Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Okay. Same old story. I've written lots of commentaries on the arguments to use in respect of the various defences. Please make sure you understand what we are saying in terms of the fairness of unfairness of the requirement that it is you who insurers against the negligence of the company or the criminality of their employees. It is the company which should be taking out insurance not their own customers. Imagine going into a restaurant and you get food poisoning and then the restaurant says that they don't have third party insurance. It is the customers job. Make sure you are thoroughly familiar with all the various principles and also the mediation journey. Lots of good summaries here about the mediation experience. Let us know when you get the DQ. And small claims track. Agree to mediation – because they probably will have indicated that they want it. Keep us updated
    • I disagree that the motorists interviewed in the local paper had a better case than you.  OPS made it impossible to pay, and can be shown to have allowed this at best negligent situation to go on for months.   You've asked straight questions, which is fair enough.  If OPS did sue you, it would be for 2 x £100 PCN + 2 x £60 invented Unicorn Food Tax + £50 legal costs (remember these are capped at small claims) + £50 court fee costs + some interest = around £420.  There are three possible outcomes to a court case    - you win and owe £0.00    - you lose, the judge doesn't allow the Unicorn Food tax, you owe £300.00    - you lose, the judge is lazy and allows the Unicorn Food Tax, you owe £420.00.   Yes, fighting would take some work, however over many months, namely    - build up some evidence against them as in post 14    - read other OPS threads here so you get the right idea    - reply to a Letter Before Claim if it comes, we have loads of examples of snotty letters on the forum    - defend the claim should it be issued, we have a standard generic defence    - if the case proceeds, prepare a Witness Statement.  This has to be done seriously & properly.  However, again, there are examples compiled by other motorists here which you could use as a basis.   This is all worst case scenario of course, if they knew you'd be big trouble in court they might well give up before a court claim.
    • Hi there BankFodder and team - PARCELHERO filed their defence last Friday: below is what has been written:    * Claimant entered into an agreement to send a shipment via a carrier of his choice. * That carrier was Hermes. * For all Hermes bookings we do not offer any free cover in the event of loss or damage, so unless any is purchased, in the event of either loss or damage, a claim cannot be processed. * During the booking process the claimant, despite presented with the option to purchase cover, selected the option that states he will 'accept the risk' of sending his item without cover. * Unfortunately the claimants item was lost by their chosen carrier Hermes, so the claim was respectfully denied by Parcelhero.com Ltd as per our contractual agreement.   Here is the latest in the claim history -  A bar was put in place for PARCELHERO.COM LIMITED on 11/06/2021 PARCELHERO.COM LIMITED filed a defence on 11/06/2021 at 14:05:11 DQ sent to PARCELHERO.COM LIMITED on 14/06/2021   I gather from the MCOL user guide that I will now be sent a questionnaire to be completed and returned and that mediation is a likely next steps. As ever, I would be grateful for any observations or focus areas of advice you could offer.  Many thanks in advance, Martin   
    • stop thinking and using the word fine and you might understand how things work better   
    • Thank you both for your detailed replies. Yes, I agree, what OPS are doing is tantamount to theft, but in my case, I fear it's legalised theft. I can't find that many other OPS cases in this forum, but of those that I did find, including those mentioned in the news articles paid online, all had actually paid for their parking ticket, but were "fined" in spite of that. They clearly have a much better case than I do.   My one and only previous experience in the small claims court has taught me that it's not about what is fair and reasonable, all the judge cares about is the law, and what's in the contract. Dx, I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment above, and I still fear that I am (regrettably) legally in the wrong.   Dave, you admit that I would have to put in a lot of time fighting this case, and I'm thinking that really, life is too short, and that time is worth more to me than the £120. Nonetheless, I would contest it on principle, if I thought I had a realistic chance of winning.   I take your point about not getting a CCJ if you pay the "fine", but the stakes are escalating, surely. If I lose, I will have to pay the court costs as well as the £200 fine, won't I?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

DTI to take legal advice: Are penality charges legal?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5513 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've been reading through evidence of a recent select committee and found an interesting exchange about credit card charges:

 

Q1223 Mr Mudie: I want an answer in my lifetime! You have got the taxpayers' brass in great millions, you can surely spend a wee bit on good legal opinion as to whether the credit card people are acting legally. I would think it would send such a shot across their bows if you agreed to do it publicly.

