Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Ok. Thanks.  I will put my head to this now.
    • Get a 2nd opinion ASAP. Dealerships are notorious for saying that cars need brakes/tyres when they don't. Take it to someone completely independent and get their opinion.
    • nothing to do with any warranty. consumer rights act or contract law claim. dx
    • Thank you for the response; I'm very grateful for the help and i'm open to all feedback. I'm afraid I don't understand what is meant by properly declared and valued? On the Evri app, when completing the process of sending a parcel, I did declare that I was sending a 'watch' and gave the full value of the watch (£429.99). I'm not an online seller if that helps. The parcel contained my own personal watch; a Garmin which cost £474.99 (inclusive of 'protect plus insurance' from John Lewis of £45). The £45 Protect Plus insurance from John Lewis covers the Garmin watch, and as they have lost it, it is no longer valid. So i'm adding that to the total claim.  It was a birthday gift bought for me this Jan/Feb by my partner.    Re: understanding of Parcel delivery insurance; "Part 1 Chapter 4 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 means I have a legal right to expect that any service I’ve paid for should be carried out with reasonable care and skill". So I understood from this that I have rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that protect me, regardless of not choosing to purchase their insurance protection.        
    • HI all, I work for a company who offers a review service for large companies, whereby customers can review products and/or services and the reviews appear on the companies own site My job, along with roughly 10 others, is to moderate those reviews. We're all on a zero hours contract, we do work as and when it's available. The way the system works is for every 120 reviews we moderate, we get paid the equivalent of the basic minimum wage, so £11.44 per 120 reviews. If this were a steady supply of reviews, it could be a decent income, but it's not, so you end up spending a lot of time doing nothing and not being paid for it, such is life For the last 3 months or so they've had an issue whereby a lot of reviews were duplicated up to 15 times and we were told to moderate those as we would normal reviews, You can imagine how many reviews we've been having to moderate, my moderated review count was probably around 4x the number I normally do, almost throughout the entirety of June this was going on for. being quite excited about the prospect of a boost in income, to me and other mods surprise and shock, we're not being paid for all those extra hours and work done, for the past 3 months when the issue started.. We're only being paid for the non duplicate reviews, plus 5% on top. In my case, instead of receiving around £1500ish for the month of June, I'm only receiving around £500 I mean, I get it, marking each of these duplicates was very quick/easy, as it was a repeat decision from the previous 14, but to let us do all that work and not pay us for it?
  • 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

Here goes then! Rash v barclays


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6347 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

In August 2006 I served a DPA notice, and got the info (and my cheque) back. Prepared a spreadsheet and a nice letter asking for my money back, that they had unlawfully taken - I asked for £1475 (and this lot have had thousands off of me, but we are of course limited to 6 years) and they offered £750. I sent a further letter quoting that I would accept this as part payment, but when could I expect the balance etc...and a letter before action.

I gave them 14 days, but waited a month (they had slipped my previous deadline, so feeling gracious, decided to to run at their pace ;-)

 

No response - I called them to make sure they had the LBA and they said that after getting a letter like that they sever communication and no acknowledge it! So a week later I served them my particulars of claim.

 

They acknowleged it with a few days to spare and have now entered a defence! Their defence basically states the following :

 

1/ The particulars of the claim do not detail the precise charges.

 

I am thinking of filing these in response, as there was not enough space in the particulars of claim to list all of these charges separately , and state the defendant is already well appraised of the charge details as they have been provided with the details previously.

 

2/ Barclays state that the standard T's and C's of the account gave me a fair and transparrent view of what would happen if I broke them.

 

My response will be that I expected these T&C's to comply with the law, and the reason I had not acted before now was That because they stated that they would act within the law that at the time I believed that the were.

 

3/They are allowed to make the charges

 

Not according to various precedents (love etc)

 

4/ Barclays again states I agreed to these charges....

 

5/ Denial that the charges are a breach of the Unfair Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, Unfair (Contracts) Terms act 1977, Supply of Goods Act 1982

 

More follows.....

 

8/ The claim for interest is denied, in particular the claimants calim of 27.5% as pleaded, or at al........

 

This waffles on for a long paragraph, but I have not pleaded for 27.5%, I have asked for the statutory 8% APR! Duh!

 

10/ More than six years have elapsed for some of the charges....

 

Er, I thought they protested in defence matter 1/ that the charges were not detailed! If they are denying having a schedule, how do they know this?

