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

OFT report due March 2007?


eratu13
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6325 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

From what I can find on the net there is a report being compiled by the Competition Commission arising from a reference from the OFT into "Northern Irish personal banking". The schedule which can be found here Competition Commission - Inquiries - Northern Irish personal banking states that the 31st of March is the deadline for information submission. The report is 'officially' published to late April / EarlyMay 2007.

 

The provisional findings of this report can be found here http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/inquiries/ref2005/banking/prov_find_report.pdf If you look at section 4.25 you will see that it states in regards to bank charges "It remains to be seen whether there is a permanent change in the public perception and acceptance of these charges, whether adverse publicity may motivate any changes in charging levels and policies, and if the OFT will seek to apply similar findings to PCAs as it has done to credit cards."

 

Basically the NI banks are saying like all the others that the OFT's findings are for credit card charges not Bank Charges so thet judge is waiting on clarification fom the OFT if it does or not.

 

Hope this helps

xL

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi carriexs87, the thing is surely this report will only confirm the earlier OFT findings regarding credit card charges AND confirm that it is also applicable to bank charges won't it?

 

The issue is the banks interpretation of the charges and how these can be calculated but already the OFT gave guidelines on this, the banks are obviously disagreeing with this. You can see the OFT's position on how charges are calculated with regard to credit cards in this pdf http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2EBC491E-303E-4FAA-A24D-32EF8396255E/0/oft842.pdf basically if the OFT confirms this position also applies to bank charges then it seems to be only a stalling tatic from the banks in the hope that someone somewhere will come up with a way for them to get out of this hole they've dug themselves.

 

xL

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi carriexs87,

 

firstly think on it this way your banks solicitor is quoting you their best possible scenario 'hoping' for a limit of around £20 which I would very very much doubt is going to happen. They've already offered you x £'s but they know they're right and your wrong and they don't owe you anything - something about that isn't quite right from their side don't you think?

 

secondly the £12 that OFT quote isn't any sort of limit at all, it's basically the limit a limit below which the OFT won't investigate AT THE MOMENT until all the charges above this are sorted out, to quote the OFT "The OFT is not proposing that default fees should be equivalent to the threshold, and a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold". They will have to prove in court how they calculate their fee and so far no bank has put this forward in a 'public' way (one did get away with it showing their calculation in private to the judge and he accepted it but the claimant couldn't argue against it becasue he couldn't see how it was worked out - that cost calculation only came to £12.88 and no one knows how they even got that figure! - judges have wised up to this tatic too and are asking for disclosure to all parties of their calculations and thats basically scaring the banks even more - hence why they're relying on the OFT rather than coming up with their own defence of a true cost calculation)

 

thirdly - yes there are exceptional circumstances that it may be over £12 an example that the OFT gave was where a card issuer has a policy of requiring customers to pay minimum monthly repayments by direct debits, such as that operated by Egg, and offers credit cards only to customers that satisfy a relatively high scoring requirement it may be able to set a fair default fee at a level above the threshold. HOWEVER you will be able to get that fee investigated and approved by the OFT and it will be the bank who will have to prove it is fair.

 

Basically stick to your guns, take a look around and see how many other institutions are really fighting to the bitter end with a claim - I know of only citibank and they're under pressure and settling most before court.

 

Don't worry, it's definately daunting when court and all starts but it wil lbe worth it in the end.

 

xL

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...