a couple of other avenues to attack. The media is also liable, since they have continued to carry adverts for ETOO despite being advised back in January by the Timeshare Consumers Association that they were advertising a [problem] organisation. The TCA has offered to assist anyone suffering as a result of seeing their advertising in taking the carrier of the adverts to court.

 

Also, since there has been no contract signed, we will be putting it formally in writing to ETOO that their services are not required, and demanding that the £950 be returned in full. if they fail to comply, then the banks will have no choice but to recover the monies since the money would have been paid but no service forthcoming.

 

The people I feel really sorry for are those who have signed contracts, only to find out that their "buyer" is nothing of the sort, but just another timeshare [EDIT] trying to sell them even more worthless holiday time and then rejecting any refund on the basis that they had made an offer in line with the contract.

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I need some urgent advice please.

 

This is regarding the issue I posted last week.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/143524-can-bank-refuse-fraudulent.html

 

The police are advising that as money was paid up front, a contract has been entered into even though no contract has yet been provided or signed. The [problematic] are claiming that failure to sign the contract will result in forfeiture of the deposit £950.

 

The company have claimed that a sale of her timeshare will be made in london on May 22nd at their London offices. However, the address that ETOO provide as their London office is an accommodation address (Trafalgar House, Grenville Place, London). I have confirmed with them today that ETOO only use their mailing services.

 

Surely, it is contrary to the UTCCR to have in place a clause in a contract which states that if the contract is not satisfactory the transaction is deemed to have taken place.

 

The bank will only refund on chargeback if it is proved that this is a [problem]. However, to prove it is a [problem], she has to sign the contract and commits herself to a deal which she knows will not happen.

 

Anyone advice on how to proceed, please.

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the marketing agreement that was sent.

 

Bear in mind, that she has been promised that a buyer has already been found and that the contract for the sale will be signed in London on May 22nd.

 

My mother made it clear at the time of the phone conversation that she could not leave the country due to medical conditions, and was told that the sale would be taking place in London at their offices. (They have no offices, the address is a forwarding address). She was also told that they couldn't enter into a verbal contract and the contract had to be signed for the transaction to go ahead, but she couldn't back out of it after that phone conversation (bit of a contradiction that one). Additionally, why are they advertising her property for twelve months whrn they already have a buyer!

 

BTW, trading standards didn't seem to think it was a [problem]. Scarry.

 

 

MARKETING AGREEMENT

 

Marketing Terms and Conditions

 

1. ETOO is authorised to market your timeshare ownership or points and agrees that no further costs will be charged in relation to the sale unless otherwise stated and/or agreed by all parties concerned.

2. ETOO will source the best possible offer available and will refer all offers directly to the vendor.

3. ETOO will utilise the following marketing methods:

a. TV advertising our services on both terrestrial and satellite television on major channels such as Channel 5, ITV, Sky News.

b. Google adwords - Strategic pay per click advertising on Google (the worlds most recognised search engine) places etoo on top of all major timeshare industry keyword searches.

c. Newspaper - advertising your specific timeshare ownership listing in a mainstream international newspaper publication.

d. In-flight Magazines - advertising our services in the in - flight magazines of some of Europes most popular airlines

e. Corporate Offers - Negotiating with organisations interested in selective inventory.

 

4. Your payment will be used to marlet your timeshare during the period of twelve months as stated in no 3 a through e above.

5 etoo agrees to administer legal and transfre procedures, the exception being when documents require notorisation or equivalent, or where direct contact from the vendor is necessary by a trustee. Full assistance will be provided by etoo where needed.

6. The endor must be the legal entity authorized to register the ownership as stated and undertsnads that on occasions the vendor may be requested to be present at the point of sale.

7.At the point of sale, the title deed/certificate will be free of liability, any related finance being settled in full.

8. The management fee is the responsibility of the vendor, not the purchaser, and must be current in order for the sale to conclude.

9. At point of sale, the vendor may be requested to un-bank any banked weeks. Confirmation of such must be provided in writing by relevent exchange company and/or resort.

10. Should you dispose of your ownership without the assistance of etoo, immediate notification must be provided to etoo.

 

Confirmation of details and Terms and Conditions.

I confirm that the above details are accurate and correct, and that I have read, understood and agree to the Terms and Conditions as above.

 

Name Signature date

 

I confirm receipt of this application. Please print your name and date, thank you.

 

Registered Office:Garrison House, 3 Library Ramp, PO Box 1323, Gibraltar, Registered in Gibraltar No 52251.

