Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
    • As already mentioned freely available "credit scores" are fairly useless. All lenders have their own "credit scoring" system, that for obvious reasons they don't divulge. And they're "scored" differently to the freely available ones. As soon as they could, we've always encouraged our two children to use credit cards responsibly... Pay off in full, etc, to generate good history. It's paid off. At quite young ages, they have both obtained loans for cars, mortgage and their credit card limits are through the roof. Personally, I have shifted debt around a lot on credit cards (even financed a house purchase once at 0% 😉) and I've only ever been refused a credit card once, sorry twice by the same company, over many years. They must have something very different in their lending criteria. You're a tight one, Mr Branson.
  • 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
      • 160 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

JP Morgan/Rooftop Arrears fees- The saga continues.


jotty
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1525 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

All I can find are the internal scratchpad notes, there arent any copies of letters sent to the companies but I suspect it was all done via email, I have done a quick pdf of the requests and highlighted in red when the visits took place to match up the the other list I have posted.agentsvisits 2.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could begin immediately with a letter of claim – but I think maybe a slightly more cautious approach could be useful. You might consider writing to them and informing them firstly that their data disclosure is incomplete because although it is clear that they arranged unauthorised visits (make sure that you emphasise that they were unauthorised), there is no reference to any correspondence relating to these arrangements in email form or in letter form. Point out to them that you have already taken legal action against them on one occasion in respect of their breach of the data protection act. You are now proposing to take a further action unless they respond with a complete disclosure without any further delay.
Secondly, as it is clear that they have shared your personal data, you are entitled to know with whom your personal data has been shared and they must respond with full details or else you will see them for that data protection breaches well.

Finally you should tell them that as the visits were not authorised because they were not made by appointment and you are not contacted about them, they were not entitled to impose any charges in respect of them – and even if the visits had been legitimately chargeable, it is clear that they would not be entitled to charge them out at a rate which exceeded the actual costs of the visit. Tell them that in addition to your proposal that you will see them for further breach of the data protection act, you are also considering suing them for the refund of charges plus interest unless they can show you why they consider that the visits were legitimate and in that case you require that they supply you with a full breakdown of the costs of the visit to show that the amount of charges they have levied against you do in fact reflect actual costs.

That's a bit convoluted – but you can work it out

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggested changes in red

rtopcharred210319.docx

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Had a response to the Home visits from JP Morgan who administered the mortgage prior to 2017, in it they make reference to my FOS complaint whereby the Ombudsman did make mention one complaint summing up that he felt the home visit fees where reasonable. Based on this they refuse to refund the home visit fees despite us never speaking to anyone when they were made. So appears we are stuffed on this and have no chance of getting back the fees.

 

They are still looking into the issue of an incomplete DSAR, so I await the details, particularly of visits arranged by them. 

IMG_0573.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't notice that the ombudsman has said that the fees were reasonable. I do notice that they said that the visits were reasonable. I also noticed that they said that you were informed in advance of the visit and the associated costs. Is this correct?

I should not necessarily take what the ombudsman says as gospel. The ombudsman is half-hearted, limp wristed and believes that their remit is to be fair to both sides. This is completely at odds with the prevailing legislation which is that the firm must treat you fairly and must have your interests in mind when making decisions. The legislation says nothing about being fair to themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And by the way, you have received a letter from JP Morgan. Did you receive a similar letter from the ombudsman?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I'm a bit out of touch – and you are probably more familiar with all of this stuff than I am at the moment. Can you remind me or better still – link me to the place where it makes it clear that home visits can only be carried out with an appointment – and also where it says that the fees charged may only reflect the administrative costs. I know it somewhere but I can't remember where

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm absolutely sure that there are some guidelines – maybe FCA guidelines which refer to home visits and say that they should not be made without agreement. Maybe it wasn't in FCA guidelines – maybe it is in the judgement to 1 of the cases.

We need to find this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's not what I had in mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

These were:

  • A fee for a returned direct debit which was charged regardless of how many times the direct debit had already been returned unpaid;
  • Including arrears fees and charges in the balance on which an early repayment charge was calculated;
  • Charging for field counsellor visits in full to some customers who had not been properly informed of the timing of the visit and/or of their right to refuse or cancel the visit; or who should have been charged a reduced rate cancellation fee; and
  • A fee for litigation activities, which was applied even when such activities were taken by Redstone unnecessarily.

 

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/120.shtml

 

 

redstone.pdf

I haven't read this

Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course we where never informed of the time and date but only the face they intended to visit us and now appears also interrogate our neighbors in the process.

 

time for court maybe ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I think that you are getting to that point.

I'd like to see the documentation relating to the visits. Also are you able to identify the charges which they levied for those visits?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Managed to delve through the many documents they sent, re the Home visits they have on each occasion informed us that they will be making them and that we had the option to cancel - but with limited time to do so. As we would have failed to contact them then the visits went ahead, which on the face of it does weaken our position I guess. The main issue now will be the level of charges £60-£90 for counselling visits that actually never took place, I note on the reports that boxes are ticked which make assumptions based on the lack of contact that could clearly be incorrect without actually speaking to the home owner.

 

The bottom line, appears to be that they will send counsellors/investigators to you without any real permission, implied or not, and that you will pay.

 

Need to have a think about how to proceed now, if at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I'm afraid that this does weaken your case considerably. As you have seen in the FSA/FCA notice, a point which they emphasise several times was that the right of cancellation or the right not to have the visit was never explained.

You say there was very little notice – but how much notice was actually given?

You say that the visits never took place – is this because they attempted the visit and couldn't get access? Was an appointment made? If they informed you of the visits and of your right to cancel but then didn't make appointments and simply sent people round then I think this puts you in a good position. However, if they made an appointment then I think your position is extremely poor.

I'm wondering what the reasonable cost of a visit might be. £60 might be borderline reasonable. £90 seems to me to be pushing it. I think you should be entitled to see the invoices they received from the company carrying out the visits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One one occasion, they sent the letter out and was received on the same date that we had to cancel, so that would have been impossible. The remainder have no dates so it would be hard to prove wether we had time to cancel, or that they hadnt given us enough.

Sorry yes the visits took place, but we never spoke to anyone. This is recorded in the reports posted earlier, however each report has tick box assumptions and a few lines which I feel should not have been made without having contact, and because that never took place then the tick boxes should be blank. They made appointments, and kindly word the letter saying that if we dont contact then then the visit will go ahead, I guess under implied consent. No appointments were ever made by us.

 

Doubt if we will get invoices, other than the reports which are on previous posts #13&#17.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that some visits were proposed but they gave you no dates?

Have you any evidence of the date upon which you received the notice of visit which coincided with the date of the visit?

How many visits to they claim were arranged/are you being charged for – as against visits which actually took place?

Can you tell us about these tick box assumptions please. Maybe you could scan one of these notices and let us see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have scanned up two of the letters re visits but having problems attatching to the post, but one dated 26/01/13 was received on the evening of the 28/01/13, and it states that we had to ring them by the 29th which wasn't possible so the visit went ahead.

 

All the others dont tell us when a visit is going to happen , and as explained at no stage where we contacted by the companies concerned to arrange times etc.

 

The tick box part is on the copies of the reports in post #13, but I have done a snip of the tick boxes on the forms, but again am struggling to attach to post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What problems are you having posting the attachments? How big are they and what kind of files are they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...