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

Reassurance needed pls! (glennuk especially!)


Eva247
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6213 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

Good Morning everyone,

 

I followed the process described on this site and sent my N1 claim form last Tuesday to reclaim my charges against Abbey.

 

To my surprise in yesterday's post (no Abbey haven't offered me full money back!), I received my 'Notice of Acknowledgement of Service Has Been Filed' by the court with the response that the defendant has responded to the claim indicating an intention to defend all the claim and has 28 days to put forward their file of defence.

 

AND

 

I also received a seperate letter from Abbey (shock horror - amazingingly coincidental how quick they finished their investigation into my reclaiming of bank charges). This letter states that they are satisfied that their charges do not contravene the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, that they comply with the OFT, their charges are based in extra admin work incurred, are fair and transparent, etc, etc, yada, yada, bla bla and as a gesture of goodwill, they are happy to refund £55.00 and have sent a cheque for this amount to their debt management department to help repay any remaining balance on my account.

 

Okay, so here are my queries;

 

1. Just need reassurance as to the process of the courts now - is this all the norm (i.e. them defending).

 

2. Do I need to send a response to Abbey's letter stating that I do not accept their ridiculous goodwill gesture?

 

3. I'm quite intrigued as to how Abbey intend to pay this £55.00 goodwill gesture to their debt management department to assist in any money owing when they in fact sold the debt to Moorcroft Debt Recovery Company in June 2006 and I have been dealing with Moorcroft ever since. Do I need to point this out to Abbey?

 

I really look forward to your replies asap - I have a feeling I will be advised to do nothing and say nothing else to Abbey and continue in what I have commenced via the court however, would just welcome advice on this as my brain is in overload at the moment - 30 weeks pregnant, moving in 2 weeks time and redecorating our new property to make it habitable!...:shock:

 

Thanks, Eva

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Debt Mountain for your reply.

 

I have drafted a letter I would like to send to Abbey and have copied and pasted it below, I was hoping that perhaps you and any others could advise me whether to send this or not, I would like to however, I was unsure whether by pointing out what I have in the letter would leave me with 'nothing up my sleeve' so to speak, if it goes to court. But, on the flip side, I thought by pointing this out to them they may just offer me the full amount back without proceeding to court. :rolleyes:

 

HERE IT IS:

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Re: 'my details'....

 

Further to your letter dated 16th April 2007 confirming that you have carried out a full investigation into my reclaim of bank charges, I would like to inform you that I do not accept your goodwill gesture of £55.00, as detailed below;

1. Any offer made to me by Abbey which I choose to accept, would need to be paid directly to me as otherwise, it is deemed unpaid.

2. My account was terminated/closed back in June 2006 and the debt was sold to Moorcroft Debt Recovery who I have liaised with since. As such, paying any funds offered to me to Abbey’s Debt Management Dept in effect means you are passing your money from one department within Abbey to another department within Abbey which, in effect means that you have not paid me any money offered as my debt is no longer held with Abbey National Plc!

3. I am in fact, reclaiming for charges which were issued due to the fact that I had written to Abbey various times by signed for recorded delivery over the months of January 2006 to April 2006 explaining a financial crisis which was forthcoming and, requesting assistance from Abbey in the way of freezing my account and overdraft and all charges/interest associated with the account and allowing me to enter a payment arrangement to clear the debt on the frozen amount.

However, to each and every letter and telephone call made, the response I received from Abbey was that this could not be done and no payment arrangement could be set up unless my account went into default and was terminated then passed to debt management/debt recovery and then, this would be the only point at which a suitable payment arrangement could be tailored for me.

In view of this, all charges I intend to reclaim via the County Court are in fact the debt which was accumulated and forced on me by Abbey in order to set up a payment arrangement! I am sure that this predicament I was forced into by Abbey, a financial institution, does not reflect the Banking Code of Conduct and Good Practice in terms of working with your customer to find a solution to a financial crisis. Furthermore, they do contravene the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and do not comply with the Office of Fair Trading in dealing fairly and openly with your customers. Unless, Abbey is agreeing that persons such as myself who have made pleas for assistance and are forced into debt to reach a payment solution, is common place and fair working practice.

To summarise, Abbey forced me into this debt at a time of considerable financial hardship and did not assist me in any way other then in forcing me to incur this debt in order to enter a payment solution. Proof of which I have in way of signed for recorded delivery letters to Abbey, letters from Abbey and telephone calls made by myself with dates, times and names logged.

Unless Abbey offers me at the very minimum, the full amount I intend to reclaim via the County Court, directly paid to me by cheque, I would prefer if Abbey did not insult my integrity by offering me any further miniscule amounts and as such, I very welcome taking Abbey to the County Court with my evidence and even more welcome the intriguing defence Abbey can provide against my particular claim.

Finally, may I point out that if Abbey had indeed carried out a full investigation into my claim as stated in the letter received by me, then Abbey would have been aware of all the above points made. The standard letter sent to me by Abbey is just an even further insult to my intelligence and my time.

I look forward to seeing you in the County Court.

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

 

 

Miss Eva Rodriguez

Encl. Schedule of Charges

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eva, as you expected, send the letter, but continue with your claim, are you saying that they are paying it to somewhere that you dont even deal with? if so, then make that very plain in your letter.

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had the same experience Eva, although my account was closed and payed off in full 6 months ago. They have paid £60 into an account that has been closed?? even when I rejected this miserly offer. TBH I have spent 6 months reclaiming these charges, on my next abbey project I will defo go to the fos first. Its a no lose situation, doesnt cost anything and by recent threads could be all over within a month.

Abbey 1 settled in full 01/05/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...