Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • His financial situation isn’t great, and the landlord has made lots of things up. The things he’s put isn’t true at all. My friend did tell the full truth with incoming and outgoing, I helped him fill in his form and he checked bills etc. to make sure it was right. His wage is ok, but not as good as the landlord thinks it is,  and he doesn’t have anything spare. How much are they likely to take from him? Should he send any reply?  the letter just says to take the court letter with him. 
    • Hi and thanks It looks like they ticked all the boxes to me but I'll try and upload the notice. I was wondering if a witness to late delivery might be considered proof - I'm assuming they posted it as normal but Royal Mail stuffed up delivery. If not then they're really saying it just has to be posted within 12 days of the incident, regardless of when it is received. Annoying! pcn front.pdf pcn back page.pdf
    • Hi welcome to the Forum.  If a PCN is sent out late ie after the 12th day of the alleged offence, the charge cannot then be transferred from the driver to the keeper.T he PCN is deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch so in your case, unless you can prove that Nexus sent the PCN several days after they claim you have very little chance of winning that argument. All is not lost since the majority of PCNs sent out are very poorly worded so that yet again the keeper is not liable to pay the charge, only the driver is now liable. If you post up the PCN, front and back we will be able to confirm whether it is compliant or not. Even if it is ok, there are lots of other reasons why it is not necessary to pay those rogues. 
    • Hi 1 Date of the infringement  arr 28/03/24 21:00, dep 29/03/24 01.27 2 Date on the NTK  08/04/2024 (Date of Issue) 3 Date received Monday 15/04/24 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012?  Yes 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No  7 Who is the parking company? GroupNexus 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Petrol Station Roadchef Tibshelf South DE55 5T 'operating in accordance with the BPA's Code of Practice' I received a Parking Charge letter to keeper on Monday 15/04/24, the 17th day after the alleged incident. My understanding is that this is outside the window for notifying. The issue date was 08/04/2024 which should have been in good time for it to have arrived within the notice period but in fact it actually arrived at lunchtime on the 15th. Do I have to prove when it arrived  (and if so how can I do that?) or is the onus on them to prove it was delivered in time? All I can find is that delivery is assumed to be on the second working day after issue which would have been Weds 10//04/24 but it was actually delivered 5 days later than that (thank you Royal Mail!). My husband was present when it arrived - is a family member witness considered sufficient proof?
  • 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

GMAC & Birmingham Midshires


martdj
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6312 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

Having succesfully reclaimed £15000 in charges from the Halifax earlier this year, I am goint to pursue GMAC & BM for return of their charges and ERC. I have today written to GMAC requesting £2100 in unlawful fees. Still awaiting statements from BM. Once i have a satifactory conclusion to the fees I will seperately claim for the ERC. Watch this space!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE

 

Gmac replies stating the usual that the charges are in line with etcetc so LBA sent.

received BM bundle today and have sent initial letter requesting £1137.76 in charges

 

November 10, 2006

 

 

Re: ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxxxxxxxxxx Request for repayment of charge

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam ,

 

Our request

 

We are writing to ask you to refund the charges which you have levied from our account in respect of late payment fees, and other unlawful fees to the sum of £1137.76, this figure does not include the contractual rate of interest applied by yourselves in respect of the said charges (Please find enclosed schedule of charges detailing dates, amounts and interest). We now understand that such fees are unlawful at Common Law, Statute and recent consumer Regulations.

 

In the case of Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (1904) 12 SLT 498 the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incurred from a breach of contract as oppose to a charge which represents a penalty. This law was confirmed and upheld in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79. A charge will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison to the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach. A penalty clause is void in its entirety and unenforceable.

 

In addition your charges appear to represent an unfair term of contract which is contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI. 1999/2083). Our account falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 as we are consumers. Your charges constitute an unfair penalty under Schedule 2 of the said Regulations which provide an indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair. Under paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 this specifically includes terms which have the object of requiring any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation. We would vigorously contend that this is the position regarding the fees which you deemed fit to apply to our account.

 

We believe that the charges you have levied of £1137.76 for late payment return of debit fees and other legal fees far exceed any true cost to yourself as a result of our breach and any genuine pre-estimate you could conceivably reach. If you disagree, then will you please demonstrate this by letting me have a full breakdown of the costs to which you have been put to as a result of our breaches, in order to reassure us that your charges really do reflect your costs.

 

 

 

Your responsibilities

 

We would draw your attention to the terms of the contract which you agreed to at the time that we took out the loan. It is an implied term of that contract that you would conduct yourselves lawfully and in a manner which complies with UK law.

 

We are frankly shocked that you have operated our account in this way as we had always reposed confidence in your integrity and expertise. We consider that your repeated representations that your charges are fair and reasonable are deceptive and that they have deceived us into agreeing to pay them. Your concealment of the true nature of your charges has prevented us from asserting our rights until now.