 

Mr Sutcliffe: Actually, I think the terms of the contract exist, but it is something that we could certainly look at. I will look at it and get the advice.

 

Q1224 Mr Mudie: As a Department you will get legal advice to see whether they are acting legally with this blanket penalty charge that is in no way explained by a pre-existing loss in the words of the National Consumer Council. Is that yes, Mr Rees?

 

Mr Rees: It is yes...

 

So the DTI undertook to get legal advice as to whether these charges are legal. I've searched everywhere for the outcome of this legal advice but have been unable to locate it. I contacted my MP on 13th March who has forwarded my request for the legal advice to Gerry Sutcliffe at the DTI.

 

I've also put forward a FOI request for the information, although it takes a long time for FOI requests to be actioned by the DTI.

 

Does anyone here have Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) or George Mudie (Leeds East) for MPs and fancy chasing it too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We could always ask T.Blair to follow it up.

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

------------

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be interesting to get a copy of "PricewaterhouseCoopers, Precious Plastic 2002, page 7"

 

"A recent report from PricewaterhouseCoopers stated that "[Credit card] issuers are becoming increasingly reliant on these fees as a source of revenues"

 

tut tut

 

"Barclays told us that Barclaycard "had replaced its annual fee with charges for late payment"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Did anything come back from this?

 

That is a very interesting document. Especially the bit about the postal strike. And in answer to the fact that Barclays refused to provide a breakdown of the charges -

 

"...I think it is inconceivable that those figures are not available so I would do my best because clearly it must be in the industry's own interest to show a good code of practice, code of conduct and that is the basis of the consultation and the discussions in my meetings with all sectors..."

If you found this post useful please click on the scales above.

 

Egg - £400 - Prelim sent. On hold.

Mint - On the list Est £800

GE Capital - On the list (3 accounts!) Est £4000

 

MBNA - £545 Prelim sent 13/11/2006

LBA sent 1/12/2006

£350 partial payment received 18/12/2006.

Full settlement received 20/1/07

 

NatWest - Est £4000 not incl interest

Data Protection Act Sent 10/1/07

Statements received 24/1/07

Prelim sent 3/2/07

Full Settlement received 22/2/07

 

The contents of this post are the sole opinions of The Cornflake and not necessarily the opinions of any other members of this group. They do not constitute sound legal or financial advice and if in doubt you are advised to seek advice from a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites
Did anything come back from this?

 

That is a very interesting document. Especially the bit about the postal strike. And in answer to the fact that Barclays refused to provide a breakdown of the charges -

 

Not really. My MP forwarded my letter to the minister. One of the minister's aides wrote to me with an identikit letter not addressing my request for the legal advice they took.

 

Two weeks ago I wrote to my MP again asking him to chase it.

 

I put in a Freedom of Information Act Request on the 10th April. They're currently investigating, although I expect something called a 'Qualified Exemption' under Section 42 will apply.

 

So... not holding my breath and doubt I'll get it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked the DTI web sites (by the way they have a huge amount of stuff available for free that they will post to you free as well) and they did produce a huge white paper credit report. I haven't read it yet but it looks interesting. You can download the PDF as it actually costs to buy a copy (probably as it's hundreds of pages long).

If you found this post useful please click on the scales above.

 

Egg - £400 - Prelim sent. On hold.

Mint - On the list Est £800

GE Capital - On the list (3 accounts!) Est £4000

 

MBNA - £545 Prelim sent 13/11/2006

LBA sent 1/12/2006

£350 partial payment received 18/12/2006.

Full settlement received 20/1/07

 

NatWest - Est £4000 not incl interest

Data Protection Act Sent 10/1/07

Statements received 24/1/07

Prelim sent 3/2/07

Full Settlement received 22/2/07

 

The contents of this post are the sole opinions of The Cornflake and not necessarily the opinions of any other members of this group. They do not constitute sound legal or financial advice and if in doubt you are advised to seek advice from a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to conclude this matter, a civil servant at the DTI confirmed to me yesterday that the minister did not take legal advise as a result of the select committee.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/07/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5513 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...