Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • as you mention the bpa sounds like its a scummy private car park lot blue badges mean nothing on private land anyway.............. so a failure to display something that is meaningless on private land anyway is a money grabbing scam moved to the private parking forum dx dx
    • who is it from  a council or a private parking company?
    • As per the heading, received a parking charge for failure to display a blue badge in a disabled bay on a retail park.  I am a blue badge holder, disabled/wheelchair user with a Motability vehicle. I received the charge as 'notice to keeper' I was not the driver. I don't have a valid driving license so use a carer. The notice arrived a week after the alleged incident. It states that as the 'driver' failed to pay the charge in full  hence, it is now the keepers responsibility ( the notice was dated 2 days after the alleged infringement and as no notice to driver was on the vehicle, I don't know how they expect the driver to be able to either pay or dispute the charge if they are not aware of it) Anyway, really looking for help how to reply. I cannot remember if the badge was correctly displayed or not. Photos taken of car miss a bit where I store my badge if not displayed so it would be possible to see a badge even if not 'correctly displayed" . It was a bit of a sh**ty day weather wise, gusty and raining  (as seen on the photos which reminded me of the actual day) so it is possible that badge blew to the floor as the driver was helping me out of the car into wheelchair. There is no windscreen photo showing that a PCN to "Driver" was stuck on the window either. The car park is free. There are no Parking Signs at all near the disabled bays that one could read to adhere to any terms and conditions. The whole row of disabled bays - of which are there many only state badge holders ( does not stipulate Blue Badge Holders) The notice states that the parking company is a member of the BPA and Operating in accordance with the British Parking Association's Code of Practice. The BPA, section 19.1 State that at least one parking sign should be near the disabled bays, in a position that can be easily  read by by a disabled person without leaving their car in order to decide to be bound by such terms. We returned to look for signage on the retail park and could not find one sign that was near the bays. The only sign we could find was high up on a pole but not near the bays. Someone had to get out of the car and stand on tip toes to be able to take a photo of a sign. I would be grateful if someone could help or point me in the right direction. It is now  15 days since the alleged incident and 7 days since I received the notice.
    • also just to clarify is it required that I physically post to both the county court and Evri? I read in another thread you can just email Evri a copy since they will just rescan whatever you post anyway (if they even read it)
  • 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
      • 162 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

OFT Press Release


Maxie
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6651 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 had experience of the effect of offical guidelines in other legal cases - and they can cause problems.

 

my thinking is this; say the OFT release new guideliens that say customer fees should be capped at say £15. Now, the banks start charging £15 for boucned DD's cheques etc. You take them to court and shout penalty charges. Now, currently they are not defending such claim, but with OFT guidelines I think they may well do so....and could win.

 

With OFT guidelies, for a judge to find against a bank he must find the charges are a penalty, and as such effectively rule that by association the OFT guidelines are wrong. Judges are loathed to do this, and if the bank has followed to guidelines, even if the the law is 'technically' on your side could well find in favour of the defendant bank.

The law maybe reason without passion as Aristotle said, but hey, he said nothing about having fun when getting even!

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal expereince. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Reputation Points Always Welcome

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Surely, whether the law is technically on your side or not is not the point - if the charge is a penalty it is illegal. And for the bank to argue they are working within guidelines is also a false argument - a guideline is exactly that, a guideline, and the argument we are putting forward will still hold true.

 

That aside, if the OFT suggests a cap, it will only be an upper limit, not a fixed charge to apply. It WILL be interesting to see what the OFT puts forward as an explanation for how it arrives at its figure.

 

As BF says elsewhere, until we hear of a 'Bank Charges Act' going through Parliaament, the banks do not have a leg to stand on.

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what about the £30+ charges they already owe us surely they could not use this argument there? I want my money back from these [edit]

 

[MODERATED: Please do not post libelous comments on this forum]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely, whether the law is technically on your side or not is not the point - if the charge is a penalty it is illegal. And for the bank to argue they are working within guidelines is also a false argument - a guideline is exactly that, a guideline, and the argument we are putting forward will still hold true.

 

That aside, if the OFT suggests a cap, it will only be an upper limit, not a fixed charge to apply. It WILL be interesting to see what the OFT puts forward as an explanation for how it arrives at its figure.

 

As BF says elsewhere, until we hear of a 'Bank Charges Act' going through Parliaament, the banks do not have a leg to stand on.

 

I agree, and was thinking out loud a bit, but from previous expereience when a commercial enterty tells a court 'we have abided but XXXX guidelines' etc from an offical government body it can given then alot of credibility with the court. But the first trial with a bank using the guidelines and a claim for charges will be interesting!

