Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all, Many thanks for the advice! Unfortunately, the reply to the email was as expected…   Starbucks UK Customer Care <[email protected]> Hi xxxxxx, We are sorry to read you received a parking charge after using our Stansted Airport - A120 DT store. Unfortunately, the car park here is managed by MET parking. Both Starbucks and EuroGarages who own and operate this site are not able to help and have no authority to overturn any parking charges received. If you have followed the below terms then you would need to send all correspondence to [email protected], who will be able to assist you further. Several signs around the car park clarify the below terms and conditions: • Maximum stay 60 minutes, whilst the store is open. If the store is closed, pay to park applies. • The car park is for Starbucks customers only who make a purchase in our store, a charge will be issued if you left the site. • If you had made a purchase and required additional time, you must have inputted your registration number into the in store iPad which would have extended your stay up to 3 hours • To park in a disabled bay, you must have displayed a valid disabled badge. • If Starbucks was closed, you must have paid for parking as charges still apply, following signage located on site. • If you didn’t use the store, you must have paid for parking, following signage located on site Please ensure all further correspondence is directed to MET parking at the above email address, and accept our apologies that we cannot help you further on this matter.  Kind Regards,  Lora K  Customer Care Team Leader Starbucks Coffee Company, Building 4 Chiswick Park, London, W4 5YE
    • Thanks HB edited and re-uploaded. Thanks for the heads up 👍
    • Am in the middle of selling my house but it's been held up as still showing a change on the property from welcome finance, have not had any contact from them for years or prime credit and need this sorting asap
    • Evening all looking for bit of advice again , currently doing my own debt management , but think may have burgered up on 1 of the creditors (creation loan) had got sold to Intrum around nov 23 and havent paid anything to it since then , it never went to default ( I thought it did  , now checking credit file , intrum is there and says 1 missed payment and doesnt say account defaulted can i let that go and intrum will default it? hope that makes sense what i have said
    • Hi. You've left the PCN number on the 22nd March letter and your name on the one below that. It's best to cover those up please. HB
  • 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 
      • 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

Standard letter? Standard reply?


craigyb85
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6280 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

Firstly, as a newbie, I would like to express my thanks to the creators of this site and the moderators of this forum. It has so far proved very useful, and I'm hoping some helpful person can help me with me latest issue!

 

I have received a letter from the A&L in response to me asking for my money back. The letter they sent seems standard, but I was curious as to whether I can still persue my claim or whether what they say is true.

 

I had a basic cashcard account with A&L for many years, and latterly they even let me have a debit card (oooh!) but still refused to allow me an overdraft facility, although possibly with good reason. The only time I was ever overdrawn was when they failed direct debits. And then once these charges were levied, I became overdrawn which of course they charged me for. Again and again! So I sent the standard letter and this was the reply:

 

"Thank you for contacting us regarding your account.

 

I have noted your comments that you believe the charges that have been raised on your account to be unfair, please be assured our charges are reasonable and are competitive with the charges made by other financial organisations.

 

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has commented that they consider the level of late payment charges to be unfair, however they were actually referring to late payment fees for credit card payments, which are quite distinct from a bank's charges on current accounts.

 

As yet, the OFT have not entered into any discussions with the banking industry regarding current accounts. However, should that position change in the future, then Alliance & Leicester will participate as appropriate.

 

Given the above, I cannot accept you have been unfairly charged as you suggest. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to agree to your request for a refund of charges on this occasion.

 

I am sorry if you are disappointed with my response, but as the charges have been raised correctly in line with terms and conditions of your account, they must stand."

 

Any informed and accurate comments would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance!

 

CB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

garbage!!

look at the claims successes.

just a stalling tactic, stick to oyur timetable

 

dx100uk:D

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi

the A&L are using the press release from the OFT to hide behind and play for time but if you actually read the press release from the OFT dated 5th April called indeed:Currant credit card default charges unfair, the second paragragh states that these principles also apply to default charges in other consumer contracts such as those for bank overdrafts, store cards and mortgages, so as you have a contract for a bank account I would hazzard a guess the second paragraph applies to every one who has a bank account including yourself, check out the OFT site and read this press release,

good luck

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for advice and help.

Following my latest letter to A&L, I received another one quite similar to the one posted above insisting that they are right and I am wrong!

 

On to the next Phase. Wish me luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, good luck dude.

You won't need it though. Just stick to the tested format and you'll get there despite all their nasty scare and stalling tactics.

Think about it. You've already won cos you didn't let them scare you off. I bet there are many poor suckers out there who don't have the benefit of having found this site who take their letter as gospel and fail to follow up their claim.

Let's face it; we're all in this boat cos we've believed the banks were in the right to charge us for our errors and therefore accepted the punishment unquestioningly. It's only with the high profile that claiming back bank charges - and doing so successfully - has received in the last year or so that we have become aware of the unlawfulness of the situation. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...