Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • An update to this case as I’ve not been on in a while.    I am still awaiting a charging decision in the case. The two police officers involved have said their personal belief is a section 47 ABH charge is the most likely outcome but this isn’t a sure thing of course.    The EA certificate from the issuing court has now lapsed. The court have refused to recertify him until they’ve had a hearing in to the case, and the district judge has issued orders to surrender all evidence, footage, photos etc.    I have done so promptly.    the EA, not so much . Equita have claimed they cannot provide his bodycam footage as the camera he was wearing is the EA personal one not one of theirs.   the EA has claimed he has asked Equita and the police for the footage as he claims he doesn’t have it.    the police have confirmed they didn’t seize his camera and they don’t have it.    so they are basically pointing the finger at each other all the while failing to comply with the district judges order to provide all evidence they intend to rely on at the rescheduled hearing.    The district judge has stated the hearing for his certification will NOT be the hearing for my complaint as there is no charge as of yet, and just as to whether he should be recertified or not.    I’m not 100% on why that can’t be done at the time, but I’m not about to question a judge…..      
    • Thanks FTMDave, I like the cut of your jib - I'll go with that and obtain proof of postage. Encouraging that NPE have never followed through and seem to blowing hot air, let's see where they go after this   Regards
    • Please see my comments in orange within your post.
    • no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom)
    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.   House or Flat? Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Again, points as above. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) Why serve a delapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease. I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to buy the freehold of the property. It's normal, whether it is a "normal" leaseholder or a repossession with a leasehold house, to claim this right of enfranchisement and sell the property with said rights attached and the purchase price of the freehold included in the final completion price. That's likely what the mortgage provider wished to do. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at? Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. So this is dealt with then. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.  You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension. You'd need a Deed of Variation for that. This may be done at the same time but the lease has already been extended once and that's all they have a right to. The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved. The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there. Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
  • 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

Hitachi Finance Penalty Charges


DickyRobbo44
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1968 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

Hello all,

 

Unfortunately I was made aware there wasn't enough money in my account to cover a DD to Hitachi. I put money in the account on the same day but it must have been too late as the payment was returned later that day. The next day I have rang up to make payment only to be told there is a £22 charge which is automatically added. Do I have any grounds to claim this back. The credit payment is £25 a month is seems unjustified that the charge is nearly as much.

 

I asked them to clarify what the charge was for but the kept referring me to the contract I signed.

 

This happened 3 or 4 months ago, same scenario, same charge but I think I even rang and paid on the same day but still got charged.

 

Can I claim that these charges are unfair and try to reclaim them?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

the fca deems any fixed charge for missing/late payments etc a penalty and unlawful.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, any charge over £12 is considered to be unfair.

 

You should write to them and tell them that the charges unfair because it doesn't represent their administrative losses caused by the failure of your payment.

 

Tell them that your letter as a formal complaint and that unless it is resolved within the eight week period, that you want a final response and you will go to the ombudsman.

 

Alternatively you could sue them in the County Court. You would have to issue the court papers but they would put their hands up and pay you back your money and your fees. It would be a lot more fun than going to the FOS

Link to post
Share on other sites

basically the same thing DR44.

 

what terms are in any T&C's are not necessarily legally binding

if that wee so they'd have been no bank charges reclaiming

no PPI reclaiming

 

and CAG wouldn't have ever existed in the 1st place....

 

deja vu here...said that twice this week..:)

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the response I received. Is there anything I can go back with. Basically they are saying because I agreed to the contract I agreed the charges were reasonable.

 

Dear Mr XXXXXX

 

Reference: XXXXXXX

 

Ref: XXXXX

 

Thank you for discussing your complaint with us and giving us an opportunity to look into the issue for you. We are sorry that you remain dissatisfied with the outcome and trust the explanation below explains the reasons for our response.

 

Your Complaint

 

• You said you were dissatisfied with the amount of the direct debit rejection fee and said that you feel £22 is very high in relation to your instalment amount and therefore wanted this justifying

 

Our Position

 

I am really sorry for the inconvenience and distress that you have felt as we always want all of our customers to have a positive experience with us.

 

Having reviewed your account, I can see that your direct debit rejected on our system on 16 June 2018, 26 June 2018 and 14 November 2018. Based on this your account fell into arrears and caused charges to be allocated to your account.

 

I understand that you contacted our offices and expressed dissatisfaction in regards to the fees that had been applied.

 

In regards to the details of your complaint, I would refer you to a copy of your finance agreement under the section “Additional Charges” whereby it details the following information “Charges will be payable under this agreement in the following events:

• Recalled Direct Debit Charge; £22

• Returned or Recalled cheques or credit/debit card repayments; £25

• Letters sent to you as a result of a breach of your credit agreement; £25

• Issue of a Default Notice; £50”

 

If you were unhappy with the terms and conditions you were provided full rescission rights; whereby you had 14 days in which to exercise your right to withdraw from the finance. No contact was received from you and the finance was activated as agreed.

 

Although I appreciate that you are unhappy with the terms the general legal position is that someone who accepts a contract is bound by what it says whether or not the contract has either been read or understood before it was executed.

 

Once again, I would just like to thank you for taking the time to share your feedback and remind you of how sorry I am.

 

Outcome

 

Taking into consideration all of the above, I will not be able to uphold your complaint and will now close the file. I apologise if this is not the outcome you wanted, however I hope you will find my explanation to be fair and reasonable.

 

Thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention. At Hitachi Personal Finance we strive to provide the best customer service possible, and rely on customer feedback to achieve this. I trust if you have any issues in the future you will not hesitate to contact the Complaints Team on 0113 380 1065 or by email, [email protected]

 

This is our final response in respect of your complaint. If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome in this matter, you have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, free of charge - but you must do so within six months of the date of this letter.

