Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Tesco Bank - CIFAS Placed 2016 - Advice On How To Handle?


L33noa
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 906 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

It all seems automated online no where i can refuse this etc . I certainly haven't given any permission to extend you would thing a corporation the size of them could reply within the specified time wouldn't you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I submitted the claim 17th May giving them until 7th June to respond the message i got when i completed it was as follows

 

Your claim against Tesco Bank was issued on 17 May 2021.

The defendant needs to respond before 7 June 2021.

The defendant can ask for an extra 14 days to respond. If they do you will be notified of the date you need to respond by.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So 8 days into the extended 14 and no contact from Tesco , I stupidly thought given they asked to extend I might have received something by now from them. see what the next few days bring. cut off 21st June 4pm  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never used the account from the day it was opened, I received multiple letters encouraging me to use the account but I never did. 

I had issues accessing it which i raised. I never knew about any of these transactions and the CIFAS until i had insurance cancelled and RBS closed my bank accounts some 2 yrs later

 

They say themselves the account was hijacked and the account i was a beneficiary of funds. but I didn't have any knowledge of this. 

 

Tesco acknowledge the investigation was flawed as to did the FOS and ICO as the investigation wasn't fair and proper. But as they cannot establish how it happened they automatically make me the guilty party. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Site team 

just wondering if you had any further guidance support for me to continue my claim 

 

Eversheds (Solicitor Tesco using) have sent me a further letter asking me to withdraw my claim. 

 

@BankFodder

Many thanks 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The name i was just following their correspondence, all the communication form them was Tesco Bank, for address i highlighted in this thread that the main headquarters was Scotland and was told to just use an address in England. so I used the main Tesco Head quarters.   

 

The Defendant investigated the transaction and concluded that the Claimant had been the beneficiary of fraudulent funds. - I have seen no evidence of the investigation. they have said the account was the beneficiary of fraudulent funds but as i have have said from the beginning I hadn't used the account in nearly a year. they did not communicate with me like they did their other customer therefore not giving me any opportunity to either assist the investigation or report to the police myself. The FOS and ICO have both found the investigation was not properly handled.

 

ICO: The organisation have acknowledged that they have not acted in compliance with the GDPR in this case as they did not discuss their concerns with you before the CIFAS marker was applied. Tesco Bank have accepted that this was not fair, and we understand that they have now changed their process as a result in order to prevent any reoccurrence of this issue. I have considered the information available in relation to this complaint and I am of the view that Tesco Bank have not complied with their data protection obligations. This is because Tesco Bank failed to meet their obligations under the GDPR in this specific case with regard to fairness and transparency, prior to the CIFAS marker being initially applied.

 

FOS: The FOS found that Tesco didn't do enough to show it could apply the marker and found this wasn't fair. The FOS found that Tesco Bank did not do a sufficient investigation

 

Tesco: Tony O'Donnell investigation officer stated that There is no way we could have established if I  could have been complicit in the ACTO and know that the funds were fraudulent funds without speaking to him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Hello 

 

sorry for the delay , So i had a hearing provisionally heard by the judge , who felt Tesco did have a case to answer his only concern was that it wouldn't go to a full hearing until Sep/Oct 2022 given the back log and given the marker would drop off by then  I should have a think about if i wanted to pursue. whilst he said he would be willing to listen to the case if i was to lose i would be responsible for covering any defendant costs. 

 

Tesco wanted the case struck out and me to cover costs so far excess £8,000 they quoted! he struck that out. he left me with 30 days to decide and re submit particulars. He also asked Tesco to re-look and given the duration left could there be a compromise. They said yes.

 

given that i might be liable for costs and that it wouldn't be heard until the marker drops off anyway i decided not to resubmit as I didn't want the worry and stress of that over me, Tesco have said they will come back to me re the marker , surprise though they haven't. 

 

for me its now draw a line under it and sit out the last 11 months until I am free of this nightmare. 

 

I thank you all for your input , help and suggestions and although I have perhaps not gained anything from it so far its been a valuable lesson that we should fight these institutes all the way and not roll over, even if its costs them thousands to defend this claim its a minor victory, Maybe? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...