 

 

 

Our targets to resolve this matter

 

We really hope that this matter can be resolved amicably and without the need for redress to the courts. If this were to happen there would be the interest at 8% pa to be added which amounts to £249.61. Also the figures do not include the contractual rate of interest applied by yourselves in respect of the said charges Thus we are asking that you refund the charges which have unlawfully been levied on our account. Failure to refund all the money unlawfully taken from us will result in us taking further action. We will give you 14 days to reply accepting, unconditionally, our request in principle and letting us know a date by which we will receive payment. If you do not respond, or you do not respond positively, within this time period, we shall send you a letter

before action giving you a further 14 days in which to reflect. We believe that these targets are more than sufficient for a large company such as yours with dedicated staff and departments.

 

Furthermore, I shall submit a Consumer Credit Act 1974 complaint to the OFT upon the basis that you have failed to comply with the OFT's direction of 5 April 2006 and are therefore not a 'fit and proper person' to hold a consumer credit licence under the 1974 Act.

 

You also have a duty to your shareholders to act in a financially prudent manner. Therefore I would consider it financial mismanagement should you let this matter go as far as the small claim courts, then you settling without defence.

 

However If you disagree, then will you please demonstrate this by letting me have a full breakdown of the costs to which you have been put to as a result of our breaches, in order to reassure us that your charges really do reflect your costs.

 

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin & Jane Johnson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martdj

Good luck mate i hope you get on well.

I have been after gmac (seems like forever) for a while now their deadline for repayment of ERC+charges was up on 27-10-06, i am just waiting on a letter from DWP/I.S. to state i am in reciept of Income support (to enable me to have fee's waivered) so i can go ahead with the court papers.

 

Keep us informed please!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

must have been reading mymind Zoot because ive just managed to persuad BM to offer me all my charges MINUS conditions attached to its acceptance after three letters. So juts be careful they dont want you to sign the offer with conditions attached as they appear to have done with everyone else

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is great news cause I am planning on selling my house in Jan 2007 to avoid the ERC but I will be claiming all the charges I have received in the past 2 years as soon as I am out of this mortgage!

Love & Light To All

 

Mysticjo

 

Nationwide Settled 19/07/2006 Settled out of court £5,000

 

HSBC Bank PLC< Data Protection Letter Sent 25/07/2006

 

Preferred Mortgages Data Protection Letter Sent 25/07/2006 ERF & Charges

 

Welcome Car Finance Data Protection Letter Sent 25/07/2006

 

NatWest Home Loans Data Protection Letter Sent 25/07/2006 ERF & Charges

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just heard back from MCOL that GMAc intend to defend the claim. I will be very interested to see their calculations on how they reach these charges.

 

On the BM front i sent back theform they sent me accepting their offer, I marked the letter without prejudice, and I also asked them to provide me with a full breakdown of solicitors charges of £527 for aborted reposession proceedings. After all if I am to pay the bill it is only fair that I see their invoice.

 

After that I will go for the ERC

Link to post
Share on other sites

martdj, I have been through this with BM, on analysis of their statements, they admitted that charges made for 'Solicitors Fees' were actually for work they claim was carried out by their internal departments. As a group, I understand there are approx. 150 companies, of whom Sally Mayer plays Company Secretary to a large number.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

MCOL page shows judgement issued on 28/12, however today I have receive d from Eversheds GMACS sols a copy of the clients defence which they say was filed at court on 29/12. On the last page where the statement of truth is signed it is just dated December 2006 no day, and it states served and filed this ... day of December, again no date The defence is basically that the contract i signed agreed these charges and thay are a true pre estimate blah blah.As regards the Common Law, Unfair Contract Terms Act and Unfair terms in Consumer Contracts Regs it states that I have given insufficiant particulars. Also states they wish to claim costs not exceeding £5000 but no breakdown given. Where do I go from here, and as the form is not properly dated is it legal??

Link to post
Share on other sites

telephone the Courts and confirm you have a Judgement. The other side will then have to make an application to have it set aside or pay up.

 

The Judgement should state the time limits imposed for payment of the Judgement by the Defendants.

 

Looks like Eversheds were a touch too late.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoot, surely Judgement Issued means notification and therefore granted, given it ia a MCOL and taking into consideration the Royal Mail and the time of year, the Defendants should have had this hand delivered if necessary to ensure the matter has met with the relevant time limits.

 

Anything outside of this will be out of time and must be repealed.

 

In any event, the Court will not be too happy with a defense filed after they have issued a judgement.

 

Any defense filed now is out of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No MCOL will change to granted once it has been granted. Issued simply means its been requested. Similar to the position of claim issued and claim served. The deemed serve date comes 5 days after issue. Plus the fact that it all happened during the Christmas period would give them extra days.

 

Its probably better this way otherwise they would apply to have a set aside which could take months.

 

Even so it still looks like they are going to drag this one out if their past performance is anything to go by!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...