Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
    • Well done.   Please let us know how it goes or come back with any questions. HB
    • Incorrect as the debt will have been legally assigned to the DCA and they are therefore now the legal creditor. Read up on debt assignment.   Andy
  • 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

Bring it on LTSB! - **WON**


Lusky
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6525 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

Well I've just received list of all charges so here I go. I have been a customer of Lloyds for 27 years and they certainly have been getting away with it for too long. So here I go onto next stage of working out how much I've paid them so far!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Wooples,

 

Good luck with your claim. You will find it easier to start your own thread to keep track of your progress and let others follow it. I look forward to hearring how you get on.

 

Reload,

 

Thanks for the support as always.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contacted the court this morning and I am off there this afternoon to amend my claim and add the following info:

 

The law relating to penalties has been established through case law. The cases date back to the nineteenth century and the courts have been consistent in the way that they have ruled on penalty clauses.

In the Scottish case of Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (1904) 12 SLT 498; the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incurred from a breach of contract.

The cases below have been ruled in English law:

Wilson v. Love (1896)

 

A tenant farmer agreed to pay an additional rent of £3 per ton by way of penalty for every ton of hay or straw that he sold off the premises during the last 12 months of the tenancy. The clause was regarded as a penalty because at the time hay was worth five shillings a ton more than straw.

 

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd. (1915)

 

In the particular case, the judges held that the sum specified in the contract was reasonable and was classified as liquidated damages. However, in this case, Lord Dunedin laid down rules which are still applied today in these types of cases:

 

i) The sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could be suffered from the breach – in other words, if it is "extravagant and unconscionable".

 

ii) If it agreed that a larger sum shall be payable in default of paying a smaller sum, this is a penalty. Ford Motor Co. v. Armstrong (1915)

 

In this case, the judges reached the conclusion that the sum to be paid for a breach of the contract was substantial and arbitrary and bore no relation to the potential loss of the other party. It was, therefore, a penalty.

 

Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co. Ltd. (1962)

 

In this case a customer bought a car under a hire purchase agreement. He paid the initial and first payments and then cancelled the agreement. The company tried to recover the sums specified in the contract for canceling the agreement, but the courts held that the sums payable were excessive and constituted a penalty clause. It was, therefore, unenforceable.

 

 

The banks charges do not reflect any actual loss, instead they appear to represent a lucrative profit-making scheme. In particular, charges were applied after I entered into a transaction(s) without sufficient funds in my account. However, payment was declined by the bank, and therefore, actual loss is the cost of automatically sending me a computer generated letter. I would respectfully submit that is valued at no more than 50 pence.

UK banks have recently given evidence to the House of Commons Treasury Committee on how bank charges are calculated: "The costs are going to pay for all the people we have who pursue debt, collect debt, speak to customers and chase payments. The way these charges are arrived at is by taking these total costs and making some assumptions about the volume that is going to come through to arrive at the individual charges" (2nd report, 25 January 2005, paragraph 50).

Accordingly, the charges applied to my account are not a reasonable pre-estimate of the bank’s loss in relation to my account. The charges would appear to represent a device to recover global losses (for example, loan defaulters, bad debt write off, including commercial lending in, and outwith, the UK).

On a separate note, the charges appear to represent an unfair term of contract which is contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI. 1999/2083). My account falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 as I am a consumer. The charges constitute an unfair penalty under reference to paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 of the said regulations:

‘Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair - 1. Terms which have the object of effect of - (e) requiring any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation’.

0n 26 July 2005 the OFT stated that 'a charge is likely to be disproportionately high if it is more than a court would be likely to award if the lender sued the cardholder for breach of contract'. Because the charges include a large profit margin, in addition to actual loss, they are irrecoverable as an unfair term in contract. I believe that the charges require me to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation for incurring a transaction(s) which was ultimately declined by an automated computer system.

In addition, it is unfair to require me to subsidise global debt recovery costs and debt write-off.

***********

 

After that I am off to the bank for my mandatory review which I am particularly looking forward to!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it the Court gave you a bit more information about what was required?

 

Did they make any comment on your address?

reload vs Lloyds - £2703.11 Settlement Reached 14/07/06.

reload vs Lloyds Round 2 - Prelim sent 27/03/07. £435 owed.

reload vs Capital One - £456.57 Settlement Reached 14/07/06.

reload's mum vs Barclays - £745 owed. £375 partial settlement reached 17/10/06.

