Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
  • 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

Declined access to my first direct account while abroad. Am I being reasonable


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6362 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

Just over a month ago, I spent five days in Ireland, travelling around. I made several withdrawals from cashpoints using my First Direct issued Maestro card to pay for accommodation, food etc. This was the fourth time I had been in Ireland in the previous four months. When I returned, I found a message on my answerphone from the bank requesting that I call them urgently, followed by a letter the morning after I returned to say that if I didn't contact them, they would stop access to my account until I have confirmed a number of transactions with me.

 

This concerned me greatly, as had I not returned when i did, it was likely that I would have been left with no access to cash in a foreign country and told them that it was unacceptable. I also told them that I made several trips to Ireland which they could confirm simply by viewing my account statements (containing withdrawals from Irish cashpoints, numerous bookings with Ryanair, hotel payments in Ireland etc) and that far from forming a suspicious pattern of spending, such withdrawals were actually the norm. I also advised both the call centre, and the fraud detection department that I was due to make several more trips and that under no circumstances were they to interfere with my account and leave me without access to money.

 

So on Monday of this week, I turn up at Dublin's Heuston station ATM, having just arrived from Bristol and try to withdraw €220 from my account to fund the next three days, only to be told "we are temporarily unable to authorise this transaction" Two of the three ATM's were out of action, so I thought this my be a temporary glitch. Due to catch an 11.20 train to Galway for the afternoon, I try and buy a book in the station bookshop and pay by switch. That transaction was declined, but my Visa card was accepted. So now I knew that it wasn't a software fault causing the glitch. Instead of catching a train as planned, I had to return back into Dublin City Centre to get advice from an HSBC branch, only to be told that there aren't any. Fortunately, the bank I enquired at allowed me to contact First Direct at their cost. On contacting the call centre I was put through to fraud security, only to be told that my account had been stopped because of a suspicious pattern of activity! With the next Galway train not being until 14.20, by the time I had sorted this out, my plans for the day were in ruins.

 

Since returning this morning, I have spoken to First Direct fraud security, and one of their Assistant Managers. There is a record of the conversations that I had with both the call centre and fraud security divisions last month, but nothing on my file regarding my advise last month that I would be making several future journeys. She is now listening to the tapes of those conversations.

 

I've told them that I want £50 to compensate for the loss of day one of a three day trip while I sorted out an error which should never have happened. I had not only advised them of travel plans, but their allegation of suspicious patterns of spending is nonsense, since the last time I had used the card was at Bristol Airport that morning to access the car park. That in itself should have told them I was going somewhere.

 

Has anyone else had this problem and how have they got around it on future trips abroad, and am I being reasonable in demanding compensation?

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see I'm not the only one.

 

I object to telling my bank when or where I am going on holiday. I don't tell my parents, so why should my bank get preferential treatment. First Direct's own advertising on their website states that a Maestro card can be used in any one of 560,000 cash machines abroad. There is no codicile to say (providing you tell us where you are going first), so I may well take it up with trading standards as well. As you say, it costs a fortune to make calls from abroad, and I do not carry a mobile phone either, which would normally mean making International calls from payphones. That's if you have enough money on you!

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not trying to pour cold water over your grievence but i was just wondering what you would say if your card was stollen and used in different places and the bank did nothing. Surely they are trying to protect you (and themselves) from possible fraud. Even if you do tell them where you are going does that stop your card being stollen. I just hope that if my card ever gets stillen they are as quick to stop transactions that they seem to be doing to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on that supposition, banks can surely view every and all transactions as fraudulent. That's what PIN no's are supposed to be for. To prove that you have authority to use the card. If they can't trust their own security system, they have a major problem.

 

I can, to a point, understand if there was a genuine pattern of unrelated withdrawals on my card. However, in this instance it was the first time that I had attempted to use my card on this trip, and even they conceeded that I had a record of transactions in Ireland, and that my card had been used that morning at Bristol Airport to access the long stay car park!

 

Common sense is required and that is what is lacking. For information, if I wanted to go and do some major shopping, I would go to Dublin over London any day. It's cheaper to fly to Dublin than catch the train to London for me. Does this mean that in future, if my card is used in London it will be stopped as it may be a fraudulent transaction.

 

Where do you draw the line between security and instant access to MY FUNDS which they are borrowing and making money out of.

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not trying to pour cold water over your grievence but i was just wondering what you would say if your card was stollen and used in different places and the bank did nothing. Surely they are trying to protect you (and themselves) from possible fraud. Even if you do tell them where you are going does that stop your card being stollen. I just hope that if my card ever gets stillen they are as quick to stop transactions that they seem to be doing to you.

 

I have to agree with Roy on this one, I understand that you wouldnt want to tell the bank where you are going however if someone were to steal and use your card fraudulently it would be another story - like roy said they're trying to protect your funds aswell as themselves!

 

Hope you enjoyed Ireland bar that though :)

 

Nathe

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNTIL MY CASES ARE RESOLVED/WON IM GOING TO KEEP MY SIGNATURE BLANK AS IM AWARE THE BANKS TEND TO TRAWL ON SOME OF THESE FORUMS AND AS MY CASE IS A LITTLE COMPLEX IT WOULD BE EASILY SPOTTED

 

DONT WORRY - THE INFO SHALL RETURN ONCE THE CASE IS RESOLVED/WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be true if it worked that way, but it doesn't.

 

When my card was cloned last year, the bank let through transaction from the ELC in Swindon, where I have never set foot in my life, yet in the past blocked transactions in Calais or Lyon, despite the fact that all the info they have on me clearly shows I'm French. Where's the sense in that?

Worse, when my card got cloned, the thieves used it to set up an AOL account (so besmirching my good name as well as stealing from me! ;-)), and despite the card being stopped and replaced etc, it took 4 MONTHS for them to finally block the payments!

 

The fact that you're abroad does not justify the stopping of the card, far from it. If your card gets stolen, the thieves are much more likely to stay in the UK than hop on a plane for a quick shopping trip at your expense! So systematically treating the foreign transactions as suspect is a crock, frankly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem isn't uniform - the security measure adopted by different companies vary wildly - one has a 'out of UK' flag that decrements daily until my return. In the end it was actually easier for me to open a bank account with the AIB in Dublin after various hassles - that had the additional benefit of providing me with access to euros for any other Euro-land transaction - it was the best (and cheapest) way of playing htre banks at their own game!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with the Lloyds and travel extensively as part of my job, they've yet to stop a cash withdrawl even when I managed to withdraw cash from Singapore, Perth and Singapore again in 24 hours! On that trip 2 of my collegues had problems with their banks blocking their cards. I use the Nationwide now when abroad (they don't charge handling fees) and they seem OK as well.

Lloyds TSB, Total Charges £900, Claim Filed for £1379 - Settled

 

Sainsbury's Bank Credit Card, Total Charges £90 - Settled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...