Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Monumental Idiots


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6285 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

After about 7 weeks my statements finally arrived today after having received the same letter from Emma Fairchild as everyone else.

 

The funny thing is, is that I have not once mentioned charges to them yet in with the statements they have written a letter saying that they think their charges are fair, blah, blah, blah.

 

They obviously think that anyone retrieving their statements is potentially going to take them to court. Looks like we've rattled them at last!!

 

Going to add up what these morons have taken now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think we have i never even got the first letter of asking for my refund when my statements came she had counted them up and offered me half back - refused and said i would settle for 75% letter posted today giving her 7 days to respond

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. Added it up to £288.00. Something I noticed on my statements, don't know if anyone else has come across this, I have been charged £24 twice for writing cheques from the account. They called it a convenience cheque fee! Convenient for them maybe getting £24.00 a time. I can't wait to close the account and NEVER have a credit card again.

 

Sending prelim letter today so fingers crossed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I have nearly given up with Monument but I dont want to. They offered me on the 9 August £216 which was at the time half of what they owed. They have still not credited my account with £216 and continue to charge me overlimit charges. I need to issue them with and N1 form but Im a little nervous. Do you have any advice on how to fill it out.

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote asking for statements, I got a offer for 260 quid. they said they had charged me 520quid in the past years. Do I accept it? The reason I ask is that they only charges £20 a time anyway and they are offering half back. OFT sugggest 12 is fair so if i MCOL it I may only get about 200 back.. Any suggestions?

 

Matt

 

NATWEST £1450 - MCOL + Offer for £800 + Declined - awaiting court

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally would decline their offer. They know they're guilty or they wouldn't make you an offer at all. All the CC companies are using this OFT "reasonable" amount as a way of intimidating people into thinking they won't get anything at all unless they take their offer.

 

I'm sure most people on this site would agree - decline their offer and go for the full amount. However, it is your choice so if you would feel happier just taking what they're offering then go for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OFT don't think £12 is fair. They say any amount over £12 and they will persue the company in ocurt, but under that, and it isn't worth their while. Bottom line is the company (and company) can only charge what it COSTS them, and £12 is NOT what it costs them. We know that, because no-one has taken it to court yet to prove that it does.

 

Don't take a penny less than the full amount. They will push you to the limit to intimidate you, but believe me, it gives you such a sense of justice, power and righteousness (as well as being financially better off), that its worth fighting for every penny.

 

You should still get your money before Xmas. Hope that helps.

.

Barclays - £268 - Moneyclaim

Capital One - £172 - Moneyclaim

Abbey (2nd claim) - Moneyclaim

---------------------------------------------------

 

HSBC - £2164.46- PAID IN FULL

MBNA - £471 - PAID IN FULL

NatWest - £307 - PAID IN FULL

Abbey Business - £314.15 - PAID IN FULL

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I got this defence from the court the other day.

 

1. Monument is a trading division of Barclays Bank Plc and not a legal entity in it's own right.

2. To the extent it is alleged that the Claimant incurred charges on his/her account for unauthorised borrowings (whether late payment fees, exceeding authorised limit fees, or any other such fees (the Charges), it is admitted that such charges were debited from the Claimant's account; however, the Defendant outs the Claimant to strict proof of each charge and date thereof.

3. The Defendant's standard terms and conditions ("Terms"), which the Claimant accepted upon opening the account, entitle the Defendant to debit the Charges from from customer accounts upon certain events (including, but not limited to, exceeding account credit limits and/or unauthorised borrowing and/or failing to make sufficient monthly payments to reduce the account balance by the required date).

4. It is the responsibility of the account holder to properly monitor his account so asto ensure compliance, for example, with obligation to make payments by the required date.

5. The Terms gave the Claimant a fair and transparent view of the obligations and entitlements set out in paragraph 4 above, including the basis on which the Defendant would be entitled to debit the Charges from the Claimant's account.

6. If, and to the extent it is the Claimant's case that the failure to make monthly payments and/or his/her failure to remain wiithin the agreed credit limit, constituted a breach of the Terms and that the contractual entitlement to debit the charges from the Claimant's account constitutes a liquidated damages clause, the same is denied. The charges applied to the Claimant's account were payments that the Claimant agreed to make upon the events described at paragraph 4 above by reason of the Terms. Accordingly, it is denied that the Charges or any such charges constitute unfair and/or unreasonable charges, and it is denied that the legal principles governing the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses applies or is relevant to the Charges, as alleged by the Claimant, or at all, and/or that the charges are otherwise unenforceable.

