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
      • 162 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 Statement on Bank Charges not Credit Card Charges

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6407 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hi All

Correct me if i am wrong but im sure i read somewhere and from letters from Lloyds who say they are in talks with OFT, but is it true the OFT are going to make another announcement in April about Bank Accoutn charges?

Probally lowering the charges to £12 like they did with credit cards

If so what will this mean for claimants?





Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know whether it's true and even if it were I don't think it will mean much to claimants. The banks would still have to prove in court that a £12 charge represents exactly what it costs them to deal with account breaches without any profit involved.

Halifax - Credit Card: 14/11/06 sent S.A.R, 29/12/06 sent Prelim, 11/01/07 1st bog-off received, 15/01/07 LBA sent, 01/02/2007 MCOL started for £1801 (inc court costs and 8% int.), 02/02/2007 MCOL cancelled... , 09/06/2007 Court claim started, 01/06/2007 Claim Acknowledged, 07/06/2007 Claim concluded, £1540 to be reimbursed into CC account.

GE Capital Bank Ltd - Storecards (3): 11/06/07 sent S.A.R, 15/06/07 Acknowledgement of S.A.R received

GE Capital Bank Ltd - Wife's Storecards (2): not started yet...

Nationwide - Current A/C: not started yet...

Lloyds TSB Bank Ltd - Current A/C: not started yet...

Lloyds TSB Bank Ltd - Business A/C: not started yet...

and the rest I haven't remembered so far... : not started yet...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OFT are indeed investigating bank charges as opposed to credit card charges. There is no date set as yet for an announcement, and my personal opinion is that April would be too early to get a decision, as they only launched their investigation a couple of months ago, and they usually take a lot longer than 6 months to come up with their response. It may be that because their last one was announced in April 05, someone got their wires crossed?


It is likely, especially in view of the c/c statement, when the OFT advised that the principle could broadly be applied across all financial institutions (a statement which sent ripples of dismay through the banking industry), that the decision will fall more in less in line with the April 05 one.


However, don't forget that the OFT didn't "lower the charge to £12", as you state. They specifically said that £12 was NOT to be seen as an acceptable level, and that only a court could decide what constitutes a fair charge. They also said that £12 was the threshold above which they themselves would take legal action, but encouraged people to pursue their charges through the legal system if they were unhappy with the level of charges levied.


So all in all, business as usual. Until such time either a precedent has been set in court, or the banks lower their charges to a level which truly reflects the loss incurred through our breach of contract, (otherwise commonly known as "when Hell freezes over"), we keep going, nothing changes. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...