Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I would suggest that you stop trying to rely on legal theory – as you understand it. Firstly, because we are dealing with practical/pragmatic situations and at a low value level where these arguments tend not to work. Secondly, because you clearly have misunderstood the assessment of quantum where there are breaches of obligations. The formula that you have cited above is the method of loss calculation in torts. In contract it is entirely different. The law of obligations generally attempts to remedy the breach. This means that in tort, damages seek to put you into the position you would have been in had the breach not occurred. In other words it returns you to your starting position – point zero. Contract damages attend put you into the position that you would have been had the breach not occurred but this is not your starting position, contract damages assume that the agreement in dispute had actually been carried out. This puts you into your final position. You sold an item for £XXX. Your expectation was that you your item would be correctly delivered and that you would be the beneficiary of £XXX. Your expectation loss is the amount that you sold the item for and that is all you are entitled to recover. If you want, you can try to sue for the larger sum – and we will help you. But if they ask for evidence of the value of the item as it was sold then I can almost guarantee that either you will be obliged to settle for the lesser sum – or else a judge will give you judgement but for the lesser sum. This will put you to the position that you would have been had there been no breach of contract. I understand from you now that when you dispatch the item you declared the retail cost to you and not your expected benefit of £XXX. To claim for the retail value in the circumstances would offend the rules relating to betterment. If you want to do it then we will help you – but don't be surprised if you take a tumble.  
    • I was caught speeding 3 times in the same week, on the same road. All times were 8-12mph higher than the limit. I was offered the course for the first offense and I now need to accept the other 2 offenses. I just want to be ready for what might come. Will I get the £100 fine and 3 points for each of them or do I face something more severe?  These are my only offenses in 8 years of driving.
    • I'll get my letter drafted this evening. Its an item I sold, which I'm also concerned about, as whilst I don't have my original purchase receipt (the best I have is my credit card statement showing a purchase from Car Audio Centre), I do unfortunately have the eBay listing where I sold it for much less. But as I said before this is now a question of compensation: true compensation would seek to put me back into the position I was in before the loss ie: that title would remain with me until my buyer has accepted this, and so compensation should be that which would be needed to replace the lost item. But in the world of instant electronic payment, it could be argued that as I had already been paid, the title to the goods had already transferred, and I was required to refund the buyer after the loss. And so, despite my declared value being the retail price - that which is needed to return me to my pre-sales position, the compensatory value should be the value I sold it for, which being a second-hand item from a private seller is lower. I still believe that I should be claiming for the item's full value, rather than how much I sold it for, as this is the same for insurance: we don't insure the value we paid, but rather the value of the item to put us back into the position we would be in if we ever needed to claim. Its for the loss adjuster to argue the toss
    • amusing that 'bad economic judgement on behalf of prior party ISN'T a major reason to wingers to move to deform yet immigration is, where record levels of such has been driven by the right wings terrible brexit and the later incompetent dog whistle 'proposals largely driven to whistle to the right wingnuts Just seems to confirm the are clueless numpties 'wetting their own shoes   Has farage bought a property in Clacton yet?   yet concern for the NHS is listed as a major issue even by those saying they are moving to deform  
    • Also, have you told us how much you paid for this vehicle? Are there any other expenses you have incurred – insurance, inspections et cetera? How far away from the dealership do you live?
  • 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

RBS - They can't do this surely?


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6458 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 had a credit card with these people which I closed 3 or 4 years ago. I don't know if any charges were applied in the preceding 2 or 3 years, but I do remember that they were quite keen to slap charges on.

 

So I thought I'd write asking for a list of transactions and charges with my £10 Sar fee and current bank statements showing my old and new address to confirm my identity. Unfortunately I have no record of the account number (and God only knows I looked!). Not a problem I thought, they should be able to find it using my name and address.

 

They wrote back to me saying they couldn't find the account details without an account number! I was staggered. They say in their letter that they only use a numeric code to identify accounts. And "it would be an impossible task to research records using the details you have supplied."

 

Firstly, a rant which you are free to ignore. From a technical point of view I know they're lying. I've been a database programmer for many years and to only hold account details on the account number would be stupid. You couldn't

link different accounts held by the same customer using that system. You have to use a customer number heirarchically above the account number. The customer number would be held (on any vaguely sensible system) with the customer's name and address (since the data is at the same level), and this (again, on any vaguely sensible system) would be searchable! In conclusion they either have the most incompetent IT department outside of the civil service, or they're lying. End of rant.

 

Secondly, my question. Does anyone know if the system they say they have would actually be legal for the purposes of holding personal information under the Data Protection Act?

