Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Might be worth passing story to RIP off Britain?
    • Thanks, I've had my fill of this lot. What makes me so mad is that I had to take out student loan to get any DHSS help. And then when I tried to help myself and family they presented obstacles.
    • there is NO exposure if you simple remove your name address/ref numbers etc from docs, over 10'000 pdf uploads are here. which then harvests IP addresses off of the people that then do so..which is why we do not allow hosting sites. read our rules and upload carefully thats exactly why we say capture as JPG, redact, then convert/merge to one mass PDF. then online sites to achieve that we list do not leave watermarks.  every once in a while we have a user like you that thinks they know better...we've been doing it since 2006 with not one security issue. thank you.
    • was at the time you ticked it  but now they've still not complied . if you read up, here , you'll see thats what everyone does,  
    • no they never allow the age related get out, erudio are masters at faking supposed 'arrears' fees which were levied before said date and thus null its write off. 1000's of threads here on them!! scammers untied that lot. i can almost guarantee they'll state it's not SB'd too re above, but just ignore them once sent. dx    
  • 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

Will this affect my claim?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6353 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

Today I recieved a letter saying

"If you requested information relating to manual intervention on your account, I regret that HBOS plc is under no satutory obligation to record this information and therefore, I am unable to assist further with your request"

Never did quite understand the manual intervention bit, so does this affect our claim?

Karen :oops:

 

05/01/07 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) posted

07/03/07 Offer made of £457. Rejected. Offer remade of £651, accepted.

26/03/07 PAID IN FULL

 

Your Site Needs You!

and we need this site!

 

Please don't forget to make a donation!

Link to post
Share on other sites

i received the same letter a few days ago - i don't think it will make too much difference.

 

We must be at around the same stage of our claims

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent (Recorded Delivery) - 28 December 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) Acknowlegdement received 6 January 2007

Statements received 10 February 2007

Prelim sent (Recorded Delivery) - 13 February 2007

Prelim Received - 14 February 2007

Prelim Acknowledgement received - 20 February 2007

LBA sent (Recorded Delivery) - 1 March 2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news, hopefully statements in the next ten days.

Karen :oops:

 

05/01/07 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) posted

07/03/07 Offer made of £457. Rejected. Offer remade of £651, accepted.

26/03/07 PAID IN FULL

 

Your Site Needs You!

and we need this site!

 

Please don't forget to make a donation!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all on this thread,

 

My 2p worth!

 

As far as I'm aware, this can be the crux of the whole matter (simplistically, there are other things!)

The banks charge £30 for an automatically generated letter.

We all know this costs them 10p. So how is the other £29.90 justified?

Well, they could say they had to pay their staff wages to deal with it. (Manual intervention).

Common sense says that's rubbish, and the law is basically what is reasonable to a reasonable man. So far the banks don't defend because they cannot justify the £29.90 for the 'manual intervention' for the computer generated letter that was sent! Therefore it's profiteering and unlawful and unfair.

 

Told you this was the simple version!!

 

If you read some of Bankfodder and other old lags threads you'll see how complicated it can be.

 

 

However for us peasants, we crack on with the process in the library and we usually win!

If we don't - there's now 100,000 people on this site to fund our appeal!!!!

 

Hope that's helped!

 

A D

  • Confused 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]"Another charge by the Bank?"

 

1st Claim (Current account)

30/11/06 WON! £3146.41

 

2nd Claim (Mortgage charges)

27/3/07 WON! - £277

 

3rd Claim (Credit card charges)

14/5/07 WON! £300

 

4th Claim (Old account 97-99 £444)

20/4/07 Prelim sent

9/5/07 LBA sent

Can't remember now but I WON!!!

My current thread - An A-Z - My previous saga

 

IF THIS HAS HELPED PLEASE CLICK THE SCALES - THANK YOU.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, that was a major help. For the first time, I almost understand it (its what I guessed it was)!

So hopefully no show down in court!

Karen :oops:

 

05/01/07 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) posted

07/03/07 Offer made of £457. Rejected. Offer remade of £651, accepted.

26/03/07 PAID IN FULL

 

Your Site Needs You!

and we need this site!

 

Please don't forget to make a donation!

Link to post
Share on other sites

No probs, that's what we're here for, and I told you it was the simple version. Because I don't understand the proper one!!!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]"Another charge by the Bank?"

 

1st Claim (Current account)

30/11/06 WON! £3146.41

 

2nd Claim (Mortgage charges)

27/3/07 WON! - £277

 

3rd Claim (Credit card charges)

14/5/07 WON! £300

 

4th Claim (Old account 97-99 £444)

20/4/07 Prelim sent

9/5/07 LBA sent

Can't remember now but I WON!!!

My current thread - An A-Z - My previous saga

 

IF THIS HAS HELPED PLEASE CLICK THE SCALES - THANK YOU.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today I recieved a letter saying

"If you requested information relating to manual intervention on your account, I regret that HBOS plc is under no satutory obligation to record this information and therefore, I am unable to assist further with your request"

Never did quite understand the manual intervention bit, so does this affect our claim?

 

 

This seems to be the current standard statement in respect of manual intervention. Whilst they may not have a statutory obligation to record the information is largely irrelevant (in my view). If they have manual records then these are likely to be kept in a filing system which would be covered by the DPA and hence should be provided in response to a SAR. I think I would assume that this statement can be translated as "We don't have any manual records on you" and as such they wouldn't be able to bring them up later if they wanted to for whatever obscure reason as that would be tantamount to admitting that they hadn't complied fully with a SAR.

 

Just my thoughts and I am no expert on these matters.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

IANAL - Opinions offered are just my personal views and are not guaranteed to be correct. I have been known to be wrong (once or twice).

Claims in progress against:

Eldest - First Direct - Part Offer received - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/first-direct/79619-eldest-fd.html

Eldest - Halifax - Cheque Received Full amount - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/66254-here-we-go-eldest.html

Youngest - Halifax x 3 - Request for refund sent - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/79617-youngest-halifax.html

Eldest - unnamed Mortgage Provider for Charges and incorrect maths.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that does make perfect sense.

As long as it doesn't affect what i believe to be a straightforward claim!:p

Karen :oops:

 

05/01/07 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) posted

07/03/07 Offer made of £457. Rejected. Offer remade of £651, accepted.

26/03/07 PAID IN FULL

 

Your Site Needs You!

and we need this site!

 

Please don't forget to make a donation!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...