The law maybe reason without passion as Aristotle said, but hey, he said nothing about having fun when getting even!

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal expereince. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Reputation Points Always Welcome

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the difference between what we put forward and the experiences you have had are down to the individual nature of the case.

 

You mention commercial entity, and I would expect a lot of what is applied will be down to contract law, and its interpretation. From where we stand, contract law does not really form an important part of the equation.

 

Due to contract and Ts & Cs we ALL agree that the bank has a right to make a charge when we err. That is not in contention. What IS in dispute is the nature of the charge (PENALTY) and the amount (NOT ACTUAL COST TO REMEDY)

 

Whilst we all believe that the OFT will make it's announcement AFTER discussion with the banks, there is a very real opportunity for them to shoot themselves in the foot here. I imagine Stephen and other will be going over it with a fine-tooth comb...

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant wait to read the OFT statement although I have also got a bad feeling about this,Lets face it the banks are not going to sit there and do nothing while we try to undermine There profits!(because lets face it that’s how they will see it) I should imagine they will be throwing Unlimited amounts of money & legal people at this problem also lobbying MPs & pulling strings in the business world, old boys network the lot! There’s billions of pounds at stake here they will use every trick in the book!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably best to wait and see what is said - after all, we are only speculating, and there is a possibility (however slim) that the OFT may come out on the side of the consumer...

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree its probably best to wait but you know, you just know its going to be a stitch up!

Its like waiting for the dentist when you were a kid you won’t feel a thing sonny, yeah right!

Or maybe I’m just a little bit too old and cynical

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe I’m just a little bit too old and cynical

I think that is the reason most of us are here...:rolleyes:

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OFT investigated banks in Northern Ireland earlier this year, with a view to reporting them to the Competition Commission:

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E87023AA-F397-4F86-BC76-C0E05EA5AD37/0/oft796.pdf

 

Some interesting points:

• there is clear evidence of parallel pricing among the big four, and Northern Bank appears to act as price leader

• the big four do not actively compete on price

Transaction charges - Examination of the various charges under this category shows little real differentiation by the big four banks in their pricing over the period for which information is available. While there were brief periods where the price difference between the banks widened, this was typically by a very small amount. For most of the period, however, the banks charged the same or almost identical prices for the same current account services when a customer is in overdraft.

Clearly this only applies to NI, but as it is part of the UK then the legal responsibility will be the same. If the OFT brings out similar information for mainland UK banks, it would be interesting to see if there is scope for a reference to the Competetion Commission here. I would have thought the the quotes indicate, if not a cartel, then certainly uncompetitive practices, and these are clearly NOT in the interest of the consumer at large.

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what the OFT say, the banks can not use it as a defence.

 

The point is how they arrive at the charge, I can't believe that they are going to say well we thought it cost £30.00 but the OFT has done some sums and say it's £15.00 so we'll go with £15.00.

 

I want to know and see how they arrive at the cost, they must have a formula they use and to justify any amount be it £30 or £15 they have to demonstate how they arrive at that cost, they can not say we let the OFT do the sums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what the OFT say, the banks can not use it as a defence.

 

The point is how they arrive at the charge, I can't believe that they are going to say well we thought it cost £30.00 but the OFT has done some sums and say it's £15.00 so we'll go with £15.00.

 

I want to know and see how they arrive at the cost, they must have a formula they use and to justify any amount be it £30 or £15 they have to demonstate how they arrive at that cost, they can not say we let the OFT do the sums.

 

Your missing the point. The OFT issues guidelines, the bank folllws them and you take them to court. Their is a good chance that if you get the 'wrong' sort of Judge he will ignore 'the law' (and they can and do) and decide to side with the bank and not rock the boat.

 

The simple fact is District Judges, every day, make rulings that often go against the law, but in their reasonaing make the case for the ruling - and it stands.

 

What I'm saying is if there is a chance that of the OFT cap charges at £X, that banks accepts this a District Judge from a commerical or similar background might decide to give the bank the benefit of the doubt over the consumer (its happening now) and leave it either to stand or appeal.

The law maybe reason without passion as Aristotle said, but hey, he said nothing about having fun when getting even!

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal expereince. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Reputation Points Always Welcome

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is another point on this. We have been waiting for a bank to come into court and explain how they can justify the charges. To go to court with the defence being "that is what the OFT guidelines say" would be fine - if it was backed up with other figures and justification.

 

What we have found is that banks are not prepared to give out the figures and justification they use - even to their shareholders.

