Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
    • quite honestly id email shiply CEO with that crime ref number and state you will be taking this to court, for the full sum of your losses, if it is not resolved ASAP. should that be necessary then i WILL be naming Shiply as the defendant. this can be avoided should the information upon whom the courier was and their current new company contact details, as the present is simply LONDON VIRTUAL OFFICES  is a company registered there and there's a bunch of other invisible companies so clearly just a mail address   
    • If it doesn’t sell easily : what they can get at an auction becomes fair market price, which may not realise what you are hoping.
    • Thank you. The receiver issue is a rabbit hole I don't think I'm going to enjoy going down. These people seem so protected. And I don't understand how or why?  Fair market value seems to be ever shifting and contentious.
  • 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

Financial Ombudsman - a recommendation


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5827 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 think the Ombudsman is beginning to take serious notice - have a read of the ombudsman monthly newsletter and article in thisismoney.com and issue 57 - October/November 2006

 

James Coney, Daily Mail

8 November 2006

Reader comments (1)

 

Complaints about 'rip-off' bank overdraft charges have hit record levels, figures show. pixel.gif

bankstressphone_100x110.jpg STRESS: Complaining to your bank can be a frustrating experienceThe number of people complaining to the Financial Ombudsman Service soared from 60 a week in May to more than 150 a week in October.

 

In some cases, customers have run up hundreds of pounds in charges after going just a few pence overdrawn.

With complaints expected to hit 10,000 this year, the chief ombudsman has warned banks to start acting fairly when handling claims for compensation.

He accuses banks of giving customers the run-around by paying back the charges only to those who are prepared to go to court or make a complaint to the ombudsman. And he threatened to make a legal ruling that will force banks to pay back all charges.

Instead, he wants banks to accept that their charges are unfair and refund them when customers complain, rather than resorting to delaying tactics and bargaining over how much they should refund.

Banks will charge customers as much as £39 for going beyond their overdraft without permission, and slap on a further charge of around £25 for every direct debit or transaction that is then bounced or allowed to go through.

On top of this, the banks will charge an interest rate of close to 30pc on unauthorised overdrafts. The charges can often send the customer overdrawn again, plunging them into a spiral of debt.

These charges are feeding record profits of a combined £34bn at the big five banks - Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds TSB, RBS-NatWest and HBOS.

Many, including the Office of Fair Trading which has launched an investigation, believe that these charges are illegal because they amount to an unfair penalty rather than being a true reflection of the cost to a bank when a customer overspends.

The OFT is expected to make an initial decision early next year. In October it demanded that banks impose a £12 cap on charges for customers who go over their credit card limit or make a late payment.

In the past six months, thousands of customers have demanded that the banks reimburse charges - banks initially reject such claims. But if the customer complains again, many banks will offer to pay back a proportion of the charges.

Only if the customer then goes to court or registers a complaint with the ombudsman will the charges be reimbursed in full. But the banks always back down before a court or ombudsman ruling can be made, to prevent any sort of precedent being set.

Chief ombudsman Walter Merricks believes that if banks reimburse those customers who are prepared to complain several times, then they should have to pay back money to everyone who makes a claim.

He says: 'This sort of horseplay is bad. It seems inequitable that you will pay back money to some consumers just because they are prepared to be persistent.'

 

Merricks warns that if banks failed to pay back consumers, or if the OFT investigation was lengthy, then he would be forced to weigh in with a ruling that could force banks to reimburse customers.

Money Mail and This is Money's Fair Play On Charges campaign has helped thousands of readers claw back charges since May. The campaign has revealed other dirty tricks that banks use, including closing the accounts of customers who win back charges, and putting black marks on their credit records.

Marc Gander, a campaigner from the Consumer Action Group which gives advice to bank customers wanting to reclaim their charges, says: 'These charges are a rip-off. Banks have perfected the art of giving their customers the run-around.

'Complaining about your bank can be a very stressful and daunting process, so they weed out the faint-hearted. This means that many people drop out before they claim back all their money and results in the bank saving money.' A spokesman for the British Bankers' Association says: 'We are involved in a dialogue with the OFT at the moment, and we take on board the concerns with the ombudsman and will be discussing these with him. Our members believe that their charges are transparent, fair and legal.'

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

i personally believe that we should all start bombarding the FOS with our complaints - this is what caused the uproar with Endowment Misselling. The FOS are already beginning to get inundated with cases and quite clearly the more we bombard them with the more they will have to stand up for us consumers!

 

I have raised one case with the FOS against Lloyds TSB and the bank backed down and reimbursed the ALL charges before the FOS began their Investigation.

 

I am about to start again with a relatives case and will do the same with this one as well - instead of using the Court, escalate to the FOS.

 

Please note, if a case goes to the FOS - it does indeed cost the bank!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...