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have not done so already please call trading standards who may be able to assist with this. Use Consumer Direct and advise them of the amount of money and that your mother is elderly. I recommend calling them rather than using the online service.

they may be able to refer the case for assistance

Link to post
Share on other sites

My mother has spoken to trading standards again today, having seen the "contract". The numpty on the other end of the phone suggested that it may be a genuine transaction and not a [problem] at all !

 

One wonders who the hell is being employed by tradings standards these days. They must read their own files.

 

The important point that I'm trying to clarify is that when the initial contact was made, my mother was told:

 

1. That she could not pull out of the transaction once she agreed to go ahead even though no contract had been signed at that point.

2. The contract HAD to be signed, because a verbal contract could not be entered into by the sales rep.

3. No refund would be given if the contract was not entered into, yet the contract specified completely different terms to those agreed verbally, and is impossible for her to agree to on medical grounds which they were made fully aware of.

 

If she has is considered not to have agreed to the sale until a contract is signed, then provide her with a totally irrelevent contract to sign, how on earth can they claim that no refund is forthcoming after a verbal conversation.

 

This must be contrary to the UTCCR ?

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it actually trading standards or consumer direct? It is contrary to UTCCR in my opinion, and unfortunately it is a civil matter.

However, there are also possibly criminal elements. Trade descriptions spring to mind, and as they are operating in europe, maybe the unfair commercial practices directive.

 

I suggest that you make a call on your mothers behalf and emphasise that she is elderly and vulnerable. They're targeted on those things. Mention also the number of complaints against them and the ASA action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

There is a good chance that I shall have to try and recover about £400 from a German company who are refusing to comply with EU law..

 

Am I correct in my understanding that this can be done in the UK via the small claims procedure, providing that they have an address in the UK to which documents can be posted?

 

The company has a UK postal address which is a PO Box number in Liverpool for the purposes of customer feedback, which also appears on correspondence received from them.

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perplexity.

 

I have neither the time, the inclination nor the understanding to go trawling through EC regulations you quote in your reply, in order to find what should be a simple yes or no answer.

 

If you wish to assist, please do so in simple terms that this layman can understand. Linking to or quoting specific sections of regulations to back up advice given is often helpful, simply quoting regulation names is meaninless to an average person, especially one who loses the will to live after reading the first five lines of most documents of legal jargon.

 

Sorry to be blunt.

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard, No. Small Claims in ONLY for E&W. You cannot rais an actain for anyone not domiciled or operating a business from England. There is a special EU court process that allows you to issue court documents via a trans-EU judiciary - but it is operated via Luxembourg (although you can file online). You'll waste your money on a SC, always assuming they're smart enough to notice it isn't a UK address.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the thing though Buzby, they do have an English address, in Liverpool at which staff are located.

 

The correspondence so far has been sent to, and received from Liverpool and it is an address which the company lost on their website as the UK contact address.

 

That said, other advice suggests that I would be better off going via the regulatory authority in this instance, although it may take a lot longer.

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regulatory action rarely benefit the punter, but regarding the Liverpool presence, where is the company actually registered? EBay has a London office, but can routinely avoid UK court action because it is based in Luxembourg.

 

A contact address in no better than a PO Box. Further, the 'office' could be an agency and has no responsibility for their client.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I think that perplexity may be right here.

 

The legislation he quoted concerns cross border claims under a scheme known as the "European small claims procedure."

 

Essentially, it will allow you to take action against this company - usually the country in which the defendant it domiciled will have jurisdiction, but in some instances, the claim may be bought elsewhere - like where you live.

 

Cases where the action can be bought in a Country other than that in which the defendant is domiciled may involve:

 

• a contractual obligation;

• actions for damages;

• matters relating to maintenance; and

• matters relating to consumer contracts, insurance and too individual contracts of

employment.

• Matters relating to patents and trademarks

• Matters relating to ownership or tenancy of immovable property

 

Im a bit busy at present, but for more info, look here: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex725_e.pdf

 

and here: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/protection_of_consumers/l16028_en.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

The legislation he quoted concerns cross border claims under a scheme known as the "European small claims procedure."

 

----

 

(EC) No 44/2001 covers the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters in general.

 

Practice Direction 6B covers the service of a claim form abroad.

 

8-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hi, I too was taken in by ETOO advertising but went the whole way, paid, signed contract, met their so called Corporate buyers in Spain. BBC Watchdog did a programme on it so I filed a claim with FOS. Two years later this has been rejected so still no money back. Thinking about putting in a claim to Small Claims Court but need advice on how to proceed. Can anyone help?

Edited by ELB
Problem detected
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...