 

It has been suggested that some judges may side with the banks - others may side with the individual. Can a bank take a risk of paying out a couple of grand on someone to argue their case - when they have no more than a 50% chance of winning - and in order to do that, be ready to put into the public domain information that seems to be classified whilst they are doing it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been suggested that some judges may side with the banks - others may side with the individual. Can a bank take a risk of paying out a couple of grand on someone to argue their case - when they have no more than a 50% chance of winning - and in order to do that, be ready to put into the public domain information that seems to be classified whilst they are doing it?

That is a very good point - some people may end up losing cases, but statistically ONE will come through with the shiny gold Wonka ticket that we all want...you're right, the banks CAN'T take that chance.

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is what we have been waiting for...

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/News/Press+releases/2006/68-06.htm

 

I think they are saying it looks like a max of £12 is the figure set?

 

 

"The OFT now expects all credit card issuers to recalculate their default charges in line with the principles set out in a statement published today and to take urgent action where needed to reduce the level of credit card default fees. The industry has until 31 May to respond to the statement. These principles also apply to default charges in other consumer contracts such as those for bank overdrafts, store cards and mortgages.

 

Where credit card default charges are set at more than £12, the OFT will presume that they are unfair, and is likely to challenge the charge unless there are limited, exceptional business factors in play. A default charge is not fair simply because it is below £12. Setting a threshold for intervention is a pragmatic pro-consumer action that is designed to give the industry the opportunity to change its practice without litigation. It is supported by detailed guidance to the industry as to how to reduce the likelihood of public enforcement (see note 2).

 

A default charge should only be used to recover certain limited administrative costs. These may include postage and stationery costs and staff costs and also a proportionate share of the costs of maintaining premises and IT systems necessary to deal with defaults (see note 3). Exceptional business factors which may affect the level of a fair charge may include policies to prevent casual defaults as operated by issuers such as Egg (see note 4).

Only a court can finally decide whether a charge is unfair or not. The OFT has today set out a statement of its view of the law. This has not generally been accepted by most of the eight credit card issuers."

If you find this post useful, please click the Scales of 'Justice' in the top right corner. Thanks ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does seem to focus on credit cards only, but the flavour would seem to imply any penalty charges. Interesting quote to bear in mind:

Only a court can finally decide whether a charge is unfair or not. The OFT has today set out a statement of its view of the law. This has not generally been accepted by most of the eight credit card issuers.

The OFT is not proposing that default fees should be equivalent to the threshold, and a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold.

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's going to be one of those that needs reading, very loosely worded.

 

"These principles also apply to default charges in other consumer contracts such as those for bank overdrafts, store cards and mortgages."

If you find this post useful, please click the Scales of 'Justice' in the top right corner. Thanks ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been reported on the BBC site:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4878798.stm

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to say after my comments yesterday on another thread and my first reading of the statement I am quite surprised and impressed at what they have said unless I missing something!

As I see it they are not saying £12 is fair, they are saying that it is the point at which they may consider going legal on the organisation levying the charge.

Well done OFT they seam to have comedown on our side after all.

I wonder how the banks will respond to all this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this add weight to the claims already in progress?

 

i.e. the OFT says £12 is maximum, so why has the bank charged me £35, if it can be done for £12 then £35 must be punitive and profit making

First Direct, £4031 Recovered

Halifax, £953 Recovered

MBNA Credit Card, £120 Recovered

American Express, £160 Recovered

Coming Soon......

Blackpool Council, £190 in unlawful parking tickets

Carstoppers. £50 from the cowboy clampers

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the banks will turn round and say we'll give you the difference between what we charged and what the OFT have just said 'it's ok to charge'

If you find this post useful, please click the Scales of 'Justice' in the top right corner. Thanks ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Does this add weight to the claims already in progress?

 

i.e. the OFT says £12 is maximum, so why has the bank charged me £35, if it can be done for £12 then £35 must be punitive and profit making"

 

I would sugest it dose, and they are not saying £12 is fair they have set it as threshold for action

Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll still be creaming it in at £12. Has the OFT no teeth? GE's charge is currently £18 so this means a 66% reduction in the obsene "profit" that they make on charge (penalties). In addition the underlying reason for charges is that they act as a deterrent.

 

“A default charge should only be used to recover certain limited administrative costs. These may include postage and stationery costs and staff costs and also a proportionate share of the costs of maintaining premises and IT systems necessary to deal with defaults”

 

They should charge no more that £2!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Fingleton should be sacked if he thinks this is fair and just.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6651 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...