Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello and welcome to CAG.   I expect people will be along later with answers for you, as and when they're able to get here.   Would your parents' GP back your father up in being at risk if he carries on working.   Here's information from ACAS in case there's a nugget that's helpful.   https://www.acas.org.uk/coronavirus/vulnerable-people-and-high-risk   Best, HB
    • Miley-was there not a third sheet from DCBL explaining that they were acting as debt collectors only? If not,  a complaint  should be made to the FCA querying whether they are fit and proper to retain their licence.  Many people will be frightened that they have bailiffs about to knock on their door when there is no way that it could happen unless one had lost at Court and then been unable to pay the fine within an allotted time at the very least. And had the fine been paid within one month there would be no  record of the CCJ on their credit report.
    • Hi Emmzzi,   We have been asked to sign the T & C’s for furlough. I was already working from home for protection and wasn’t sure of selection criteria used as not all employees are being furloughed. I could still work from home but employer now wants to furlough me.   Nic
    • Just have an outline of your proposed defence should the court set a side.
    • Hello, I am looking some advice for my elderly father. He is 79  years old. My mother is 73 and in poor health with several medical conditions (none of which meet the 'high risk' criteria the govt has set out however). Both of them have had to stay indoors since mid March because of their age if they catch the virus they are ulikely to recover, and there are plenty of cases of it in our local area. My father has been working for a company delivering car parts for several years to make a living, its a minimum wage job.    We checked the government guidance in mid march which seemed to suggest he was eligible for statutory sick pay as he met the requirements. He tdiscussed this with work who said they would look into it. However the employer has refused him SSP because he is not symptomatic, he's just staying at home so that he doesn't catch it and die.   They have also refused to furlough him because they are saying there is still work available for him and he can come back any time, completely ignoring the fact that it would be at great personal risk to do so at this time, and would also put my mothers life at risk as they live together.   Is the employer correct to refuse both of these? I have read the information from the government over and over but can't see anywhere that says whether employers can outright refuse even just basic SSP, I thought that was illegal?   Since work has kept him employed he can't claim jobseekers or anything like that. Is it just expected for him to go back to work and just hope not to catch it and die? It seems very unfair. My parents have worked hard and paid their dues their whole lives, never claimed a penny in benefits and still having to work in old age, and now something like this happens it seems there is no help for them. I can't seem them being the only ones who will fall into this category and be left to struggle. I am so shocked and disgusted at the way employers can act like this, even when the government is willing to pay 80% of the wages they still won't let workers have it, especially given that it would be out of pocket expense for them until the govt money comes through at the end of april for it. 
  • Our picks

pv1511

pv1511 vs A & L

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4761 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Have just been slapped with £25 (paid item charge) and £25 (overdraft fee) by A & L on a Premier Direct account. :( A/c has been maintained very healthily since Sept 2005. Timeline:

Wed 20/12 Paid in cheques via PO counter.

Sat 23/12 Cheques showed up in account uncleared - presumably delayed by Christmas mail.

Thu 28/12 Outgoing payment made (CC bill), triggering paid item charge and unauthorized overdraft charge.

Overdraft (presumably for two days, until cheques cleared) was just under £150.

I complained by phone on receiving the standard computer-signed letter; I received a further computer-signed brushoff letter today denying any refund.

Presumably I should now move straight to the LBA, giving them 14 days to respond? Is this likely to succeed?

thanks for any advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi PV1511

 

Yes letter before action, next.

If no results after 14 days then MCOL.

 

Good luck.

Regards, Rooster.


If this has been useful to you, please click on the scales at bottom left of post. Thanks.

 

Advice & opinions of Rooster-UK are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Please use your own judgment.

-------------------------------------------------------

LOOK! Free CAG Toolbar.

Follow link for more information.

 

------------------------------------------------------

Please donate,

Help us to help others.

 

 

LINKS....

 

Forum Rules.

FAQs....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, am about to submit a claim using MCOL - substance of claim to be as below. DOes that look OK? Anything missing?

thanks, Andrew.

 

"The claimant has held a current account xx

xxx xxxx xx-xx-xx with the defendant,

conducted on their Standard terms and

conditions since 2005. The defendant from

December 2006 to present day has applied

charges to the claimant account, totalling

not more than £50.00. The bank's charges are

a disproportionate penalty and therefore

unenforceable. Penalty charges are

irrecoverable at common law. The precedent

for this was Dunlop Pneumatic v New Garage

[1915] AC 79.along with Murray v. Leisure

play [2005] EWCA Civ 963. The Defendant's

charges are also contrary to the Unfair

Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations

1999. Para.8 and sch.2(1)(e)) The claimant

has asked the bank to refund their charges.

The bank has declined to do so.

The claimant claims no more than £50, being

the sum unlawfully debited."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A & L settled in full after acknowledging service of the claim with MCOL. OK, only £50 (plus fees), but still a minor victory. Now, however, they have written to say they will be closing my account next month "as it is clear that you do not accept certain aspects of the terms and conditions" and so on. As it happens, I don't really care - it's not my main account and I don't need it any more, the only advantage being the ability to pay in cheques at the Post Office. But it smacks of pettiness and is quite inexplicable given the very healthy credit with which the account has always been run. Is it worth my complaining to the Financial Ombudsman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, pv1511. You'll need to make a complaint to the A&L first, before you can take it to the FOS. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...