Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OP stated they had been arrested, but not charged (let alone convicted). They DON'T have a criminal record, but do have an entry on the PNC. That information stays on the PNC (Police National Computer) for life, but doesn't get released in a standard DBS. It only MIGHT get released for an Enhanced DBS (eDBS) check  ... but it would be incredibly unlikely. (The rational behind this is that eDBS's allow for 'information at Chief Officer of Police's discretion' ..... this covers the 2 'barring lists' and is also intended for the scenario where someone has multiple arrests or investigations, where safeguarding is a concern .... it was brought in after the Soham murders / Ian Huntley case, where the information known about the now-convicted child murderer may have prevented his employment in a school, had it been made available). So, for the sake of accuracy and completeness, arrests stay on the PNC for life, wont appear in a standard DBS, MIGHT appear in an eDBS, but in reality, would be the exception rather than the norm, and I can't see them being released  to a defense barrister. What then if the defence found out a different way, and brought it up in court?. Again, unlikely, but the important feature is that the judge would make sure they trod very carefully!. They MIGHT consider using it if there were other factors that allowed them to try to cast doubts as to the truthfulness of your evidence, but on its own : No way. Anyone MIGHT be arrested (if a seemingly plausible complaint been made against them)! The approach to take if it did come up is to be truthful. "Yes, I was arrested. It arose from a vexatious complaint. I wasn't charged, let alone convicted. That could happen to any one of us, if a vexatious complaint gets made" Far better that than lying, saying you'd never been arrested, and getting caught in a lie : that would ruin your credibility. I'm incredibly doubtful it will even come up, though.
    • we dont get N157 because its new OCMC but no court dont have evidence either.   Just seems a bit of a pointless wait but oh well
    • Post #9 suggested some options to avoid or put off having a smart meter. Post #12 a simple solution to your complaint about the ay they handle fixed monthly DD. It's not really clear why you posted if you're going get irate when members "jump in" with suggestions. You can see what I'm referring to on "gasracker.uk" to allay your suspicion that I was lying in Post #16 which was made to correct ther misinformation shown in your Post #15
    • Back to octopus from the smart meter/tariff salesperson. Octopus have now said just ignore the letter - I dont have to have one despite there letter implying (at least) it was required, but that i will HAVE to have a smart meter if current meters stop working as 'their suppliers dont supply non smart meters any more'. They also say they do not/will not disable any smart functionality when they fit a smart meter I am of course going to challenge that. Thats their choice of meter fitter/supplier problem not mine
  • 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

Matt v HSBC


taylorit
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6364 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

I have replied on your main thread - no need to be worried - its just to buy them some more time and stop you from applying for judgement while they sort out a settlement with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice :D

 

Will be looking out for the postman tomorrow once again :D

 

But I cannot understand why they did not pay me the initial offer I accepted, they had not paid it within 14 days so carried on the ball rolling :S

Link to post
Share on other sites

So my crystal ball didn't let me down then?!!:p Well done you. Yes most people are crossing out the confidentiality bit but I think I would write a quick letter pointing out that I didn't agree to it. It won't affect you getting your money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Whoever

Ref: Your Offer of Settlement

 

Account: xxxxxxxx

Sort Code xx-xx-xx

 

I acknowledge receipt of your letter date xx/xx/xx and your settlement offer of £XXX

 

I accept your offer as full and final settlement for the claim of bank charges I notifed you of in my claim no. XXXX in XXXX County Court

.

I accept this offer without predjudice and I reserve the right to make any further claims should you apply future charges that may be considered unlawful under common law or in violation of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 or Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

 

I trust that you will find this arrangement acceptable.

 

Yours Sincerely

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can, if you wish add a final para:

 

I am also not prepared to agree to any confidentially clauses you try to impose, unless of course your client wishes to make an offer of due consideration in addition to the amount of £xxxxx, in order to be afforded this privilege by myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Sir

 

Ref: Your Offer of Settlement

 

Account No: xxxxxxxx

Sort Code: xx-xx-xx

 

I acknowledge receipt of your letter date XX XXXXXX XXXX and your settlement offer of £xx.xx

 

I accept your offer as full and final settlement of the bank charges that I notified you of in my claim number XXXXXXXX in the XXXXXXXXX County Court.

 

I accept this offer without prejudice and reserve the right to make any further claims should your client apply future charges that may be considered unlawful under common law, in violation of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 or Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

 

I am also not prepared to agree to any confidentially clauses imposed, unless your client wishes to make an offer of due consideration in order to be afforded this privilege.

 

I further request that payment is made by BACS into the following

 

Account No: {AccountNo}

Sort Code: {SortCode}

 

I trust that you will find this arrangement acceptable.

 

Yours faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is odd

 

HSBC have removed the charges that were pending to be applied to my account yet they been claimed for! But not actually been debited as HSBC removed them.

 

I am surprised anyone else had this?

 

Could it be because I have already parachuted my account?

 

Matt

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Defence entered by DG Solicitors.....

 

1. The Claimant's acount is governed by the Defendant's personal banking terms and conditions.

 

2. Pursuant to the Defendant's terms and conditions the Defendant is entitled to make a charge for its services as set out in the Defendant's price list.

 

3. It is denied that the fees charged for the services provided amount to a penalty or liquidated damages clause. The fees are an agreed price for a service provided by the Defendant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...