Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The car makers used parts made by a supplier banned over alleged links to Chinese forced labour.View the full article
    • I need to get a hamster. lol
    • Just a typo change that I'd make for the last line. Maybe also add something that says "I assume you will be fully aware that you cannot rely on a clause of a contract that you do not produce."
    • Hello, Firstly, and most importantly I am sorry for your loss. I would go back to the bank with the death certificate and ask them to step in. Remind them firmly but politely that there is no limit for DD claims   Please let us know how you get on.
    • My wife is the named person to his bank account with him having Dementia being his daughter (I say named person she still is but he recently passed away and the deputyship application has now being stopped by the solicitor as it's no longer needed) We've only just got the Death Certificate so the bank will be the next step informing them. She went to the bank and explained the situation but even being his named person the bank said she didn't have the power to stop DD without any legal documents (virgin money) was the bank. She could have copies of bank statements that was about it.
  • 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

rjgreaves Vs Egg


moose73
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6260 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

Sent the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter, 40 days ago, and received a letter back asking for a an original utility bill, which I sent them.

 

Yesterday which is now about the 40 day limit, they write to me sending the utility bill back and saying they now have 40 days to send me my statements. Are the taking the p***? they have just had 40.

 

Do I go to the Information Commissioners Office now or send the LBA with 7 day limit or both?

HSBC - Pre Lim sent 12-12-06, LBA sent 27-12-06, reissued 5-1-07. Part offer rejected 17-1-07, MCOL 19-1-07, AQ - 21-2-07. Settled

Nationwide - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Pre lim sent 5-1-07, LBA sent 19-1-07, MCOL 2-2-07, WON 22-2-07.

Capital One - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Pre lim sent 17-1-07, LBA sent. Settled

MBNA - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Offer rejected 19-1-07, Pre Lim 19-1-07, LBA sent, Setteled 21-2-07.

MBNA Loan PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, Settled.

MBNA CC PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, WON 2-7-10.

HSBC PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, with Court

EGG PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, FOS upheld 3-7-10

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Sent egg a request for return of charges letter and got a reply offering £16 in total!

 

(I had asked for £80 + £63.13 contractural interest)

 

Thank you for your letter dated 24 March 2007.

 

1. Your Credit Card agreement ("the Agreement") with Egg Banking pic ("Egg") clearly states that charges will be added to your account if you exceed your Credit Limit or fail to make your contractual payments. In accordance with condition 7 of the Agreement, a charge of £20 (or since August 2006, a reduced charge of £16) has been added to your account each time you exceeded your Credit Limit or failed to make a payment.

 

2. You allege that these charges are a penalty. You have put forward no evidence to support this allegation and we do not accept it. As explained in our previous letter, the charges set out in the Agreement are a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused to Egg when a customer breaks the terms of their Agreement.

 

3. You may have followed recent media coverage of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) investigation into default charges. The OFT stated that a default charge could only be used to recover certain limited administrative costs. These may include postage and stationery costs and staff costs and also a proportionate share of the costs of maintaining premises and IT systems necessary to deal with defaults. The OFT set a threshold for intervention of £12 but stated that default fees should not be equivalent to the threshold. The OFT stated that the presumption of unfairness in relation to charges over £12 would not apply where exceptional business factors apply and specifically referred to Egg's practice of requiring all customers to pay the minimum monthly payment by direct debit as an example. The OFT acknowledged that in those circumstances, a card issuer may be able to set a fair default charge above the threshold of £12.

 

look at 2 and 3 above. 2 says they have estimated their costs to be actual losses to them, how can this be?

HSBC - Pre Lim sent 12-12-06, LBA sent 27-12-06, reissued 5-1-07. Part offer rejected 17-1-07, MCOL 19-1-07, AQ - 21-2-07. Settled

Nationwide - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Pre lim sent 5-1-07, LBA sent 19-1-07, MCOL 2-2-07, WON 22-2-07.

Capital One - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Pre lim sent 17-1-07, LBA sent. Settled

MBNA - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Offer rejected 19-1-07, Pre Lim 19-1-07, LBA sent, Setteled 21-2-07.

MBNA Loan PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, Settled.

MBNA CC PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, WON 2-7-10.

HSBC PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, with Court

EGG PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, FOS upheld 3-7-10

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...