Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi. Could you post up what they've sent please so we can see what the charge is? Cover up your name and address and their reference number. HB
    • I've looked through all our old NPE threads, and as far as we know they have never had the bottle to do court. There are no guarantees of course, but when it comes to put or shut up they definitely tend towards shut up. How about something like -   Dear Jonathan and Julie, Re: PCN no.XXXXX cheers for your Letter Before Claim.  I rolled around on the floor in laughter at the idea that you actually expected me to take this tripe seriously and cough up. I'll write to you not some uninterested third party, thanks all the same, because you have are the ones trying to threaten me about this non-existent "debt". Go and look up Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd, saddos.  Oh, while you're at it, go and look up your Subject Access Request obligations - we all know how you ballsed that up way back in January to March. Dear, dear, dear - you couldn't resist adding your £70 Unicorn Food Tax, you greedy gets.  Judges don't like these made-up charges, do they? You can either drop this foolishness now or get a hell of a hammering in court.  Both are fine with me.  Summer is coming up and I would love a holiday at your expense after claiming an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g). I look forward to your deafening silence.   That should show them you're not afraid of them and draw their attention to their having legal problems of their own with the SAR.  If they have any sense they'll crawl back under their stone and leave you in peace.  Over the next couple of days invest in a 2nd class stamp (all they are worth) and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.
    • Yes that looks fine. It is to the point. I think somewhere in the that the you might want to point out that your parcel had been delivered but clearly had been opened and resealed and the contents had been stolen
    • Hi All, I just got in from work and received a letter dated 24 April 2024. "We've sent you a Single Justice Procedure notice because you have been charged with an offence, on the Transport for London Network." "You need to tell us whether you are guilty or not guilty. This is called making your plea."
    • Okay please go through the disclosure very carefully. I suggest that you use the technique broadly in line with the advice we give on preparing your court bundle. You want to know what is there – but also very importantly you want to know what is not there. For instance, the email that they said they sent you before responding to the SAR – did you see that? Is there any trace of of the phone call that you made to the woman who didn't know anything about SAR's? On what basis was the £50 sent to you? Was it unilateral or did they offer it and you accepted it on some condition? When did they send you this £50 cheque? Have you banked it? Also, I think that we need to start understanding what you have lost here. Have you lost any money – and if so how much? Send the SAR to your bank as advised above
  • 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

Oh The Audacity of DG


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5565 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

Thanks Lattie that is what I am hoping ( but doubt it will happen)........... Thanks for that link Pete, have read it and think that as on my instruction from the court it does state that it may be treated as a TEST CASE this is what the district judge will do , given today's news.

 

Freaky before today my answer would have been very doubtful but now am not so sure, the banks must be fairly sure it is going to go in their favour, if not fully they will at least get what the courts feel is a fair charge.... possibly the same as the credit card companies last year.... oitherwise why would they have agreed to it.......

 

What I need now is a VERY GOOD arguement for opposing a stay if the judge decides to grant one..........

 

I am hoping that as it is only 12 days away it will go ahead.....

rockin all over the world

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I think the worst outcome would be that the oft would decide that a small percentage of the charges were justified but anything over and above would have to be returned upon request. And I don't think the allowable ammount would be anywhere near £35. But that is just my take on it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have hit the nail on the head Pete, this is the way the bank are going to limit their losses £18 to £23 per charge is better than £30 or £35 so they will save some money..........

rockin all over the world

Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed... but why deduct what the credit card companies seem to think they are allowed to charge and say the remander is what the banks will charge ?... I think if a charge is set it will be the same as the credit card companies £12,,,,,, :p

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

The consumer started to get some power which effected the whole corrupt system.

 

The banks were creating all the consumer complaints to OFT so OFT was fed up with the getting all the complaints, and having the courts judging the banks, because the consumer's started to benefit by receiving their hard earned money back, which they paid unlawfully, it all had to stop because we are supposed to pay them, not them pay us.

 

What a cover up

 

Regards

 

kingdom

Hello everyone I'm a newbie to this forum, or any forum come to that, so be patient with me as I have alot of unanswered questions that I wish to find the truth about.

 

These include bank charges, what my rights are and how I can go about my business without getting ripped of by the banking system and others.:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

the oft must have a very sore rear end am really surprised they can sit on it given the amount of splinters they have got in it from fence sitting............

 

anyone heard anything about how it went at the high court today.???

rockin all over the world

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OFT and all 7 banks have struck some kind of deal.........the most likely I think is they willa gree the charges are unfair. pay them out but not include the interest...... thus saving them money......

 

The OFT have said yeah ok thats fair, which is why htis all came out of the blue..........we are hurting them......

 

Minbd you obviously not the Alliance & Leicester cos they jsut announced £300 million pounds or it might have been billion. cant remember .........lol............

rockin all over the world

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont think so, your probably right that we wont get all we want but thats just life and the old boy network (a lot of the OFT and FSA personel are ex bank).

 

I do think the Judicary have had an input into this, why have the banks suddenly agreed to a court case to set president after running away for so long?

 

The directions we have been getting from the various regional County Courts have slowly been increasing the pressure on the banks solicitors to prove they are actualy going to court or face a strike out of their defence, if this had carried on the banks would have been faced with absolutly no defence against unlawful charges claims.

 

This way I think they can seek to minimise their losses

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...