Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 160 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

TSB Defending and Winning


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6158 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

Morning guys, i have just seen in this mornings Metro (yes i live in London and use the naff rail system) that Lloyds TSB have one a case and im really worried now, im just about to start my court action have filled out more court forms and was about to submit them to my local county court.

 

Maybe the old bottle is going by im now worried as i could shell out 120 quid and loose.

 

Any ideas, im and A & L customer so i guess maybe i shouldnt be worried but i just got fobbed off by them and now want them to know im serious.

Beowolf

 

The few, the proud, the chimps :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the full article from the "Metro" Without full details of the case it is difficult to comment on what went wrong, but I would not let this stop you from fighting on. Each case is judged on its merits and what I find interesting about the article is that it mentions that Mr Berwick refused to settle??? I wonder what the settlement was..

 

Perhaps someone from the CAG knows more about this case and would like to comment?????

 

 

Thousands of bank customers have suffered a legal setback 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 Berwick's 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 failed 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 has been argued by others.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marc Gander, of the Consumer Action Group, said the judge failed 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 has been argued by others.'

 

What confuses me is the above quoted part. Are the banks disguising penalties as a fee generally, or was this just in their evidence? If the former then they are disguising a fee as a penalty not the other way around? The quote from Lloyds is confusing as they are charging penalties, literally, i.e. Mr Noseclean never gets charged as a fee and the banks have never positioned it like that formally have they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh i guess it was the depressed faces on the train this morning all reading the front page of the metro, or maybe could have just been the the train was slow and rubbish as usual. Guys i made another post todo with MCOL could do with some help there, sorry to X post. :-)

Beowolf

 

The few, the proud, the chimps :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

HSBC have been calling their penalties "service charges" for about a year or so.

 

This really is a storm in a teacup!

 

It certainly is.

 

Still, how can a bank say that when it selectively discriminates between customers taking the same products...

 

C'est la vie!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a geat possibility that there was no discrimination at all... because we don't have the details of either's defence - so how can we possibly judge?

 

If you read about two people being tried for murder and one got off and the other didn't, you'd think that was unfair wouldn't you? Until you find out that one was committed by an armed thief, and the other was committed by a woman whose violent husband was about to knife her death.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think my advice has been helpful, please click on the scales to the left :) thank you!

 

Non illegitimi carborundum

 

 

I wish I was a glow worm,

A glow worm's never glum!

 

How can you be grumpy,

when the sun shines out yer bum?! :p

 

 

Amex * 2 *** WON *** Settled

Marbles ****WON*** In full settlement

Capital 1 ***WON*** In full settlement

MBNA ***WON**** In full settlement

Barclaycard ***WON*** In full settlement

Barclays Bank - ***WON*** In full settlement

Abbey ***WON*** In full settlement

Abbey (Mrs Chorlton) ***WON*** In full settlement

Abbey (Mr and Mrs C) - MCOL submitted 16/5/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am talking in general terms, not specifically related to this case. I.e. surely commonsense dictates that no bank can make an argument that it's fees issued for exceeding overdraft limits are service charges levied to all customers when they only levy them when an overdraft is exceeded.

 

Of course, if the banks are saying the service charge is for notification rather than penalty, then that is perhaps the answer I was originally looking for and it is a case of terminology rather than anything else I thought it might be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not with you - first you say that the banks argue that their fee/service/charge/penalty...whatever... are levied to all customers when they exceed their overdraft, then you say they only levy them when overdraft is exceeded.

 

Well isn't that the same thing? When else would they levy an "exceeded overdraft" charge?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Angel,

 

An "Exceeded Overdraft" charge is I believe levied when the bank does honour the unsupported cheque. The other charge is levied when the bank bounces the cheque.

 

Quite a big difference. The second case has cost the bank nothing beyond the IT cost of automated bouncing, some say £3.

 

The first case involved bank staff time to manually consider their options, and paying the cheque has potentially committed the bank to a potential unsecured bad debt, i.e. it cost the bank more than the second case. This is the scenario with more claim to being a service charge.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...