Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Gi-
      Csa arrears / pip

      By Gi- · Posted

      Just to clear it up, sorry I don't make sense sometimes. I have paid £4000 £1200 of that was suppose to clear the £1200 debt.   Meaning I have sent a extra £2800 on top of my normal mainternance money.   Thank you
    • jk2054
      CPR 31.14

      By jk2054 · Posted

      alright
    • AndyOrch
      CPR 31.14

      By AndyOrch · Posted

      Try CPR 31.15 Possibly but a party is not compelled to disclose any documents pre allocation
    • Gi-
      Csa arrears / pip

      By Gi- · Posted

      Hi, I shown my key worker a letter that was sent to me saying that I owe £1200, she setup a standing order around 2021, this was to pay back money I owed, with my mental health status I have had complex issues to deal with and I just simply forgot about this standing order so it has been running for about 3.5 years acording to my key worker, anyway I'm not worried about the money that was sent that I call a overpayment, it went towards supporting my child's household so I am just happy with that, I am a little sad that I am being told I still owe this £1200, I have sent bank statements over 3 years worth but they have not taken away this £1200 bill and still say I owe it   Thank you
    • edjama
      Lowell/Overdales Claimform - OH's old estimated dualfuel EON debt - she was never on nor had an EON contract nor was resident over the complete period of this final bill.

      By edjama · Posted

      She did try contacting EON in the early days of the debt but they refused to speak to her because she could not pass the security checks. She didn't know the answers on an account she hadn't opened?   I also saw this article recently which could be what has happended here: Debt collection agencies in the UK are using fair means or foul to link people to an address where an unpaid debt has been run up, sometimes years after they have moved out The Guardian Anna Tims Mon 22 Apr 2024 The letter from the debt collection agency arrived out of the blue, and it was intimidating. It informed Joshua Simpson* that he owed £2,212 to Octopus Energy, and accused him of ignoring previous requests to settle the bill. If he did not stump up within 14 days, he was told, further action would be taken to recover the money. Simpson checked his Octopus account – it was in credit. Then he noticed the address where the debt had been accrued between 2022 and 2023. It was his childhood home – which his family had sold 18 years previously. "Since I was only 16 when we left the property, I was astonished that they'd linked my name [to it]," he says. "The debt collection agency insisted I provide a tenancy agreement to prove how long I've lived at my current address. I couldn't, since we bought our home. "They are now actively pursuing me for this debt, causing me a huge amount of stress. We are about to remortgage, and if this debt prevents us switching to a better deal, we will face real financial hardship." Simpson had been sucked into the shadowy world of "identity tracing", whereby investigators recruited by creditors seek to locate individuals who have moved home without paying their bills. It is an unregulated sector where anyone can set up as an agent in a back room without a licence, or scrutiny, and use fair means or foul to identify debtors. Reputable companies join a trade association that operates a code of practice, but membership is not mandatory, and mistakes are common. Last year, a teenage boy was chased for a debt of more than £900 by debt collectors acting for the energy company Ovo. A "trace agent" had somehow linked him to the debt because his parents had previously rented the property in question. An investigation by the Observer established that the debt had been run up by a subsequent tenant. The consequences of mistaken identity can be catastrophic. Individuals who are erroneously linked to a debt face, at worst, court action, bailiffs and a ruined credit rating. At best, they can endure weeks of stress and paperwork in order to prove they are not the debtor. It is estimated that 20m identity traces are made in the UK every year, many on behalf of companies that are owed money. Personal data is often obtained from credit reference agencies, which record applications for credit, and details are supposed to be verified with several different sources before being used for debt enforcement. In practice, however, this does not always happen. Simpson's details had been passed along a chain of intermediaries before the demand was issued. Octopus had given the unpaid account to a debt collection agent, which had contracted a tracing service, GBG, to find the debtor................ Full Article: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/oct/04/a-cry-for-help-energy-providers-play-the-villain-in-dramas-to-chill-the-blood ..............The Financial Ombudsman Service, which investigates complaints about financial firms, states that debt collection agents have to produce convincing evidence to link an individual to a debt, rather than rely on names, addresses and birth dates. According to the trade association, the Institute of Professional Investigators, an unknown number of investigators and trace agents are operating below the radar. Many more are merely inept, as data protection compliance training is not mandatory. "We have been campaigning for many, many years to try to get all private investigators regulated," says secretary general Glyn Evans.