7. Further or alternatively it is denied that any such charges constitute unlawful penalty charges or are in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, (particularly but without limitation to paragraph 1 (e) Schedule

2( or are in breach of the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 (or any other provision) or are unreasonable within the maening of section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act (1982) or indeed any other provision.

8. Further or alternatively, without prejudice to the matters pleaded at paragraph 4 above, if hte Claimant's failure to make sufficient account payments by the required date and/or to remain wihin pre-agreed credit limits constitute a breach of the Terms, the Defendant avers that the Charges were nonetheless valid and enforceable.

9. It is further denied that the Charges were unlawfully debited from the Claimant's account.

10. Accordingly, it is averred that the Charges are legally enforceable and the Defendant was entitled to debit the Charge from the Claimant's account.

11. The Defendant denies that it is liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed and interest as pleaded, or at all. In the alternative, which is denied, if the said charges amount to sums payable on the breach of the contract, it is averred that the charges asserted by the Claimant to have been applied to the account prior to the 15th September.

 

 

Any thoughts on this and what response I should make, if any?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are lucky you got that far with them, I havent even got a reply from my recorded delivery letter, I have sent my LBA which is due to expire next week, and if I dont hear from them I will go straight court. With all the fees and interest it comes to just over £500 which is nearly 2 thirds of my total balance! No wonder I am on a payment plan!

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Maddy

 

A reply to a defence is not an absolute requirement, but you can do if you wish.

 

Effectively you should now receive an AQ from the court. Complete this as per the guide in the Templates Library and return it with a fee. Send a copy to the other side and keep one copy for yourself.

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a monument account and because of the interest and late payment fees this has caused my balance to double and go overlimit for which they keep charging me. I have been offered £265 from £530 that I am claiming.

 

I am refusing their offer and taking them to court, I got nohing to lose except the court fees. Will gladly take that chance.

 

Skeeloj.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Any updates?

 

Innocent :D

:D CLICK MY SCALES IF I HAVE BEEN USEFUL :D

*

BARCLAYCARD WON £307

*

CAPITAL ONE WON £2.1k

*

NATWEST WON £3.4k

*

LLOYDS TSB CURRENT

Start 26/4 LBA 7/6 conLBA 22/1 N1 12/3 AQ 3/5/07ONHOLD

MORE THAN/ LLOYDS MCARD

Start 2/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

MONUMENT VISA

Start 1/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

NATWEST BUSINESS

RESEARCHING

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I'm getting really confused and I swear I'm losing my marbles! I haven't looked at my Monument thread for ages.

 

A hearing has been set for 27th March. I was really surprised by this as I didn't remember receiving or completing an allocation questionnaire. On my thread above I say I did!! I suppose I must have if they've set a date for the hearing. I'm seriously losing it.

 

I am a bit worried though because in the letter I got saying about the hearing date something was mentioned about the fact that I was taking "Monument" to court and not "Barclays". Has anyone else had any experience of this? Has anyone got to court or are they paying up beforehand?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I sent all my paperwork to Monument but when I was filling in the court form I wanted their head office address and I saw in the small print that they were owned by Barclays so I put in Barclays details onto the court form. I didnt even know Barclays owned Momument unit that point.

 

I cant see how it can affect your claim as they trade under the name Monument and they accept your payments under that name. Fingers crossed it wont.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in there ive had three letters from Monument ststing they woul pay nothing. They then changed their mind and offered the Diff between £25.00 and £12.00, which i ignored. I then put in my Court Letter three weeks ago and guess what they have settled in full £988.00

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in there ive had three letters from Monument ststing they woul pay nothing. They then changed their mind and offered the Diff between £25.00 and £12.00, which i ignored. I then put in my Court Letter three weeks ago and guess what they have settled in full £988.00

 

That is great news, it is good to hear that somebody has been paid out. I have a court date set for next month and I hope they will pay out before then.

 

You were lucky to get letters off them, I got nothing, not one letter, not even a sod off one.

 

I know the money will go onto my credit card but it means less for me to pay so it is all good!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I sent all my paperwork to Monument but when I was filling in the court form I wanted their head office address and I saw in the small print that they were owned by Barclays so I put in Barclays details onto the court form. I didnt even know Barclays owned Momument unit that point.

 

I cant see how it can affect your claim as they trade under the name Monument and they accept your payments under that name. Fingers crossed it wont.

 

i think you should be using

Barclays Bank Plc T/A monument

see my pm

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6285 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...