Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
  • 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

Impending OFT report out soon - seems not!!


whizzkid001
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6235 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

Settled Claims:

Abbey: £4025 Claimed 27/02/06 - Paid in full 19/06/06

NatWest: £4529 Claimed 10/05/06 - Paid in full 1/08/06

Halifax: £1150 lba 18/05/06 - Paid in full 07/06/06

Natwest CC: £420 Initial letter 25/07/06 - Paid in full 08/06

Woolwich: £1100 Paid in full 28/2/07 + Default removed

NatWest Pt 2: £1700 Claimed 10/05/06 - Paid in full 7/2/07 + Defaults removed

 

Current Claims:

Abbey Pt 2: £2300 + adverse credit removal claimed 23/03/07

Alliance & Leicester: £1421 + adverse credit removal claimed 23/03/07

 

Refunds pending:

Capital Bank: Swift Advances: Halifax

 

Son's Refunds pending:

Abbey: HSBC

Link to post
Share on other sites

THAT is what the banks have been holding out for?

 

They gotta be please with that.....

If my post has been useful, tip my scales and let me know

 

Always start with the User guide!

Stuck with RBS charges? Click here!!

 

RBS CA1 £2794 SETTLED!!! RBS CA2 £503 SETTLED!!! HBOS CC £498 SETTLED!!! Barclaycard £705 (with CCI) ONGOING!!! NATWEST CA ONGOING!!! LLOYDS CA x 2, CC, LOAN ONGOING!!! HFC LOAN ONGOING!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, it just means they won't announce some plucked-from-the-air cap now as they did with credit cards!

Settled Claims:

Abbey: £4025 Claimed 27/02/06 - Paid in full 19/06/06

NatWest: £4529 Claimed 10/05/06 - Paid in full 1/08/06

Halifax: £1150 lba 18/05/06 - Paid in full 07/06/06

Natwest CC: £420 Initial letter 25/07/06 - Paid in full 08/06

Woolwich: £1100 Paid in full 28/2/07 + Default removed

NatWest Pt 2: £1700 Claimed 10/05/06 - Paid in full 7/2/07 + Defaults removed

 

Current Claims:

Abbey Pt 2: £2300 + adverse credit removal claimed 23/03/07

Alliance & Leicester: £1421 + adverse credit removal claimed 23/03/07

 

Refunds pending:

Capital Bank: Swift Advances: Halifax

 

Son's Refunds pending:

Abbey: HSBC

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to convey sarcasm in a post!!

 

There is an arcticle on this on the BBC website, this bit is interesting:

 

But the OFT wants to make sure that if such charges are reduced they do not just lead to higher charges elsewhere.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Study launched into bank charges

If my post has been useful, tip my scales and let me know

 

Always start with the User guide!

Stuck with RBS charges? Click here!!

 

RBS CA1 £2794 SETTLED!!! RBS CA2 £503 SETTLED!!! HBOS CC £498 SETTLED!!! Barclaycard £705 (with CCI) ONGOING!!! NATWEST CA ONGOING!!! LLOYDS CA x 2, CC, LOAN ONGOING!!! HFC LOAN ONGOING!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit on bank charges on BBC News 24 right now!

Settled Claims:

Abbey: £4025 Claimed 27/02/06 - Paid in full 19/06/06

NatWest: £4529 Claimed 10/05/06 - Paid in full 1/08/06

Halifax: £1150 lba 18/05/06 - Paid in full 07/06/06

Natwest CC: £420 Initial letter 25/07/06 - Paid in full 08/06

Woolwich: £1100 Paid in full 28/2/07 + Default removed

NatWest Pt 2: £1700 Claimed 10/05/06 - Paid in full 7/2/07 + Defaults removed

 

Current Claims:

Abbey Pt 2: £2300 + adverse credit removal claimed 23/03/07

Alliance & Leicester: £1421 + adverse credit removal claimed 23/03/07

 

Refunds pending:

Capital Bank: Swift Advances: Halifax

 

Son's Refunds pending:

Abbey: HSBC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is the British Banking Association's response to today's OFT anouncement. Never too slow to pat themselves on the back, they must be very pleased indeed.

 

No doubt they'll be opening something expensive over at Old Broad Street to toast yet another year of 30 odd quid penalty charges.

 

 

 

BBA Statement in Response to the OFT Annoucement on Bank Fees

 

29/03/2007

 

 

The BBA notes the fact that, following our six-month collaborative fact-finding exercise, the OFT acknowledges that the issue of bank account fees is more complicated than it first thought and that the application of the legal principles to overdraft fees is not as straightforward as it was for credit card charges.

 

The OFT has announced it will need to conduct a more detailed study of retail bank pricing and current account fees in the UK. We welcome the OFT comments that the UK retail banking market performs well in many dimensions, especially relative to international norms.

 

 

 

For further information, please contact:

Brian Capon, Head of media relations (020 7216 8810 [email protected] )

 

 

Notes to Editors:

1. We understand the OFT intends to issue the terms of reference for its investigation in late April and we look forward to engaging in a dialogue with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope OFT come up with something tangible at the end. Otherwise, the court queue will increase.