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

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

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

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

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Have taken BMI to Court

MAGZY

By MAGZY
in Holiday & Airline companies

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6305 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

MAGZY

MAGZY

Posted
Posted

Have taken these idiots to court...after much deliberation and letters and phone calls to sodding India :mad:

 

Have figured that their "charges" are unlawful in a similar way to the bank charges...

 

Don't beleive me?

 

£30 says it is ;-)

 

 

1.The Claimant purchased 2 flights from

London heathrow to Dublin 2.The Defendant

debited total amount of £54.00 for the

flights; £67.50 for applicable taxes,

passenger surcharge, and insurance surcharge

charge(taxes); 3 Claimant canceled flight of

own accord. Defendant offered total of

£17.50 refund from taxes portion of the

transaction which was rejected. Defendants

fee for cancellation and processing of this

was £50. 4. Claimant contends; a) The charges

exceed the Defendants losses caused by

cancelling; (b) The Term permitting the

Defendant to levy such charges is

unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in

Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, Unfair

Contract Terms Act 1977 and at Common Law. 5.

Claimant claims: (a)Return of the amounts

debited of £67.50 for taxes portion of

transaction and refund; (b)Alternatively, if

the charge is a fee for a service, then they

must be reasonable under S.15 of the Supply

of Goods and Services Act 1982.©Court costs

Link to post
Share on other sites
MAGZY

MAGZY

Posted
  • Author
Posted

cheap flights from UK to Europe and America | bmi

 

Here is a statement in BMI terms and condtions whereby if the booking is cancelled then one is entitled to a refund of the Taxes portion of the transaction less an "administration fee"

 

It is this "administration fee" (which turned out to be £50) that I am contesting in court.

 

Does it really cost £50 to do a refund and cancel a booking?

 

Can anyone suggest any other approach I could take on this in court other than trying to prove that their cost is unreasonable under s.15 of the sale of goods and services act 1982 ?

 

Cheers,

M

Link to post
Share on other sites
hagenuk

hagenuk

Posted
Posted

Almost all companies whether they are banks or not, will intend to defend at the initital stage of a claim against them.

 

You appear to be doing all the right things, now keep going.

 

Finally, I would suggest that it does not cost £50 to cancel a booking, but, if it really does, let them show you in court.

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
MAGZY

MAGZY

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Ok - some development on this court claim.

 

BMI has submitted a legnthy defence saying in short that the charges are reasonable - and they are willing to submit evidence in court to back this up.

I have the AQ to fill in but comments welcome before I proceed...

 

I am very much intrigued as to how it costs £50 to conduct refund back to a debit card - and find it hard to beleive that there is no penalty factored into this cost.

 

In any case, here is the defence word-for-word.

 

Any comments / suggestions greatly appreciated...

 

Magz

xx

 

IN THE NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT

BETWEEN:

“MAGZY”

Claimant

- and -

BRITISH MIDLAND AIRWAYS LIMITED

trading as bmi

Defendant

DEFENCE

1. Paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Claimants Particulars of Claim are admitted.

2. The Defendant denies that the refund administration charges of £25 per ticket

exceeds the Defendants loss caused by the cancellation and processing of the

cancellation by the Claimant as alleged in paragraph 4(b) of the Claimants

particulars of Claim.

 

Particulars

(a) In order to offer tiny tickets at the lowest possible price, the costs of such

tickets are stripped of predominantly all charges for contingency events. This is

not the case with certain of the other tickets which the Claimant had the

opportunity to purchase. One of these charges is an administration charges for

cancellation by the passenger. Rather than increase the ticket price, the Defendant

only levies a charge to cover cancellations where the passenger cancels.

