Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Our price is the same all day, but varies day to day. Yes there's a risk of high prices but it has never gone above SVR any time since I signed up. Last 30 days average 17.67p/kWh, max 20.67 and lowest was 11.83.  It saved just under £300 during 2023.  
    • It you had E7 in the past but have converted to single rate then the meter will still hold the last recorded Night readings. This introduces scope for error when manually reading. If the meter has only ever been used on single rate then there's only one figure that can be taken. For example ours shows "Rate 1" reading and a "Total import" reading, but they both give the sme figure. If it has ever been on E7 the total will be higher, including the retained night reading.
    • okay, perfect and thank you so much for the help once again. so firstly i am going to initiate the breathing space, during this time it's likely ill receive a default. when i receive the default are you aware of how long it will take for me to know whether the OC have sold it off to DCAs? Once it's with the DCAs i do not need to worry as they cannot issue a CCJ only the OCs can Even if i decide to come an arrangement with the DCAs no point as the default will remain for 6 years paid or not paid I should only consider repayment if the OC still won the debt and then issue a CCJ? Just to confirm the default will not be seen after 6 years? No one can tell I had one then after 6 years ill be all good?
    • I'm not sure we were on standard tariffs - I've uploaded as many proofs as I can for the ombudsman - ovo called last night uping the compensation to 100 from 50 pounds for the slip in customer service however they won't acknowledge the the problem them not acknowledging a fault has caused nor are they willing to remedy anything as they won't accept the meter or formula was wrong.   I'd appreciate more details on the economy 7 approach and I'll update the ombudsman with any information you can share. 
    • To re-iterate and highlight my urgent question on this one: The N24 from the court did not include any instructions to submit paperwork 28 days before the date, unlike the N157 received for other smaller claims. Do I have to submit a WS for this court date? Link has!...
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Somthings not quite right


ICY
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3722 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

You are right in that the figures don't add up. Without seeing the whole paper trail it is difficult to say. But if they were taking the interest off different things that will be what is tucking it up. They have obviously been taking the credits off the purchase amount hence the purchase interest is lower than work out what the purchase interest should actually be. it should be. £18.70 per month£1000 so for the last entry on the spread sheet it would be nearer £24 than what is shown. That is assuming the whole balance is purchases

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea, it makes no sense to me,

 

I would have expected a bank to be able to get something like this right and be clear about it too,

 

I have just gone through again and didnt spot that there are 3 cash transactions,

something I am against doing

 

there must have been no other options at all, they were

18th July 2012 £150

5th September 2012 £250 and

6th September 2012 £50

 

the rate on these is 2.07 monthly,

although again it makes no sense as unlike the balance transfer there is no mention

anywhere of cash transaction interest on my statements.

 

Its very sneaky separating different transaction so they can hold them back constantly adding interest to them, money for nothing, why they cant just take a card balance and have one interest rate baffles me

:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere in your terms i suspect it says that cash and balance transfers are the same rate. Are the cash withdraws likely to be you. If not ask for clarification.Could someone else have used your card.

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the reason I was trying to work out when and where they take there interest rates from so I could do it myself and see what I came up with, these figures are too wide apart to be just a slight miscalculation, santy claims £1800.45, my transactions and the purchase interest show £1348.61, something is seriously amiss

 

I love her quotes "When your payment of £1400 was transferred to you, this should have not been processed as a balance transfer as you rightly stated" "I have set your account to 0% interest for the balance transfer until 1 August 2015"

 

So they still think somehow that there is an amount outstanding under a balance transfer what the hell is going on, I GIVE UP.

:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you went back to the point that the money was balance transfered off and basically add it interest at 1.87% per month I wonder what would happen.

I assume all your balances are less the £1400 is that right?

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you went back to the point that the money was balance transfered off and basically add it interest at 1.87% per month I wonder what would happen.

I assume all your balances are less the £1400 is that right?

 

The balances on my spreadsheet I have ignored the £1400 yes, The £1400 was paid back to my account on 23rd January 2012

:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe it, all this time and I didn't see the obvious which was staring me in the face, one small formula error, from when I entered the interest amounts after the bogus balance transfer for some reason they weren't auto totaling, from 12/1/12 statement onward, hence the difference in figures, sometimes its the most obvious things. Glad its sorted now before I looked totally stupid in front of loads of people, oh, too late. :/

 

But wait, the balances don't tally, there's a difference I have £1,801.36 and they say I owe £1800.45 I want my..... Oh hang on a minute, lets leave it at that eh :)

 

My brain can take no more, but I am so pleased to have go to the bottom of that and it actually does now make sense, although the amounts charged don't make sense compared to balances but that's for another day.

:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is probably roundings Icy,

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. 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 am glad you are sorted and feel more comfortable with it.

 

Spreadsheets are a bloody nightmare, had this with a budget sheet recently which wouldn't cross balance. Eyestrain and rechecking every formula got it right.

 

Hope 91p will not break the bank :-)

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...