Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It you had E7 in the past but have converted to single rate then the meter will still hold the last recorded Night readings. This introduces scope for error when manually reading. If the meter has only ever been used on single rate then there's only one figure that can be taken. For example ours shows "Rate 1" reading and a "Total import" reading, but they both give the sme figure. If it has ever been on E7 the total will be higher, including the retained night reading.
    • okay, perfect and thank you so much for the help once again. so firstly i am going to initiate the breathing space, during this time it's likely ill receive a default. when i receive the default are you aware of how long it will take for me to know whether the OC have sold it off to DCAs? Once it's with the DCAs i do not need to worry as they cannot issue a CCJ only the OCs can Even if i decide to come an arrangement with the DCAs no point as the default will remain for 6 years paid or not paid I should only consider repayment if the OC still won the debt and then issue a CCJ? Just to confirm the default will not be seen after 6 years? No one can tell I had one then after 6 years ill be all good?
    • I'm not sure we were on standard tariffs - I've uploaded as many proofs as I can for the ombudsman - ovo called last night uping the compensation to 100 from 50 pounds for the slip in customer service however they won't acknowledge the the problem them not acknowledging a fault has caused nor are they willing to remedy anything as they won't accept the meter or formula was wrong.   I'd appreciate more details on the economy 7 approach and I'll update the ombudsman with any information you can share. 
    • To re-iterate and highlight my urgent question on this one: The N24 from the court did not include any instructions to submit paperwork 28 days before the date, unlike the N157 received for other smaller claims. Do I have to submit a WS for this court date? Link has!...
    • No, reading the guidance online it says to wait for a letter from the court. Should I wait or submit the directions? BTW, I assume that the directions are a longer version of the particular of claim accompanied by evidence, correct?
  • 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

dpgunn v RBS


dpgunn
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6189 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

That charge is a mixture of Royalties fee and Over-limit penalty.

 

Royalties fee was £8 then £10 now £12. I don't know how others have approached the problem but I intend to average the fee at £10 and take that off each month to leave the penalty.

 

I am taking an average of the fee because the bank won't tell me when the rate changes took place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Referral charge' is when they pay a DD that you didn't have funds to cover, as opposed to 'Returned DD' which is when they don't pay it....damned if they do, damned if they don't!

 

Claim them back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi sorry, missed it...little flags showing the threads I'm subscribed to have gone, along with some of dp's forum functions apparently.

 

Firstly dp - calm!

 

Now, N1 address for service can be your local branch, thats who got mine.

 

There is also this address.

 

RBS LITIGATION

1 PRINCESS STREET

LONDON

EC2R 8P

 

Okay?

 

Maybe you'd like to lower the tone of your !FEEDBACK now you know it's not personal? A little tactful editting perhaps?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Do the Draft Order For Directions, as per Karnevil's instructions. It amounts to Standard Disclosure and the bank isn't likely to comply as it will mean they have to reveal how the costs involved with charges are comprised.

 

The 'copies of decided cases etc' is basically the court bundle, but in all likelyhood it on't get that far....

 

After you have submitted your AQ you will get a letter back telling you such and such Judge has had a looky. You may get your directions in at that point, in which case you will have 2 weeks to prepare (for payday ;)) your reply, so no worries.

 

In my case the Judge ordered Standard Disclosure by List and I had a month to get it in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
Because the claim was actually sent on 13 Feb 2007 (i.e. the formal POC with the court), they dropped off charges made in 2000/01, prior to the 6 year qualifying period. BUT! If they are using the Limitation Act argument, then you actually FIRST asked for the money back in your prelim letter which was several months before service of the claim. They cannot use LA to keep knocking charges off while the client delays the claimant's right to assert with replies like 'we will respond within 8 weeks, please bear with us'. They tried this on with me. Charges of about £1500 in 9 months outside LA, but with interest from that long ago it made about 4k difference to the claim. But we stuck at it.

Also, because this then brought the claim to

Cute aren't they. Like all lawyers they love to nit-pick.Any bets that it cost the client a lot more than £130 just to save £130? LOL I suspect I could fight it, but at what cost in terms of taking more time. Essentially I have won the moral (and substantial financial) victory - I don't feel inclined to try to "mop-up the remains".

 

Phil, I can't remember any of the Mods names. I would like to get my thread onto the claims won area. Any help? Cheers, Don.

 

livelylad has a post in your thread, above, is a MOD, and may even be aware by now of your win, if he is subscribed.

 

Send him a pm just in case tho...

 

Enjoy your long lost money, and watch out for the inlandii revenuii with that judicial interest :o

 

All the best Don,

 

 

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...