 

If you do not refer your complaint in time, the Ombudsman will not have our permission to consider your complaint and so will only be able to do so in very limited circumstances. For example, if the Ombudsman believes that the delay was as a result of exceptional circumstances.

 

Please click on the link below to access The Financial Ombudsman Consumer Leaflet. Should you wish to have a paper copy, please contact us and we will arrange for this to be sent to you directly.

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/consumer-leaflet.htm

 

The link below will provide you with information on how to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Please copy and paste the link into your web browser.

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm

 

Yours sincerely

Link to post
Share on other sites

as they do ofcourse

 

from my notes:

 

 

in reply to their letter:

 

with regard to your letter of the 30th.

 

i thank you for the gesture of goodwill

in relation toward the refund of your unlawful penalty charges

 

however, i beg to differ upon your points raised

concerning your interpretation of the OFT statement.

 

It is perfectly evident that it applies to ALL types of

consumer credit agreements, else why are

all the major credit cards companies & indeed

other catalogue companies, including yourselves

settling complaints of this nature?

 

it is also worthy to note, that the statement was a recommendation

of £12, not permission to charge such a penalty.

 

When & if you truthfully disclose your actual costs

then perhaps consumers might have a better faith in the industry.

 

i now move to the matter of the interest you have charged me

on these penalty charges.

 

in line with the std FOS calculation, you have failed

to place me back in the position i would

have been, had you not levied such charges,

 

You have omitted to include the interest you have charged me

on each day for each charge.

 

Having already prepared the documents required should

i take the option to take you to court, i have included

a repeat copy of my schedule of charges.

 

from the total detailed i have removed your refunded sum.

 

i will give you 14 days before i decide my next move.

 

However, either way, be this court or the FOS, this will increase

your costs by adding a further 8% statutory interest to my claim.

 

Having consulted information provided by the FOS

i am also advised to inform you of their fees levied

upon the company under investigation - £450

 

i sincerely hope we can resolve my claim

without further involvement.

 

however, please be advised i will not hestitate

in escalating this complaint should it not

be resolved to my satisfaction.

 

yours

disgrutled customer

 

dx

 

 

 

 

Dear

 

Re: Your Reference

 

Thank you for your letter dated 30 November 2010. I would like to take this opportunity to make you aware of the fact that if I do issue Court Proceedings this will incur a further interest charge of 8% simple interest, on each charge including your interest - from the date it was levied - to the date of your claim

 

I also note that your letter effectively seeks to justify these charges on the grounds that it complies with OFT guidance. In that guidance, the OFT says:

 

“As a practical measure, to help encourage a swift change in market practice, we are setting a simple monetary threshold for intervention by us on default charges. The threshold is £12.

 

We regard the setting of the threshold as a provisional practical measure to move the market towards compliance. We should make it quite clear that we are not inviting the banks to align their charges at such a threshold figure. We are not proposing that default fees should be equivalent to the threshold and a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold.

 

The threshold is not intended to be a permanent feature of our intervention in this market. We will consider further action if trends in the market suggest that this threshold approach is insufficient to bring about appropriate and early change in the market.

 

It is also important to note that the threshold for action is a statement of our regulatory intent. We have no power to constrain private civil actions or to determine what a court should decide and other enforcers may apply for injunctions under the UTCCRs”.

 

I require repayment in full of this money and removal of the default notice.

 

I look forward to hearing from you within fourteen days from the date of this letter.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

adapt them.....

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

So I sent this on 15/11 without the "XX's", I have received no reply. I was a bit preoccupied (family member died). Whats my next step? Letter before action?

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Following media reports, and an investigation into credit card charges by the Office of Fair Trading, which I have recently been made aware of, I now understand, that the regime of fees which you have been applying/applied to my account in relation to late fees, and over limit charges, are unlawful at Common Law, Statute and Consumer regulations, in that they did not/do not, represent a genuine pre-estimate of your actual costs.

 

I would draw your attention to the terms of the contract which you agreed to at the time that this account was opened. It is an implied term of that contract that you would conduct yourselves lawfully and in a manner which complies with UK law, and in consideration of fair business practices and good faith.

 

It is my contention, that you have failed to operate my account in a manner conducive to the above, and have demonstrated a lack of fiduciary duty.

 

I calculate that you have taken £XXX which you have charged me in total. Additionally, you have entered an arrears notice against my credit record.

 

In recent years, Courts have been happy to accept claims for charges whilst having regards to the precedent set between KLEINWORT BENSON -v- LINCOLN CITY COUNCIL under section 32 © of the limitation act 1980.

Should county court action be needed I will be seeking to rely on this.

 

Therefore this letter requests a refund of all charges indicated 14 days from the date of this letter.

 

 

I request that payment is made directly to me, by cheque, and that any refund in whole or part should not be allocated to any set off or third parties.

Should this occur, my claim will be deemed as unsettled and I will proceed to the Courts for recovery.

 

You now have 14 days to respond positively, and in the absence of this, I will put you on notice with a further 14 days, letter before action.

I trust this clarifies my position.

 

 

 

The unfair penalty notices were charged on;

 

July - £XXXX

 

November - £XXX

 

 

Yours Faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes when did you sign this..must have been pre 2006?

else their T&C's are wrong and you'll win this hands down

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

no but they have!!

their charges are clearly wrong as is their T&C's.

they should have been updated with what BF relates to in post 3.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but you MUST follow thru with it

 

read the shelley thread and the martin2006 charges threads

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...