 

Thirdly, I'm in contact with the Information Commissioner's Office who are trying to get an explanation from RBS for me, is there any thing else I should be doing?

 

They even kept my £10 cheque! They'd better not cash it.

 

codey

MBNA (Virgin) - they paid up

Lloyds-TSB - court claim issued, they'll pay up soon

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no necessity for them to have a customer number above and beyond the account number as there is no necessity for them to be able to link accounts in this way.

 

They may not be lying. They may decide after 3 years of an account being inactive that all electronic records should be removed and paper copies should be filed away in a warehouse somewhere by account number.

 

You are right in that it sounds a bit dodgy and if they do in fact have information stored then the DPA guarantees that you should be able to access it. The correct people to deal with this are the Information Commissioners Office and I'd let them find out what RBS are doing before proceeding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They may decide after 3 years of an account being inactive that all electronic records should be removed and paper copies should be filed away in a warehouse somewhere by account number.

 

I would agree here, except the letter they sent me says needing an account number applies to both open and closed accounts. I cannot believe that to be true.

 

codey

MBNA (Virgin) - they paid up

Lloyds-TSB - court claim issued, they'll pay up soon

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree here, except the letter they sent me says needing an account number applies to both open and closed accounts. I cannot believe that to be true.

 

codey

 

Quite. I've certainly been able to identify myself to them using secret questions and address details and the like. You might have been unlucky and got someone new who didn't quite know how to respond, but then that's not your problem is it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, a rant which you are free to ignore. From a technical point of view I know they're lying. I've been a database programmer for many years and to only hold account details on the account number would be stupid. You couldn't

link different accounts held by the same customer using that system. You have to use a customer number heirarchically above the account number. The customer number would be held (on any vaguely sensible system) with the customer's name and address (since the data is at the same level), and this (again, on any vaguely sensible system) would be searchable! In conclusion they either have the most incompetent IT department outside of the civil service, or they're lying. End of rant.

 

I had the same response from RBS about one of my old accounts, fortunately I found my account number. I too am involved in database management and cannot understand where this rubbish comes from. Even if the account was archived, a client key, customer number whatever you want to call it would exist!! I would imagine they use this excuse to see if it deters you or not......

If my post has been useful, tip my scales and let me know

 

Always start with the User guide!

Stuck with RBS charges? Click here!!

 

RBS CA1 £2794 SETTLED!!! RBS CA2 £503 SETTLED!!! HBOS CC £498 SETTLED!!! Barclaycard £705 (with CCI) ONGOING!!! NATWEST CA ONGOING!!! LLOYDS CA x 2, CC, LOAN ONGOING!!! HFC LOAN ONGOING!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it looks like I have a result!

 

I've just been phoned by a nice chap called Matt and the Information Commissioner's Office and he tells me they sent the statements out on Monday. He went on to tell me what they told him. They said they have an old system where they can only access by account number, this is for statements prior to April 2001, but the new system (from May 2001) allows searching by name. So, since I was a customer after April '01 they were able to find my details.

 

I'm amazed (not!) they were only able to do this once the Information Commissioners Office were involved. I

think their initial response wasn't a mistake at all, but a deliberate attempt to fob me off. If anyone else finds themselves in the same boat then contact the Information Commissioners Office without delay!

 

I do so hope I find there's a bit fat bunch of charges to reclaim from them!;)

MBNA (Virgin) - they paid up

Lloyds-TSB - court claim issued, they'll pay up soon

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be hard to judge if it was deliberate or not. Most of the people dealing with these initial requests really couldn't care less about stopping you claiming back your charges and are probably more interested in 5pm coming round so they can go home and have their tea.

 

Nevertheless you have your result and hopefully soon a big fat cheque!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes me think it was deliberate rather than accidental was the tone and some of the phrasing in the letter I recieved from them. I'm sure it's a standard letter, espescially since it was signed on behalf of the person named on the letter.

 

The most telling sentence to me anyway is this one:-

"Royal Bank of Scotland uses only numeric code for the identification of accounts and without an account number and sort code we have no way of locating a closed or open account."

 

Now why would they say they can't locate an open account without the account number? They've told the ICO that it's only pre-April 2001 accounts that can't be located.

 

I suspect an instruction has gone to staff telling them to send that letter to anyone who sends a SAR with no account number.

 

I'm not going to take it any further, but if anyone else has received the same letter and fancies putting in a formal complaint to the ICO then PM me and I'll send a scan of my letter.

MBNA (Virgin) - they paid up

Lloyds-TSB - court claim issued, they'll pay up soon

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...