Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Parents and teens alike are trading in their smartphones for "dumber" models to help stay offline.View the full article
    • The coffee giant is suffering as customers "lose it" over price hikes and other controversies.View the full article
    • Victims as far afield as Singapore, Peru and the United Arab Emirates fell prey to their online scams.View the full article
    • Rights groups warn of state paranoia as experts on hypersonics, the science behind ultrafast missiles, have been jailed.View the full article
    • The Contract itself The airport is actually owned by the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan. There should be an authority from them for Bristol airport group  to sign on their behalf. Without it the contract is invalid. The contract has so many  clauses redacted that it is questionable as to its fairness with regard to the Defendants ability to receive a fair trial. In the case of WH Holding Ltd, West Ham United Football Club Ltd -v- E20 Stadium LLP [2018],  In reaching its decision, the Court gave a clear warning to parties involved in litigation: ‘given the difficulties and suspicions to which extensive redaction inevitably gives rise, parties who decide to adopt such an appropriate in disclosure must take enhanced care to ensure that such redactions are accurately made, and must be prepared to suffer costs consequences if they are not’. The contract is also invalid as the signatories are required to have their signatures co-signed by independent witnesses. There is obviously a question of the date of the signatures not being signed until 16 days after the start of the contract. There is a question too about the photographs. They are supposed to be contemporaneous not taken several months before when the signage may have been different or have moved or damaged since then. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court therefore to treat the contract as invalid or void. With no contract there can be no breach. Indeed even were the contract regarded as valid there would be no breach It is hard to understand why this case was brought to Court as there appears to be no reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA.............
  • 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

Halifax have offered me good will gesture-help


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6416 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

Hi, After sending off my letter to claim £1700 they have offered me £400.

Obviously I dont want to accept it as I have read dont accept the first offer. But they told me that they're charges are not unlawfal as these are anathuarised bank charges not credit card charges. I am now confused because as far as i am aware Ofcom (or whoever) annouced all charges should cover adminstritive costs not moatter whether they are against credit cards or bank accounts.

 

Can someone help clear this up for me. I think i am right but they have thrown me, and I do want to take them to small claims, hopefully not all the way just issue them with the next letter which will force them to make a full refund.

 

Help, thanks

 

Soph

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry about it too much I got the same letter this morning with my offer I've just sent them a letter saying I'll accept as part payment but still pursuing the rest and continuing with MY timescale not theirs. I'm due to lodge my claim in court on the 23rd

01/09/2006 Data Protection Act sent

04/09/2006 Data Protection Act recieved by Halifax

28/09/2006 Called Halifax to see if they have done anything about Data Protection Act letter

17/10/2006 Non Compliance LBA sent

23/10/2006 Phone call made

24/10/2006 statements arrived

24/10/2006 prelim letter sent asking for return of £1455.87

08/11/2006 LBA sent ;) court next :p

14/11/2006 good will gesture made offered £513 now claiming £1639.95 :D

15/12/2006 Court claim number Halifax must respond by 23/01/2007

 

05/01/2007 PAID IN FULL WOOHOO

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have been offered a part payment by Halifax, and agree with doinmaheadin, don't be fazed by them. Stick to your timescale and know that they are very very unlikely to choose to declare openly (in court) how they arrive at their bank charges. I'm due to lodge my claim next week as well. icon14.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

KEEP GOING GUYS!

 

Follow the step-by-step instructions on this site and stick to the timescales as advocated. The bank does this with everyone (try to buy you off cheaply) ... don't have a bar of it.

 

Stick to your guns ... you know the money is yours, and so do they ... you'll get it back, rest assured!

 

Enjoy! :D

Outacash ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...