Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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

thio v abbey


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6134 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

thanx bigmac, i have another question i need to send a revised schedule of charges to abbey do i need to do the whole prelim letter again or just send a covering letter explaining that i am claiming a new amount and do i have to start the 14 days again from when they receive the revised schedule or carry on from the original 14 days as they are not up yet i sent the original on 10 May ...thanking you all again in anticipation

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I am also in this position and im just updating my schedule of charges now.

i

30-12-2006--Requested statements from Local Halifax.

02-02-2007--Statements Recieved.

18-04-2007--Prelim sent.

20-04-2007--Reply , Thanks , give us 8wks letter.

02-0502007--Sent L.B.A. & Schedule of Charges

11-05-2007--Recieved reply ,still investigating.

17-05-2007--Sent Amended L.B.A. for Contractual Interest this time.

14-06-2007--Received standard Bog Off letter.

13-06-2007--Took N1 to Local Courts.

26-06-2007--Copy of N1 from Court, issued 21-06-2007. to Halifax, Deemed Served 25-06-2007

Have till 09-07-2007 to file Defence.

05-07-2007--Note that Acknowledgment of Service been Filed on 29-06-2007.

Have 28 days from date of Service to File Defence.

07-07-2007--Offer from Halifax.

09-07-2007--Rejection letter sent to Halifax. Next day delivery.

10-07-2007--Money put in Account:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also in this position and im just updating my schedule of charges now.

i sent my LBA on 2nd may so mines up on the 16th but ive decided to send another LBA plus new charges and will include somethin like " Due to not having recieved any acknowledgement from you ,I have had more time to investigate my situation regarding the charges and have now realised that i can claim for contractual interest , hence the updated schedule. "

this gives me another 14 days to get everything into perspective before filing my claim.

Hope this helps and good luck with your claim

 

regards:)

30-12-2006--Requested statements from Local Halifax.

02-02-2007--Statements Recieved.

18-04-2007--Prelim sent.

20-04-2007--Reply , Thanks , give us 8wks letter.

02-0502007--Sent L.B.A. & Schedule of Charges

11-05-2007--Recieved reply ,still investigating.

17-05-2007--Sent Amended L.B.A. for Contractual Interest this time.

14-06-2007--Received standard Bog Off letter.

13-06-2007--Took N1 to Local Courts.

26-06-2007--Copy of N1 from Court, issued 21-06-2007. to Halifax, Deemed Served 25-06-2007

Have till 09-07-2007 to file Defence.

05-07-2007--Note that Acknowledgment of Service been Filed on 29-06-2007.

Have 28 days from date of Service to File Defence.

07-07-2007--Offer from Halifax.

09-07-2007--Rejection letter sent to Halifax. Next day delivery.

10-07-2007--Money put in Account:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends where you are in the process I suppose!

They told me they'd be adding charges to my account 2 days after I'd sent them my LBA. So, I sent them a letter with an updated schedule and said that the charges that they had notified me of would be included but the timescales in the original LBA were unchanged!

 

So, if i read your post right you've sent the prelim letter but not the LBA, therefore you can amend your total when you send your LBA and attach an updated schedule and follow the timescale for that (14 days then court!)

 

Hope this helps!

Link to post
Share on other sites

from the metro newspaper...judge blasts 'evasive' banks over fees cases...banks which put pressure on customers trying to reclaim `unfair` penalty charges could face damages for their behaviour, a judge warned yesterday. some banks were wasting customers and courts time with evasive tactics, said judge David Mackie QC.Hundreds of cases have been lodged by angry account holders trying to reclaim excessive charges for unauthorised overdrafts and credit card borrowing. But no claim has reached court because banks usually settle just before hearings are due to start.Other tactis include not responding to letters, failing to negotiate for months and not turning up at court.Judge Mackie was speaking at a london mercantile court which has processed about 300 claims for refunds of allegedly unlawfaful charges this year. He said 'looked at in the real world, where there will be no trial, these steps, which place completely pointless work and some anxiety on litigants in person, constitute unreasonable behaviour. 'From now on, we will generally treat such conduct as unreasonable behaviour, thus enabling any claimant who has been put to uneccessary work and inconvenience to be compensated for this' His comments come amid growing anger at bank charges, which can be as high as £39 for exceeding an overdraft and are being investigated by the OFT .Barrister Tom Brennan is one customer trying to sue NatWest bank over fees that he claims are 'egregiously invidious'. But Brian Capon , of the British Bankers Association, defended its members, saying they were confident their fees were legal. ' They take the court process very seriously' he added.

