Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • America is a republic, (and) not a democracy - not quite there yet   Trump is a corrupt felon, not a president - yep
    • Hello I hope someone can give me some advice here, as I am at a bit of a loss on how to proceed. This relates to alleged offences under the RTA. Yesterday I received a notification from the local police of intention to prosecute for the following offences: 1 driving without due care and attention 2 failing to stop at a road traffic accident 3 failing to report a road traffic accident At this stage they have only asked me to say whether I was the driver at the time or not and provided a blank sheet of paper to give information about the incident. Going by the location (just round the corner from where I live) I can only imagine this relating to one recent incident, which wasn't actually an accident but more of a road rage event. I was driving past someone unloading or working next to his lorry which had stopped in the road. I wasn't going fast or anything, while I went by lorry man turned around and punched and kicked my car whilst going past him. I stopped and got out and wanted to know what he thought he was doing punching and kicking my car. He then hurled some verbal abuse at me, swearing and he was quite aggressive. I still didn't know what his problem was and said I would report him to his company for threatening behaviour and vandalism for punching my car. I got my phone and tried to take a photo of his lorry and number plate but at that moment he came right at me, still shouting and swearing, so I was worried he may hit me next, as he already punched my car. I thought if the guy hits me I will come off second best, so I decided to retreat. I quickly got back into my car and left. When I checked my phone later the photo I tried to take was blurred and useless, so I thought it was pointless to report the incident to the police, as the guy would not be traceable. Over that I forgot about it until I got the letter yesterday in the post. This is the only thing I believe this can relate to, but I have no idea based on what the three above allegations come from There was no road traffic accident, more of a road rage incident. So I am at a loss what to do. I have 28 days to respond. Should I just say yes I was the driver and was there and see what happens next, or should I already make a written statement on the attached piece of paper they sent me and send that with it ? Is there anyone here who would have a rough idea what to do next ? I tried my legal advice line through my Union, but they have sent me from pillar to post, now say it needs to go to a different department again and that would be chargeable as the RTA comes under Criminal Law. So any advice would be appreciated Many Thanks
    • So a quick update got bounced around two different departments and managed to speak to a DVLA bod , explained the situation and they could see the overlap and that DD payments had been made from Feb , also no formal remiders prior , they gave me a number for the legal dept who I am calling this morning to see what they can do in terms of the SJP notice , still have time to submit this online.  Will update after my chat this morning 
    • filed the defence at same time as suggested @dx100uk
    • Also, I am trying to understand how invoicing a large sum in a 6m period becomes tax fraud?   Is it because if he had invoiced over the £85k threshold he should have been obligated to charge vat?  Which would have meant hmrc would have benefited from the vat amount? So by not charging it Hmrc have lost out on £s revenue?  Is that what makes it tax fraud? So as a self-employed contractor, let's say he invoiced one Co for 200k.  Should he have charged vat on the full 200k (£40k)? Or just on the sum above the threshold (£23k)?  And that by not charging vat, he has knowingly withheld tax £s from Hmrc? And is the payer complicit ?
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

OFT reply to my complaint about bank


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6624 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

Although I complained about Halifax threatening to close my account, this concerns all banks across the board, so I've put it here as a very separate thread to my Halifax one, which is for all intents and purposes now closed.

 

This is what the OFT said:

 

 

Dear Mr & Mrs xxxx,

 

Enterprise Act 2002 ('the Act')

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 ('the Regulations')

Halifax Plc ('the Company')

 

Thank you for your letter of 11 April regarding default charges imposed by the above bank. Your complaint has been logged for our records in order to further our understanding of this market and to inform this and any future investigations we may conduct in relation to this matter.

 

I am sorry to hear about the difficulties you have experienced. Unfortunately the Office of Fair Trading does not have the power to provide advice on individual complaints, or to help consumers to seek redress. Our primary duties include the enforcement of Competition Law, the regulation of the consumer credit market through a licensing system and the application of consumer protection legislation in respect of matters that adversely affect the collective interests of UK consumers.

 

As you are already aware, the OFT is currently looking at the issue of penalty charges for credit cards. Please follow this link to our press releases for further information:

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/News/Press + releases/2005/135-05.him

 

and more latterly

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/News/Press + releases/2006/68-06.htm.

 

However this investigation does not include charges for other areas such as personal banking and other sectors where financial penalties are incurred for breaches of contract.

 

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is responsible for the banking sector. It has responsibility for the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 ('the Regulations') in respect of personal banking contracts. The OFT and the FSA have agreed that the FSA will take the lead on complaints such as those which relate to unfairness in contracts relating to personal banking. The FSA's address is:

 

25 The North Colonnade

Canary Wharf

London E14 5HS

Telephone: 0845 606 1234

Website: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/.

 

The FSA do not have the power under the Regulations to intervene in individual disputes but the Financial Ombudsman Service can adjudicate if the company is unable to resolve matters satisfactorily. Their address is:

 

Financial Ombudsman Service

South Quay Plaza

183 Marsh Wall

London E14 9SR

Tel: 0845 080 1800

Website: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/.

 

In our recent statement about credit card default charges which we published on 5 April, we have said that, in our view, the principles embodied in the statement will apply to other default charges - and that the banks and other finance businesses are expected to consider the wider implications of

these principles and bring any similar charges they impose for breach of contract into line with them, where and as appropriate, bearing in mind the different legal and practical contexts in which they operate.

 

In essence, although we are confident that the high level legal principles applicable to charges in other areas may be analogous, we are conscious that that they will probably require some modification or fine tuning to reflect the practical differences, or separate legislative framework or jurisprudence, in those areas.

 

Essentially, analogous charges would be where the supplier of a product is entitled under the terms of the contract to make a charge to the consumer who has breached the contract, (those terms would then be subject to the test of fairness in the UTCCRs so that the charge is not an unfair penalty) As we have not done the detailed work in the area of other charges, such as mortgages, we could not say at this stage with any certainty exactly which charges would fall to be considered and whether the current level of charging is fair, in our view.

 

Sorry I cannot be any more specific at this stage, but as you know we have focused our investigation to date on credit cards, and more work would be required to be able to give any further detail.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Kathryn Gresty

Consumer Regulation Enforcement Division

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is responsible for the banking sector. It has responsibility for the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 ('the Regulations') in respect of personal banking contracts. The OFT and the FSA have agreed that the FSA will take the lead on complaints such as those which relate to unfairness in contracts relating to personal banking."

 

Looks like the FSA could be getting a few letters soon then :D

If you found this post useful please click on the scales above.

 

Egg - £400 - Prelim sent. On hold.

Mint - On the list Est £800

GE Capital - On the list (3 accounts!) Est £4000

 

MBNA - £545 Prelim sent 13/11/2006

LBA sent 1/12/2006

£350 partial payment received 18/12/2006.

Full settlement received 20/1/07

 

NatWest - Est £4000 not incl interest

Data Protection Act Sent 10/1/07

Statements received 24/1/07

Prelim sent 3/2/07

Full Settlement received 22/2/07

 

The contents of this post are the sole opinions of The Cornflake and not necessarily the opinions of any other members of this group. They do not constitute sound legal or financial advice and if in doubt you are advised to seek advice from a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 09 March 2019.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6624 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...