 

(b) The Defendant operates a telephone and internet service to enable passengers to

cancel tickets. Both operations involve a manual process which requires a dedicated

member of staff processing any refund manually. The process involves checking that

the passenger's ticket has not been used, the calculation of the refund due, the

manual input of refund details including the passengers name and credit card/debit

card details. The Defendant intends to submit evidence of the process to show that

the cancellation fee is a fair pre-estimate of the Defendants loss.

 

3. The Defendant denies that the terms set out in their booking terms and conditions

entitling the Defendant to levy an administration charge in the event that the,

passenger unilaterally cancels their ticket, are unenforceable whether as alleged in

paragraph 4(b) of the Claimants particulars of Claim or at all. In any event, the

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (1977 Act) is not applicable as the terms in

question are not exclusions or limitations of liability. If, which is not admitted,

the 1977 Act is applicable, the terms are reasonable in the circumstances.

 

Particulars

(a) The Defendant operates a number of different types of ticket at varying prices.

The ticket purchased by the Claimant is known as a 'tiny' ticket and is the lowest

price seat the Defendant sells.

(b) The flexibility of the ticket is dependant upon which ticket a passenger

purchases. On the flights for which the Claimant booked tickets, the Defendants

full range of tickets from tiny to business flexible where available. The Defendant

chose to purchase a tiny ticket where a fully flexible ticket allowing a full refund

without any administration charge at a higher price was available.

 

4. The Defendant denies that the cancellation fee must be reasonable under Section

15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (1982 Act) as alleged in paragraph

5© of the Claimants particulars of Claim. If, which is not admitted, Section 15 of

the 1982 Act' is applicable in the terms are reasonable in the circumstances.

 

Particulars

(a) The particulars to paragraph 3 above are repeated.

(b) Section 15 of the 1982 Act implies a term that charges must be reasonable in the

event that the consideration for the service is not determined by the contract. The

terms and conditions of carriage governing ,the relationship between the Defendant

and the Claimant clearly state the cancellation fee and as such, section 15 is not

applicable

 

5. Save as aforesaid, each of the allegations set out in the Particulars of Claim

are denied and the Claimant is put to strict ,proof of the same. It is denied that

the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief, for the reasons

alleged or at all.

 

Statement of Truth.

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in the Defence are true

I am duly authorised by the Defendant to sign this statement.

 

David Owen

Group Legal Advisor

David Owen

Group Legal Adviser

Link to post
Share on other sites
hagenuk

hagenuk

Posted
Posted

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck...

 

Further it looks to me like the £25 is an arbitrary sum and bears no relation to the potential loss.

 

It will be interesting to see if a) they turn up and b) how they intend to prove their costs.

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
hagenuk

hagenuk

Posted
Posted

Good for you Magzy, well done - I guess they were penalties after all then...

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
TUTTSI

TUTTSI

Posted
Posted
Here is the letter from BMI outlining their settlement offer.

I have accepted this as It was what my claim was for.

 

ImageShack - Hosting :: bmixi0.jpg

 

 

(they still have not paid it though) :-|

 

WELL DONE - Maybe you have to accept first in writing before they issue the cheque. Best thing is to phone them and ask where the cheque is!

Regards

DS

Link to post
Share on other sites
MAGZY

MAGZY

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I did send a letter saying I accept the offer mid december..

 

nearly a month gone now.

 

I will contact them again asking for the money plus the statutory 8% interest which will add to about £3 - will get me a pint down't pub I suppose...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
MAGZY

MAGZY

Posted
  • Author
Posted

sent an email to david owen (bmi legal advidor) stating pay up or face more legal action and costs. cheque arrived yesterday - result!

 

So it was worth the £30 to take them to court!

 

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
TUTTSI

TUTTSI

Posted
Posted
sent an email to david owen (bmi legal advidor) stating pay up or face more legal action and costs. cheque arrived yesterday - result!

 

So it was worth the £30 to take them to court!

 

;)

Magzy

Good Result - Well Done

It just shows you just have to stick to your guns and you did.

DS

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...