 

Fact is, some of the specific charges ARE now older than six years, but they were requested to be repaid back in August 2006. Should the bank be rewarded for it's provarication and delay? Not sure where I stand here but I will be drawing attention to this contradiction, and to the fact that the 'timed out' charges were requested to be repaid back in August. I could also point out that I did not ask for even older charges (running into thousands) were not requested.

 

Furthermore the band reckons that it's costs (of my excesses, unpaids etc) may exceed those charged (but dispite being requested to do so has not disclosed said costs, which could have prevented the legal action) incredibly! Apparently these costs will be offset!

 

....they were requested to reveal these costs in August!

 

Well, we will see what happens here on in!

 

Rash.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they are using the exhaustion of time defence with everyone now. Its just their standard defence, but if your worried, take a look at

my thread. There's a letter that can be sent to defendant in response to defence.

 

 

 

 

Emz:D

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

***If i've helped you in any way, please click on the SCALES to the left and add to my reputation***

 

 

 

Barclays Bank - £2238.33 Settled 02/01/07

Bristol & West - S.A.R sent 12/01/07

 

Read my successful thread

here

 

 

'Money can't buy you happiness, but it does

bring you a more pleasant form of misery'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks 323! I am slightly lower powered being 316...I am in this as my karma for all the years they made my life a misery - the boot is on the other foot this time. Why is it that they always want the umbrella back when it is raining eh?

 

Thanks for the pointer, I feel comfortable about going to court and having my day and you just made it even easier :-) When I get the money back I will be able to take my family on holiday for the first time ever.

 

Oh, and before I forget, l have a newspaper cutting somewhere which quotes the financial ombudsman saying that banks should not be offering partial settlements in these claims. I will dig it out and type it up verbatim.

 

Cheers,

 

Rash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rash, all the very best of luck - you will get that holiday :D :D

 

Interested to see the Financial Ombudsman piece....

If you think my advice has been helpful, please click on the scales to the left :) thank you!

 

Non illegitimi carborundum

 

 

I wish I was a glow worm,

A glow worm's never glum!

 

How can you be grumpy,

when the sun shines out yer bum?! :p

 

 

Amex * 2 *** WON *** Settled

Marbles ****WON*** In full settlement

Capital 1 ***WON*** In full settlement

MBNA ***WON**** In full settlement

Barclaycard ***WON*** In full settlement

Barclays Bank - ***WON*** In full settlement

Abbey ***WON*** In full settlement

Abbey (Mrs Chorlton) ***WON*** In full settlement

Abbey (Mr and Mrs C) - MCOL submitted 16/5/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found it -

 

I know it's not much and is probably nothing new, but it is another little thing to have in the armoury, if only because of the Financial 'overlord' ombudsman quote ;-)

 

This is from the London freebie rag 'Metro', published on 12 December 2006.

 

£30 overdraft fee costs banks £2.50

BANKS are charging customers £30 in unauthorised overdraft 'service' fees' when they cost £2.50 to process, a TV documentary has revealed. Stephen Hone, founder of website penaltycharges.co.uk told BBC2's The Money Programme: 'The banks have scammed people for years on these charges. They are unlawful.' Customers are now taking banks to the small claims court and in each case, the banks have settled. Financial Ombudsman Walter Merricks said he will stop accepting banks' offers to part-settle in these cases, saying they must do so in full or explain why the charges are legal. 'If not, I will investigate,' he added.

 

Kind regards,

 

Rash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Cause for concern....One man's meat is another's poison.

 

I filed the AQ on the 27 Jan, and heard nothing so I contacted the court today. It seems the paperwork had been 'overlooked' and is being expedited to the judge today.

 

The defence is in, and I obviously responded asking for standard disclosure. I also stated " I am suprised the Defendant did not couterclaim for their actual costs as I would have paid them without argument" which may now prove to serve me well, however I am now aware that the OFT may now actually throw a banana skin which might prejudice (I use a much stronger word here!) my case, which now looks like it will be after the OFT 'opinion' as to what a fair bank charge might be. This will happen some time in April.

 

I suspect that if the judge takes this into account (whatever the figure may be suggested in April) then the amount awarded may be ofset by the figure for each charge. This would be infuriating as it will not be that much more than the insulting £750 that I turned down in the first place, and now I have the unrecoverable costs - my time. If nothing else, it has added some uncertainty to all of this and the feeling that the bank's tactic of 'time exhaustion' defence may well pay off for them. The bast***ds!

 

Rash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...