Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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 
        • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Barclays Bank


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6253 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

Hi

Having looked into reclaiming my bank charges last year and having purchased the labels and and small claims kit via your site i have finally put the wheels in motion. I am now confused as after sending my bank my subject access request I have received a letter from them basically saying they are "not under any obligationto present information accoring to any particular format, therefore my request to assemble a schedule of charges is turned aside". They also go on to mention that the DPA does not oblige the bank to comment about internal policies and procedures. They then go on to say that they will provide copy of my statements on a complimentary basis and returned my £10 cheque! I am really confused - does this mean that i will get the information they refused free?? and has anyone else had the same letter from them, as i have also wrote a letter for my husband and son so they can also reclaim their charges.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got exactly the same letter today. It also stated that all information requested prior to 2000 was not held in standard electronic format. I will still be sticking to my 40 day time limit though.

I think they're wising up to requests and trying to get away with giving as little information as they can.

 

 

 

In their letter it also says:

"As regards your mention of "manual intervention", the Data Protection Act does not oblige the Bank to comment about internal policies and procedures. Furthermore, in the context of managing day to day transactions arising from out of order accounts, the Bank does not hold the information you have requested in a form that would be convered by the Data Protection Act. Whilst aggregated information is retained for statistical purposes, this would not constitute "personal data" under the Data Protection Act and therefore would not be covered by a s.7 DPA subject access request. For the avoidance of doubt, the fact that we do not generally record information in a way that is caught by the provisions of the DPA, is in no way an admission that there was no such manual intervention."

I'm wondering what the format that they hold statistics is - whether they have account numbers or whether they just have a total for each month? I suppose we'll never know as it appears that they don't have to provide information if there is a possibility it might incriminate them. If they have account numbers or personal details in the statistics then they should provide this information. I think we're being fobbed off. :mad:

 

I helped my partner's brother claim nearly £4000 back from Halifax in January (they offered just over £3000 to begin with but we started court proceedings and they panicked :p) and thought I'd have a go at getting my charges back from Barclays which I incurred whilst I was a student. I'm really mad with the fact that just because they have access to your funds, they can take whatever money they feel like. If a lawful company wants money from you to cover the cost of any charges the company has received, they have to give you a breakdown of the charges. So the bank should only be able to claim these charges if it provides a breakdown of the costs incurred. They should also not just be able to help themselves to the money in your account, as if I or another company did that to someone who owed them money, I would be taken to court for theft. Why do the banks think they're above the law? :-x

Credit Cards

Mint - £100 claimed :-)

Capital One - £60 claimed :-)

 

Bank Accounts

Barclays - SAR sent 05/02/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our letters are identical, im allowing them the 40 days which will take the 3 of us to the 16th March, i'm just praying that they provide us with the full information as someone has told me that the law is changing in March due to the banks fighting back - just my luck!

 

Thanks for letting me know that you go the same - did they attach your £10 cheque with the letter?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm allowing the 40 days as well which will take me to the 17th of March.

 

I wasn't aware that the law was changing but I can't see them letting companies hold any data they like on us without letting us see whether it's correct or not. UK law is ruled over by the EU and thus by their 1995 Data Protection Directive guichett - 31995L0046 -. Therefore, regardless of what the UK rules say, the EU can override any laws which contradict the original ruling.

Have you got any information on the intended change?

The Council of Europe also have an interesting section on Data Protection default.

 

The law cannot be applied retrospectively, and I think that because we've already sent our SARs, any future rulings which could affect SARs will not be applied to us. I could be wrong though - I did 'A' Level Law but it was a few years ago and doesn't really go 'in depth' so I'm a bit rusty! :)

 

Yep, they attached my £10 cheque to the letter. It says elsewhere on the site that they don't have to provide all of the information you request if they don't charge for it and you can't complain unless you've paid.

Credit Cards

Mint - £100 claimed :-)

Capital One - £60 claimed :-)

 

Bank Accounts

Barclays - SAR sent 05/02/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hello

I am making 3 claims to Barclays myself, hubby + son. My son and me have had a partial repayment offered which i have informed them that i would only accept their offer as a partial claim but required the outstanding amounts re-imbursed, my husbands letter was however very different they have apologised that he has had reason to complain and informed him that they would respond to his letter by 21 April, given the information i hae read on this site they have only until 21st March to respond. Since i informed Barclays that we would accept their offer of a partial claim and they had until 21 March to reimburse the remaining charges I will have to send them a LBA tomorrow. My husband called Barclays this evening and he was told that there was no legal obligation whatsoever for them to respond to his request - am i therefore right in believing that i will be sending them 3 LBA tomorrow?? Any advice is greatly appreciated, i am happy to carry out my threats and take this all the way as between the 3 of us they owe us in excess of an £2,500 and i made the mistake of working out what we couldnt claim which is over £3,000!!! Please advice me

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...