Lloyds Bank - The Template Response Letters!

 

Advice & opinions of reload are offered informally, without prejudice and without liability. Please use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The address thing was a mistake on their part ( someone entered it on wrong screen !). The person I spoke to tried be helpful on the additional info but admitted she didn't really know what it meant so I am going for gold and adding everything!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good stuff :D

reload vs Lloyds - £2703.11 Settlement Reached 14/07/06.

reload vs Lloyds Round 2 - Prelim sent 27/03/07. £435 owed.

reload vs Capital One - £456.57 Settlement Reached 14/07/06.

reload's mum vs Barclays - £745 owed. £375 partial settlement reached 17/10/06.

Lloyds Bank - The Template Response Letters!

 

Advice & opinions of reload are offered informally, without prejudice and without liability. Please use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading a thread where someone insisted that LTSB head office e-mailed through the auhorisation code to have their refund posted immediatley in the bank from the charges refund account. I have searched and searched but just can't find it, does anyone know whose it was?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a busy afternoon!

1. Went to the court with all the additional info - had to sign a form to seek retrospective leave to amend particulars of my claim. Presumably this will be allowed seeing as the jusdge asked me to do it in the first place.

2. Went for account review at the bank. They knew why was ther but to be fair

the account manager was really nice and I think quite envious of me! Just lots of personal detail taking and updating details. They even phoned the solicitor while I was there to let them know the account review had taken place. It was all a little tongue in cheek. To be honest I think they were a bit in awe of me!

Not a whisper of account closure or o/d recall. Easy peasy!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: :grin: :lol: Gobsmacked! Settled in full! Money in my account.:grin: :lol: :grin:

 

A big thank you to all on this site. Donation is on its way tomorrow.

 

This is just the first, you haven't seen the last of me.

 

Lusky xxxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations!!

 

That is fantastic news.

 

Please complete our bank charges survey.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent stuff Lusky, well pleased for you :D :D :D

 

If you don't mind my asking, how did you manage to get them to transfer the money to your account so promptly?

reload vs Lloyds - £2703.11 Settlement Reached 14/07/06.

reload vs Lloyds Round 2 - Prelim sent 27/03/07. £435 owed.

reload vs Capital One - £456.57 Settlement Reached 14/07/06.

reload's mum vs Barclays - £745 owed. £375 partial settlement reached 17/10/06.

Lloyds Bank - The Template Response Letters!

 

Advice & opinions of reload are offered informally, without prejudice and without liability. Please use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They said it might take 7 days, I just checked my account yesterday afternoon and it was there! Needless to say I was down there like a bat out of hell to withdraw it he he. Made it from house to bank in about 3 mins flat lol :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Done m8, excellent news.

Data Protection Act Request sent 22nd April 2006 (recorded delivery) to Penny Berryman 40 days up on 1st June 2006.

 

Statements recieved 5th May 2006

Claiming back = £3913.65

 

Preliminary Letter Sent 5th May (recorded delivery) to Customer Care, Birmingham. Told me to sod off on the 9th May

 

Letter Before Action Sent 9th May (recorded delivery) to Customer Care, Birmingham. Told me to sod off on the 12th May

 

Moneyclaim filed issued 6th June (14 days to reply) Time up on 20th June.

 

Acknowledged 15th June (28 days to defence)

Time up on 13th July.

 

Defence Recieved 7th July

 

Going Before the Judge 15th September

 

Court Date 5th December

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds promising then. Money would probably be in my own account by now if the Royal Mail hadn't lost my letter (beginning to think it's that way), so hopefully should have the cash in my own account by Friday. Like you, I attended account review on the 10th :)

reload vs Lloyds - £2703.11 Settlement Reached 14/07/06.

reload vs Lloyds Round 2 - Prelim sent 27/03/07. £435 owed.

reload vs Capital One - £456.57 Settlement Reached 14/07/06.

reload's mum vs Barclays - £745 owed. £375 partial settlement reached 17/10/06.

Lloyds Bank - The Template Response Letters!

 

Advice & opinions of reload are offered informally, without prejudice and without liability. Please use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/08/19.

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 6525 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...