Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Whatever the nuances of the law, they will be lost on OPS, who like the rest of the PPcs never bother to get planning permission, ever. When they get a new contract they don't want to delay issuing PCNs by deigning to follow the law, especially as the period when they take over and the parking restrictions are new is the time when they can catch most drivers out.
    • I had some contact with this company earlier in my working life but I'm afraid there's not a lot I can suggest that you haven't already done. During your grandfather's time  British Celanese was a subsidiary of Courtaulds. Courtaulds was subsequently (after your grandfather had stopped working there) acquired by Alzo Nobel. They in turn closed down the Spondon site and sold it. I have no idea what the number is that you are trying to call. It's a Derby (Spondon) area code but the number appears not to be allocated. From my slim knowledge of the history of the company I would have expected your grandfather's pension to be in the Alzo Nobel (CPS) Pension Scheme.  But Willis Tower Watson are the Pension Scheme Administrator of that scheme and would be the people who should know if your grandfather had contributed. Is your grandfather certain he contributed? Joining pension schemes wasn't compulsory in those days. Or might he have got his contributions returned when he left them? That happened sometimes back then. Sorry not to be of more help.      
    • I am sorry I am not aware of this report from IAS assessors? The Court will consider my application at a online hearing in June. The Court instructed me to send Bank copies of my sons condition proving he could not have been the driver I have heard nothing further. My son is not aware of any proceedings I have not involved him to avoid causing him distress, he has been sectioned a fair few times and I need to avoid this happening.
    • I am very pleased that the Court has taken the decision to allow you to  represent your son and hope that he is happy enough with that to relieve the stress he will also be feeling. I do agree that Bank parking are so insensitive, greedy, horrible etc etc to continue proceedings considering  in what it is a very minor case of a wrong number plate . Even their  own  IAS Assessors, who are normally hopelessly biased in favour of their members, went out on a limb and said  " The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again." That is damning evidence and you must take that report with you as well as including that in your Witness Statement which we will help you with. I would expect that Bank would discontinue the case at that point.  But I am sorry to say  that you should not count on it.  
    • Evening all,   I have deliberated over this offer for two weeks and I have decided to take their offer. I do understand that some may prefer us to go to court and receive a judgement but with our personal circumstances and my current military commitment that could become an issue. I am so grateful for all the help and support you have all offered me over the last few months. I will continue to monitor this site and push all those that are being wrong to get in touch.   Thank you! what you all do is truly amazing!
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

RBS Mint Card Charges Reclaiming


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5783 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

Hey i'm a newbie and am planning to try and get my charges refunded. However, i would like to know what i am letting myself in for..

 

Is Mint card hard to crack?

Do they pay up?

Do they go to court?

How fast do they respond?

 

Any help greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks

Natasha

Help me to help others!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

You'd have to have a valid reason for a stay not to be applied on the claim.

 

In this instance I would suggest that a stay should not be applied to the claim, as the current OFT case relates purely to overdraft charges on bank accounts. There is already an OFT report in place relating to credit cards which was published in April 2006 with which Mint(RBS) have complied.

 

The issue here is whether the penalty charges made against customers truely reflect their costs, or whether they are profiteering from said charges which is against contract law.

 

If the draft order was adopted for this claim it would bring all matters to a fore. By means of a full breakdown of the defendants costs it would be possible to assertain whether the charges are fair & reasonable, or if the defendant is levying a highly inflated figure to customers which don't match its costs.

 

It is industry standrd for events such as as late payment charges and over the limit charges to be entirely automated thus costing the defendant a matter of pence as part of an overall IT billing system, as such it is your own opinion that the defendants charges are pure profiterring.

Advice offered by ENRON is without prejudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the same arguement which I used in my claim against Citi to prevent a stay being put on it.... and it worked.... so worth a go with RBS.

 

And obviously that means the rejection letter going to RBS.

 

Though as with all these matters its your decision as to what move to make.

Advice offered by ENRON is without prejudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been through the full process including appearing at court against Citi (and winning) so if you need any help let me know.

Advice offered by ENRON is without prejudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, its a very, very rare occasion that happens, but Citi seem to have a different approach to all the other films.

 

At the end of the day if you can cast doubt onto the stance the bank is taking, i.e. they are charging customers £12, £18, £20 etc for default of contract that can help you get the draft order adopted which orders a full breakdown of their charges.

 

From the point of view of RBS, charges such as "late payment" and "over the limit" fees are entirely automated, thus costing the bank a matter of pence and not what they levy against customers. An indication of this will be their non-compliance with the SAR if you sent one, the template here requests manual intervention information which they are guaranteed not to have sent. This would show if any human action was taken at the time your penalty charges were applied.

Advice offered by ENRON is without prejudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to RBS Mint Card Offer Vs. Court Stay
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...