Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕
    • Though it would be Highview you would  pursue. DCBL are nonentities-on their best day,
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
    • Six months of conflict have also taken a heavy economic toll.View the full article
    • the Town and Country [advertisments ] Regulations 2007 are not easy to understand. Most Council planing officials don't so it's good that you found one who knows. Although he may not have been right if the rogues have not been "controlling" in the car park for that long. The time only starts when the ANPR signs go up, not how long the area has been used as a car park.   Sadly I have checked Highview out and they have been there since at least 2014 . I have looked at the BPA Code of Practice version 8 which covers 2023 and that states Re Consideration and Grace Periods 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. It then goes on to explain a bit more further down 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So you have  now only overstayed 5 minutes maximum since BPA quote a minimum of 10 minutes. And it may be that the Riverside does have a longer period perhaps because of the size of the car park? So it becomes even more incumbent on you to remember where the extra 5 minutes could be.  Were you travelling as a family with children or a disabled person where getting them in and out of the car would take longer. Was there difficulty finding a space, or having to queue to get out of the car park . Or anything else that could account for another 5 minutes  without having to claim the difference between the ANPR times and the actual times.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

LloydsTSB's initial defence


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6275 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 - I'm new to this forum and am claiming a modest £100 in overdraft excess fees. I sent a letter to Lloyds TSB citing the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Schedule 2 (e). The letter I sent was based on a template provided by Penalty Charges UK - Fighting your Corner for FREE. I received the following reply:

 

"The fees we charge for dealing with your request to go over your agreed overdraft limit are not default charges because you haven't broken your agreement...".

 

Presumably they are trying to tell me that their fees are not penalty charges; they are service charges (though I can't see how an automated letter can cost this much). As such, my legal recourse fails because it doesn't cover service charges. So now I'm stumped - they have simply re-branded their fees so that they now 'appear' legal.

 

I didn't see that coming. Has anyone else had any similar experiences? If so, is there a specific direction I can now take? I've scanned these fora for similar threads to this, but couldn't find any - so I apologise if I've missed something obvious.

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

Cheers, Andy.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andy and Welcome:)

I'm not familiar with the Penaltycharges Website, but as you have already sent them one letter, I would send them the Letter Before Action next:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/92-3-letter-before-action.html

 

This gives them 14 days, and then you need to start the Court claim.

 

Good luck, if you have any questions, please ask.

Barty:)

I WON!!!! :D :D :D

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloydstsb-successes/1774-barty-lloyds-tsb.html

 

IF I HAVE BEEN HELPFUL PLEASE CLICK THE SCALES:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - I'm new to this forum and am claiming a modest £100 in overdraft excess fees. I sent a letter to Lloyds TSB citing the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Schedule 2 (e). The letter I sent was based on a template provided by Penalty Charges UK - Fighting your Corner for FREE. I received the following reply:

 

"The fees we charge for dealing with your request to go over your agreed overdraft limit are not default charges because you haven't broken your agreement...".

 

Presumably they are trying to tell me that their fees are not penalty charges; they are service charges (though I can't see how an automated letter can cost this much). As such, my legal recourse fails because it doesn't cover service charges. So now I'm stumped - they have simply re-branded their fees so that they now 'appear' legal.

 

I didn't see that coming. Has anyone else had any similar experiences? If so, is there a specific direction I can now take? I've scanned these fora for similar threads to this, but couldn't find any - so I apologise if I've missed something obvious.

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

Cheers, Andy.

 

 

 

Hi there,

 

I recieved the same letter yesterday. Good to know its just standard waffle and they are simply trying to wriggle there way out of it......let um try, but they know that be it a charge or fee it is unlawful.

 

Read my thread. I was a little concerned also as most of my charges are over overdraft 'fee's'.

 

:p

If I have been helpful, PLEASE click the scales

 

 

You may receive differing advice as people have had different experiences. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take. If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I offer is done so informally, without prejudice & without liability.

 

 

I WON !!!!

 

 

HERE WE GO AGAIN .... BRING IT ON

 

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

HAVE A READ OF SECTION 4.21 OFT REPORT BELOW

 

4.21 Disguised Penalties

The analysis in this statement is in terms of explicit, transparent default fees. Attempts to restructure accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made should be viewed as disguised penalties and equally open to challenge where grounds of unfairness exist. (For example, a charge for ‘agreeing’ or ‘allowing’ a customer to exceed a credit limit is no different from a customers default in exceeding a credit limit.) The UTCCR’s are concerned with the intentions and effects of terms, not just their mechanism.

So stick that in yer pipe n smoke it Lloyds TSB ! :D

If I have been helpful, PLEASE click the scales

 

 

You may receive differing advice as people have had different experiences. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take. If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I offer is done so informally, without prejudice & without liability.

 

 

I WON !!!!

 

 

HERE WE GO AGAIN .... BRING IT ON

 

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can mention it if you like - but there isn't really any need to. They probably don't even read our letters anyway!

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...