Link to post
Share on other sites

another story from metro newspaper 16 May.... thousands of bank customers suffered a legal setback yesterday in their fight to reclaim `rip off` charges. The blow came in the first court case to test banks rights to charge overdraft fees of up to £39. Customer kevin berwick was told by a judge that there was no legal basis for his claim for nearly £2,000 in fees and interest from lloyds TSB .Campaigners fear the ruling could deter many other claimants from taking legal action. If it is confirmed by a higher court, it will set a precedent which leaves them with no recourse. Banks have been under increasing pressure for charging excessive fees when clients go over their overdraft limits. critics say the charges bear no relation to the few pounds it costs to send a letter. In most cases so far, banks have settled claims. On monday they were warned by another judge that they would also have to pay damages if they continued to prevaricate over claims.But the judge in birmingham yesterday threw out mr berwicks claim after he refused lloyds tsb`s offer to settle the case.Mr berwick who was given leave to appeal said ' i was expecting to win as i made a good job of arguing my case' . Marc Gander of the Consumer action group said the judge faile to consider that banks were acting illegally by disguising penalties as a fee for a service. But he added:`I would urge the hundreds of thousands of people who are making claims not to be disheartened`. lloyds tsb said:`The court has agreed with us that these are charges for a service and not default or penalty fees as argued by others`.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Abbey £4340.59 *WON* Jan 07

 

Abbey II MCOL 31/03/07 £8800.00

 

Please note..I AM NOT AN EXPERT ANYTHING WHAT I POST IS PURELY MY OPINION AND MAY BE WRONG IT IS JUST BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OR EXPERIENCE

 

Read my latest claim its a fast track potentially

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/61406-noobrider-abbey-take-2-a.html?highlight=noobrider

 

read my first claim which includes attending a directions hearing in court

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/10576-noobrider-abbey.html?highlight=noobrider

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry didnt make it clear...all the terms and conditions you could want are posted on that thread page 2

Abbey £4340.59 *WON* Jan 07

 

Abbey II MCOL 31/03/07 £8800.00

 

Please note..I AM NOT AN EXPERT ANYTHING WHAT I POST IS PURELY MY OPINION AND MAY BE WRONG IT IS JUST BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OR EXPERIENCE

 

Read my latest claim its a fast track potentially

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/61406-noobrider-abbey-take-2-a.html?highlight=noobrider

 

read my first claim which includes attending a directions hearing in court

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/10576-noobrider-abbey.html?highlight=noobrider

Link to post
Share on other sites

received letter today from andrew nanson banking specialist team saying they sorry i been so unhappy i felt i must complain and here, have a complaints procedure leaflet. they will take 4 weeks to investigate then let me know, of course i shall be waiting with baited breath then pop an lba in the post on 25th may

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi all can anyone tell me which dates i put on my spreadsheets for an account that was opened in 2003 and closed in 2005 do i put from 2003-2005 or 2003 - 2007 as i intend to hand in N1 tomorrow hope some one gets my drift

Link to post
Share on other sites

well would you believe it abbey sent me duplicate statements for the year 2006 now i,m gonna have to check my schedule all again i think they`re trying to mess me up, good try abbey but not good enough already had the originals for that year nah nah nah nah nah:p

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

got letter from richard harris today complaints dept, to say they are currently investigating the complaint i raised with them 4 weeks ago he is sorry for the delay i am experiencing and thanked me for patience. their research taking longer to make sure full investigation done. if unable to complete full investigation beforehand they will write in 4weeks to let me know how they getting on. They sorry it taking longer than expected and want to reassure me my complaint is important to them. N1 was due 7th july but being single mum monet tight will get it done soon as funds available at some point this month

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi have you looked to see if you are exempt from paying fees? if your income is low and below the freshold, then you wont have to pay fees (I think the freshold is between 13-14k)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

had offer of £860 in charges as gesture of good will but some of the charges they returning is yet to be taken from my account my account is to be updated in 10 working days. will write back that i will accept the refund if they send it to me by cheque and i intend to pursue the rest through the courts and make complaint to the financial ombudsman service as they suggest i do if im not happy which im not. they think their charges applied in accordance with the t and cs of the account, they also comply with OFT in dealing fairly with customers. They unable to provide specific breakdown of how charges are apportioned, the value of a transaction which causes me to exceed my agreed overdraft has no bearing on the amount charged. The OFT announcement was in relation to credit card default charges and not charges related to other types of accounts e.g bank accounts. This means their current tariff contiues to apply. They assure me they have done full investigation , will keep my file open for 8weeksand if they dont hear from me will assume everything resolved and close file

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...