 

No consumer will support any decision that greatly bring disadvantages and show blatant unfairness.

 

The court is the final recourse, not OFT. Since the banks do not want to face the court judge, the claims has just started.

 

May be the government can intervene with a decent legislation so that everyone will know their position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"...and that the application of the legal principles to overdraft fees is not as straightforward as it was for credit card charges."

 

Their words, nobody else's! There's nothing ambiguous about overdraft fees - they are simply a money-making ripoff and unlawful!!

Settled Claims:

Abbey: £4025 Claimed 27/02/06 - Paid in full 19/06/06

NatWest: £4529 Claimed 10/05/06 - Paid in full 1/08/06

Halifax: £1150 lba 18/05/06 - Paid in full 07/06/06

Natwest CC: £420 Initial letter 25/07/06 - Paid in full 08/06

Woolwich: £1100 Paid in full 28/2/07 + Default removed

NatWest Pt 2: £1700 Claimed 10/05/06 - Paid in full 7/2/07 + Defaults removed

 

Current Claims:

Abbey Pt 2: £2300 + adverse credit removal claimed 23/03/07

Alliance & Leicester: £1421 + adverse credit removal claimed 23/03/07

 

Refunds pending:

Capital Bank: Swift Advances: Halifax

 

Son's Refunds pending:

Abbey: HSBC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone noticed that upon reading the various articles on the OFT delay, consumers have now been given more time to claim ALL of the charges and not just the difference from the OFT's "fair" amount. Although we would still claim the whole amount as normal anyway.

Don't let the fatherless chillen get ya! :grin:

 

Barclays - settled in full £4799.38 ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the very least the OFT could have done was put a temporary £12

cap on charges until their more 'in-depth investigation is concluded.

 

It seems clear to me that the banks are exerting too much influence over this, and the OFT is paying too much attention to the banks point of view.

 

And I wonder how many consumers or consumer groups have been consulted during the course of this exercise? My bet would be zero.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the very least the OFT could have done was put a temporary £12

cap on charges until their more 'in-depth investigation is concluded.

 

It seems clear to me that the banks are exerting too much influence over this, and the OFT is paying too much attention to the banks point of view.

 

And I wonder how many consumers or consumer groups have been consulted during the course of this exercise? My bet would be zero.

crfx250

 

Some arbitary sum such as £12 would have actually been a worse outcome, as this would have given the Banks the impression that the OFT was condoning such a figure as being justified. They would then have used this as leverage to fight claims harder.

 

The Delay and announcement by the OFT works much more to our advantage, as it retains our right to claim ALL of the charges back.

 

As Public pressure increases over the course of the next 12 months, the OFT will, I am sure, feel obliged to consult bodies other than the Banks in the compilation of their report.

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Delay and announcement by the OFT works much more to our advantage, as it retains our right to claim ALL of the charges back.

Unfortunately though, it only works to the advantage of those in the know.

If my post has been useful, tip my scales and let me know

 

Always start with the User guide!

Stuck with RBS charges? Click here!!

 

RBS CA1 £2794 SETTLED!!! RBS CA2 £503 SETTLED!!! HBOS CC £498 SETTLED!!! Barclaycard £705 (with CCI) ONGOING!!! NATWEST CA ONGOING!!! LLOYDS CA x 2, CC, LOAN ONGOING!!! HFC LOAN ONGOING!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

crfx250

 

Some arbitary sum such as £12 would have actually been a worse outcome, as this would have given the Banks the impression that the OFT was condoning such a figure as being justified. They would then have used this as leverage to fight claims harder.

 

The Delay and announcement by the OFT works much more to our advantage, as it retains our right to claim ALL of the charges back.

 

As Public pressure increases over the course of the next 12 months, the OFT will, I am sure, feel obliged to consult bodies other than the Banks in the compilation of their report.

 

I think that's a valid school of thought but as far as I'm aware the banks

are not generaly fighting credit card claims on the basis of the OFTs £12 figure.

 

And at any point the OFT puts their case foward, it will never affect our

rights under law.

 

Re your last point, i'd strangely enough just finished typing out an FoIA

request to the OFT on that very subject:

 

 

From: xxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxx

 

To: Jennifer Slocombe

CPE Group

Office of Fair Trading

2-6 Salisbury Square

London

EC4Y 8JX

 

31/03/07

 

 

 

 

Freedom of information request

 

 

Dear madam

 

I wish to make a formal request under the freedom of information act.

 

This request, unlike my previous rejected effort, I suspect, would be simple, quick and inexpensive to fulfil. Also, although a layman in this area, I cannot imagine that any exemptions that could be used against it. Alas, I’ve little doubt that you could.

 

Please find enclosed a cheque for £600. Please let me know if you require any additional fee.

 

 

 

Information requested

 

(All the information relates to your recent initial review of bank current account charges)

 

 

1) The total number of banks and industry bodies consulted to date in consideration of the review

 

2) The total number of people from the banking industry consulted to date in consideration of the review

 

3) The total number of consumer groups consulted to date in consideration of the review

 

4) The total number of consumers consulted to date in consideration of the review

 

5) Err.. that’s it

 

 

Regards

 

xxxxxxxxxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...