Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The important thing to know is that MET - although they will send you threat after threat about how they will divert a drone from Ukraine and make it fall on your home - hardly ever do court. Even in the very small number of cases where they send court papers, if the Cagger defends, they drop the matter before the hearing.  They have no real intention of putting their rubbish claim before a judge.  The aim is to find motorists who are terrified of the idea of going to court and who will give in when the court papers arrive. Thanks for doing the sticky and well done on finding F18's thread.  Do what they did.  On the first page - I think post 19 - there is the address of the CEO of BP.  Write to them, lay it on thick about being genuine customers in the various premises, mention the small kids, the very short stay time, attach any proof of purchase - and request that they get the invoice cancelled.
    • Thank you for that, I have obviously already been convicted so I think the appeal lodged is for the previous offence? Sorry if that doesn’t make sense. I suppose my only concern is that weds I go there and they don’t let a stat dec happen. If they do then as you say and solicitor says it’s highly likely I’ll be happy with the outcome. But I’m being told there’s no guarantee for the stat dec to be hard Weds as that’s not what the hearing is proposed for. Solicitor has stated that you can put a stat dec before a magistrates at any time so it shouldn’t be a problem.   
    • I re-read the extract from your  solicitor's letter this morning and think I might understand what they have in mind. I believe (and it’s only a guess) their strategy is this: 1.    You will make your SD 2.    You will enter fresh pleas to the four charges (not guilty) but will offer to plead guilty to speeding on the understanding that the FtP charges are dropped. 3.    If this is accepted they will attempt to argue that the two offences were committed “on the same occasion” 4.    You will be sentenced for those two offences (the sentence depending on whether the “same occasion” argument succeeds). They also have a plan in the event that your offer at (2) is unsuccessful and you are convicted again of the 2xFtP charges (and so face disqualification under “totting up”): 5.    They will make an “exceptional hardship” argument to avoid a ban. 6.    If that is unsuccessful they have already lodged an appeal in the Crown Court against that decision. (This is the only “appeal” I can think of). 7.    They plan to ask the court to suspend your ban pending that appeal. If I’m correct, I’m surprised the Crown Court has agreed to accept a speculative appeal (against something that hasn’t happened). The solicitor says this is to lodge it within the normal timescales. But you will have 21 days from the date of your conviction (which will be next Wednesday) to lodge an appeal with the Crown Court, so there is no need for a speculative appeal. I have to say that an application to have your ban suspended pending an appeal is unlikely to succeed. The Magistrates Court is unlikely to agree to it for one very good reason: if they make such an order (suspending your ban until your appeal is heard), all you need to do is not to pursue the appeal and the Magistrates order suspending your ban will remain in place. Hey Presto! No ban and no need for you to trouble with an appeal. Perhaps he will ask for your ban to be suspended for (say) three months or until your appeal is heard (whichever occurs first). This potentially creates a problem because if your appeal is not heard in that time either your ban will kick in or you will have o go back to court to get the suspension extended. But the solicitor obviously knows more about these things than I do. I would want to be very clear about this solicitor’s fees and what he proposes to charge you for. As I said, there is absolutely no need to lodge an appeal with the Crown Court. That can be done if and when it becomes required. But I am still firmly of the opinion that it is overwhelmingly likely that you will not need to progress beyond point 2 above. Point 3 is optional and I don’t know whether he solicitor has made It clear to you that the only thing you will avoid in the event of success is three penalty points. You will still be fined for the second offence and your driving record will still be endorsed with the details, but no penalty points will be imposed. Do let us know how it goes.  
    • I'm really trying, but worst case I can't find what are my options?
    • John Lewis' Privacy Notice states that their CCTV Systems does not use facial recognition or collect biometric data - so I assume it should be fine?    Thank you a lot for your reply. I've scheduled my first therapy session ne t week. Really the time to turn my life around..
  • 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

Support for all bank charge reclaimers in the Indie today


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6317 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

I couldn't believe my eyes when I picked up The Independent from the mat this morning. A front page spread, an article on pages 2 and 3, the main leader and an article in the financial section, all on the subject of unfair bank charges and supporting the right of customers to challenge the banks over this. The financial article mocks the idea of ending free banking in view of the record profits Barclays are expected to announce today. It also says that the OFT has 'already judges such charges to be ILLEGAL' - not just unlawful. Is that as significant as I think it could be? It certainly seems very encouraging to us all to keep going for the return of OUR money!!

 

DDD.

Dolly Day Dream

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me about it DollyDayDream, I nearly had a heart attack on the train ! It's was so funny as the normal shoulder surfers that read over your shoulder could not belive it ! Obviously I mentioned to them about this site and then discussed my own current claim, it put a smile on everyone's face ! Even the Ipod / headphone group stopped playing there music to Listen in !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm retired now, so I just took the paper back to bed with a cuppa and enjoyed the news. When I filed my papers at the court last week I managed to tell the girl who dealt with them about CAG. She was gobsmacked that it was possible to get money back from the banks. They obviously don't have time to read through what they are processing - perhaps because we are keeping them so busy!! :D

Dolly Day Dream

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like a bandwaggon effect is happening now. Today it's the front page, page2, page 33, page 36 and page 39. Then there were mentions on TV and radio news as well as Watchdog and so on. Last night a further 20,000 people downloaded the template letters, so they won't know what's hit them. I imagine it will slow the process - or maybe they'll throw in the towel and meekly give us our money back?!!

DDD.

Dolly Day Dream

Link to post
Share on other sites

20,000 "Give me my charges back" letters on their way shortly?

 

I can see the response being 20,000 standard 'bog off' letters. Sent at the end of the response deadline, of course.

 

Some will drop away, some will persevere with S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'s if need be. Cue another 40-day delay. Those who persevere (or already have statements), and continue with the 14-day LBA, then MCOL/N1 will prompt a serious response from the Courts at the Allocation stage. Something will hit the fan at that point, I think.

 

I get the impression that the banks are hanging on desperately for the OFT to recommend a 'fair charge', so that their lawyers can counter-offer intelligently. 20,000 at an average of £1,000 is £20 Million ...

 

For those of us fortunate enough to already have cases lodged, I'm hoping that this prompts a few sensible, early offers.

 

But then again, I always was naive!

 

;-)

"Weasel (n): any person or group that operates in that vast grey area between good ethical behaviour and the sort of activities that might send you to jail".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that the charges were unlawful, not Illegal as the independent has reported. Can someone confirm either way, to satisfy my curiosity? Ta.

 

HI PAULROCKLIFFE. According to Collins Gem mini dictionary eleventh issue 2003. Unlawful means: Not allowed by law.

Illegal means : Against the law. Very confusing:confused:

WOTCUMSROUND

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

HI PAULROCKLIFFE. According to Collins Gem mini dictionary eleventh issue 2003. Unlawful means: Not allowed by law.

Illegal means : Against the law. Very confusing:confused:

 

Unlawful is basically 'against the spirit of the law'.

 

Banks are acting unlawfully as we are proving by them paying up every time. Not precedent has been set so they are not acting Illegally...... maybe one day that will change!

 

The paper shouldn't really have used the term 'illegal', but they are not the first to do it - The Money Programme' recently said it too....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlawful is basically 'against the spirit of the law'.

Banks are acting unlawfully as we are proving by them paying up every time. Not precedent has been set so they are not acting Illegally...... maybe one day that will change!

The paper shouldn't really have used the term 'illegal', but they are not the first to do it - The Money Programme' recently said it too....

Thanks for clearing that up Thailand but what the banks have done for years in my own small opinion is Legal Robbery. Lets hope the wind has changed for the better now.

WOTCUMSROUND

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...