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.   
  • 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

Sainsbury's Bank - A farce


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5835 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 remember when I had a similar problem with the Halifax, I made a point of telling them about the 8 or 9 times they were calling a day. On that instance, one of the call centre guys said, "It's an automated dialler - if you don't answer, then it's programmed to just keep trying you throughout the day".

 

In order words, even on those occasions where you run like a banshee to answer the phone, and it cuts out after 2 rings, they do not record that as a call despite the disturbance and interruption to your homelife!

 

The sooner he law cracks down on this the better - if some perv in a phonebox was calling you and hanging up after a few rings, the Police would treat it very seriously. This sort of stuff from the banks is no less disturbing.

Bank and credit card reclaims - £9,806

Sainsburys CCA non-compliance with FOS;

Natwest reclaim of £340 in progress;

Egg credit card reclaim in progress

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I hope you can get some success. Do keep records of all the phone calls. There are other links on this site for phone recording which I have thought of investing in. I hope TS can act. I had the automated dialler experience too. I have also made a complaint to the FSO concerning Sainsburys repeated breaches of the consumer credit act in refusing to supply any statements whilst a payment plan was in place, being months out of time supplying a copy of the agreement and their harassment tactics conducted through three separate organisations , Blair, Oliver and Scott - their own debt collectors, Wescot and Legal and Trade whilst the debt was and still is in dispute. They are completely disorganised and I found myself dealing with calls and correspondence from four different addresses

 

Nothing is too bad for Sainsburys Bank

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
Quick update.... Both Trading Standards and us have neard nothing from S's. This lack of response has swayed TS into (finally) preparing a prosecution under the Administration of Justice Act and possibly the CCA. TS will be in touch with us shortly to get witness statements. :eek:

 

It seems the element of intent within the wording of the Communications Act has precluded it from being used.

 

Rosie, has there been any further progress on this? I've been chasing Sainsburys for a copy of the CCA for a wee while now, with the 12 days having passed, and gradually getting closer to the calendar month default stage :D

 

Meanwhile I'm getting a letter every week from their Collections team politely telling me to pay them £24.83 or else they'll take further action.

Bank and credit card reclaims - £9,806

Sainsburys CCA non-compliance with FOS;

Natwest reclaim of £340 in progress;

Egg credit card reclaim in progress

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rosie, has there been any further progress on this? I've been chasing Sainsburys for a copy of the CCA for a wee while now, with the 12 days having passed, and gradually getting closer to the calendar month default stage :D

 

Meanwhile I'm getting a letter every week from their Collections team politely telling me to pay them £24.83 or else they'll take further action.

 

Hi

Creditor ignoring the law write them back and tell them they are acting unlawfully in pursueing a debt that is, a) in dispute contrary to the administration of justice act section 40 and b) in default due to section 77 (4) of the cca 1974.

Then report them to the T/A or OFT,then go to;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/33174-consumer-credit-act-agreements-357.html#post876512

 

And give me the details so we can add them to the list for the official complaint about he OFT.

PS don't forget to get a case number.

 

Well you don't get anything if you don't ask

 

Best regards

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/33174-consumer-credit-act-agreements-357.html#post876512

 

And give me the details so we can add them to the list for the official complaint about he OFT.

PS don't forget to get a case number.

 

Well you don't get anything if you don't ask

 

Best regards

Peter

 

 

Would you also want copies of their threatening letters as well to include in the complaint?

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI

No not at this stage the intention is to make the DTI aware of the problem and then see where it goes.

 

What i wiyuld like is a list of people who have complained to the OFT to nill effect they are supposed to investigate and enforce the law.

 

Many thanks

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI

No not at this stage the intention is to make the DTI aware of the problem and then see where it goes.

 

What i wiyuld like is a list of people who have complained to the OFT to nill effect they are supposed to investigate and enforce the law.

 

Many thanks

Peter

 

Right will get mine wrote up and PM you the details against the Halifax. been 11 months since i asked for the CCA request.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rosie,

 

I am in a very similar position to you I asked for a copy of my original agreement on 10 February 2007, received a copy of a Classic Visa Card request form on 30 April 2007 to which I wrote back saying that it does not include the prescribed terms and that I require the reverse of the form, as it states on the card request form that the conditions were overleaf.

 

They have now replied on the 30 May 2007 saying there is no reverse of the form and that the conditions were in a leaflet I had with the card request form???

 

They are driving me nuts!!!! I have also had numerous (read hundreds of calls from them, I have have now activated BT's refuse number service and barred their number from my phone) after they ignored my requests, both by phone and post to stop phoning me.

REFUNDED

Hubbys - HSBC £4,165 paid 18/8 after MCOL issued :)

HSBC - £651 paid 18/8 after MCOL issued :)

HSBC - £147 Prel 7/8, LBA 21/8, MCOL 6/9 £241

Hubby Halifax - Prel 29/7 £215, LBA 21/8, Offer rec. £110 22/8, MCOL 6/9 £298

Abbey - £2758 - Prel 26/6, LBA 10/7 - MCOL 26/7 £3,391, offer 25/8 £1,755.94, paid £3567.32 after Case manag hearing

Barclays - £675 Prel7/8, LBA 21/8, offer received £300 MCOL 6/9 £998 - Paid £1,012 before going to Court

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having to take action against Sainsburys too for non-comliance with a CCA request made back in April. Oddly they are unable to answer my recorded delivery request for that, yet they are more than happy to quote legislation at me when chasing me for money (despite them now committing a criminal act!)

 

Speaking to Trading Standards about them (as well as the Royal Bank and the Halifax about similar breaches over CCA requests!) on Wednesday.

Bank and credit card reclaims - £9,806

Sainsburys CCA non-compliance with FOS;

Natwest reclaim of £340 in progress;

Egg credit card reclaim in progress

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good old Sainsbury's have done it again!

 

We received a Default Notice in the post this morning... "pursuant to s87(1) of the consumer credit act" It does gall me that these people quote the law while ignoring those section which they have no intention of complying. It was dated 11.06 and demanding payment by 12.06, which I see as being nothing more than a scare tactic.

 

Rosie

 

:lol: thay can't even comply with the s87 they have to give you 14 days now to respond to the default notice. what a set of w****** they are

Link to post
Share on other sites

As with the two other organisations I have already contacted Trading Standards about, Sainsburys are now added to that list. I've forwarded all the paperwork to him and he is meeting with their Legal Services guys next week. Coincidentally, I received a letter from the Collections Dept at Sainsburys yesterday saying, "you owe us money.....................bla bla bla" so that's also being forwarded to my TSO.

Bank and credit card reclaims - £9,806

Sainsburys CCA non-compliance with FOS;

Natwest reclaim of £340 in progress;

Egg credit card reclaim in progress

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...