Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • 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.
  • 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

Virgin Money


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

Have a DD set-up with Virgin Money which had been running no problem for past few months. Then last month I pay off my balance and cancel the DD with my bank.

 

Then I get my statement in this month expecting to see a zero balance but notice they tried to take the DD (over a week after they received my payment to clear the balance) but it gets returned (of course, I cancelled it cos the balance was nill!) so I get slapped with a £12 returned paymet charge. I mean, are they for real?? My balance is zero, they try to take payment for a zero balance, it fails and I get charged! I promptly phone to complain but the chap on the other end kindly tells I should have cancelled the DD with them not the bank (I would have if I thought they would try to take a DD on a zero balance!), that they can't touch returned payment fees, it was in my contract so they can do it and the OFT said they could charge £12... :-x Blah blah blah.

 

 

That is just crazy to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OFT did not say they could charge £12. The OFT said that they would not automatically look into charges below £12 on the basis that they were unreasonable.

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally 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

Anyway, are you planning on asking for the £12 back or just having a rant?

If you want your £12 back write to them (recorded delivery). Just because its in the t&c's doesn't make it legal, if its a penalty charge rather than a reflection of their true costs (do you really believe it costs £12 to electronically bounce a DD) then it is unlawful in common law and not enforceable.

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally 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 wasn't aware that you could 'reques't a direct debit of zero. It makes absolutely no logical sense.

 

Returned payment - there was no payment requested how can it be returned?

 

My brain aches.

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, so £12 would be, to coin a phrase, money for old rope.

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally 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

Ah, the DD was for £5! It's something like "2% of balance or £5 whatever is greater" £5 is obviuosly greater than 0 so lets try and take £5. Idiocy!

 

Thanks rory, I'm up to speed with the legislation, I'm just ranting :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest tlusnoc

indebt~ I think what has happened here is that they attempted to take the original amount outstanding and not the zero balance, as the OP had only recently cleared the balance by other means. These things happen, and it ought to be resolved without any great difficulty. I suggest that the OP contacts them again in writing outlining the facts of the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the term of your contract had expired, then they had no basis on which to attempt to take the DD in the first place. Was it the end of a contract, or did you just decide to pay off the balance in the general course of things?

-----

Click the scales if I've been useful! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a credit card. What happened was this:

 

12 Apr - Payment received £1000

12 Apr - Balance £0

19 Apr - DD request £5

19 Apr - DD returned uppaid

19 Apr - Payment Returned Fee £12

 

So I paid of the remaining balance well before the DD was due then canceled the DD with my bank. DD day comes up and balance is 0 but they still try to take payment, stupid!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware, the whole "x% of balance or £5" requires that there is a balance outstanding. They can't demand a payment against an account where none is due.

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had this happen before and it occurs because companies request direct debits 10 days before the due date, at this time you would have had an outstanding balance so the computer would have fired off a DD request. They don't appear to have a checking mechanism to ensure that if funds are received prior to the payment date the DD is amended, I'm inclined to believe that is their problem.

 

Bear in mind that Virgin Money are no other than our old friends MBNA, you can try another phone call and explain what has happened and ask them nicely if they will refund the money (you might get a more enlightened agent) or write a letter explaining that you won't be paying the £12.

Lloyds TSB, Total Charges £900, Claim Filed for £1379 - Settled

 

Sainsbury's Bank Credit Card, Total Charges £90 - Settled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On their own site in the FAQ, it states:

What is my minimum payment?

 

The smallest monthly payment that you can make and still remain in compliance with your Terms and Conditions. Each month that your account has a balance, a minimum payment will be due. Please refer to your credit card Terms and Conditions for further details.

 

There was no balance, no payment was due. Will write to them to get this sorted. Will probably have to chase them next month when I will most likely get charged interest on the Fee, sigh :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though you paid the full balance outstanding, there wasn't any residual interest due was there? I had a similar thing happen to me when I paid off my credit card. Something to do with interest on the balance outstanding between the statement date and the date your payment hits the account. Some credit card companies changed their terms when they realised that many customers were transferring balances to zero-rated cards, and so they wanted to squeeze just a little bit more money out of them before they closed their accounts.

DIGITAL :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...