Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Is the bank taking your Benefits ?


MARTIN3030
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4055 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

Here's a letter from the Govan Law Centre website. I just altered it and sent to my Bank for repayment of 2 arrestment fees from 2003 and 2004. The letter is based on Scots Law. However most of it relates to the social securities act. perhaps somebody with a bit more knowledge of English Law can change the Scottish Statute bits to English Statute. I changed the ending slightly to demand my arrestment bank charges, interest and £50 for compensation and expenses.

 

The caselaw - Woods v Royal Bank of Scotland

 

In the case of Woods v Royal Bank of Scotland 1913 SLT 1 Reports 499, a worker got compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (an early form of benefit) and paid it into a bank account. This case held that the benefit itself could not be assigned to another person. If benefit was plainly identified in a bank account, it should also have statutory protection from arrestment. The money did not change character because it was paid into an account.

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Unlawful bank charges following an arrestment of welfare benefits - request for refund for [YOUR NAME, SORT CODE, and ACCOUNT NUMBER]

 

I write with respect to the application of the following charges to my account: [iNSERT DETAILS of charges applied].

 

I am of the view that your charges are irrecoverable in law. As you know the monies in my account derive from [tax credits, paid to my client by HM Inland Revenue, and/or child benefit paid by DWP, and/or child maintenance from the CSA, and/or social security benefits - income support, Jobseeker's Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance etc. - paid by DWP]. This is confirmed from my bank statements.

 

Both the Scottish Law Commission and Scottish Executive concede that social security benefits are exempt from arrestment in terms of section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (see Enforcement of Civil Obligations in Scotland, Scottish Executive report, at paragraph 5.245). Section 45 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 is an identical provision to the said section 187 of the 1992 Act.

 

It is therefore trite law that tax credits and other such maintenance or social security benefits are exempt from arrestment. The case of Woods v Royal Bank of Scotland 1913 SLT 1 Reports 499 is authority for the proposition that where exempt monies are paid into a bank account, those monies remain exempt from arrestment insofar as such monies can be clearly identified within an account.

 

Accordingly, you have erred in law in arresting exempt monies in my account. You cannot impose administrative or penalty charges for your legal error. I would therefore ask you to refund said charges of £xx my account within the next 7 days, failing which I will commence an action for payment and wrongful diligence without any further notice.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

[sIGNATURE]

 

He didn't come looking for trouble, but trouble came looking for him.

When the smoke clears, it just means he's reloading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

"benefits are exempt from arrestment"
It's the same ideas as a wages arrestment. If the money in your bank account comprises of Social Security Benefit, Housing Benefit, Child Maintenance, Incapacity Benefit, Jobseekers etc. These types of funds are exempt for arrestment. If an account with benefits is arrested you can visit the court explain the money in the account is exempt and have the arrestment lifted. It's a good idea not to have any other sort of funds in the account. Thus making it easy to identify the benefits.

 

In my case there was a court order granted allowing wages arrestment. When they attempted to seize the account there was next to nothing there and the bank refused the arrestment and handed out a charge for admin. The charges were clearly illegal under s.187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 . I only discovered this last week when I started to examine my bank charges.

 

On a plus side the Sheriff's Officers/Ballifs who attempted to seize my account folded under questioning and refunded the charges at the time and added some money for expenses. I believe they were in trouble because at the time they were aware I was on benefits. I didn't push the issue as I had received my money back.

 

I don't know where you stand on charges from the normal day to day running of a bank account. You could try the Bank Templates Library about half way down the page: Right of Appropriation - Stop the bank from taking your money

  • Haha 1

He didn't come looking for trouble, but trouble came looking for him.

When the smoke clears, it just means he's reloading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...