Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Free Basic Banking Services


stevie8abes
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6152 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

Hi all and thanks for reading yet another rambling by me. This is getting somewhat addictive. :cool:

 

With all the news stories and murmurings by the banks that free banking will be a thing of the past (as they will now be forced to obey the law) it occured to me that many people and mostly those which cannot afford it, will be forced to providing yet more profit to these institutions.

 

I, like millions of other employees, am paid directly into our bank accounts with no other option and people on benefits and pensions are also paid in this manner. I also have to pay several of my bills by direct debit. Therefore, if the banks insist on bringing in annual charges to simply have an account and additional charges for facilities such as direct debits, standing orders, chequing services, etc then I will not be able to avoid funding their fat cat's lavish lifestyles.

 

Is it me? Or is that a little beguiling?

 

I fully appreciate that banks are profit making organisations and they have shareholders, etc that they are answerable to. I also appreciate that basics of a free market economy whereby profit making organisations are allowed to charge what the market will stand for their product or services. But is banking as simple as that?

 

I know if my telephone provider charges me things I don't agree with, I can swap provider or, if I feel strongly enough, stop using the phone. But if all the banks are introducing charges for basic banking, I have no option but to pay them as I need a bank account.

 

Didn't the post office provide free basic banking services in conjunction with Alliance and Leicester? Is this still available? Should the government provide such a free service as I believe it to be an essential service?

 

As a free account it would be acceptable (to me at least) to have no frills such as interest paid on positive balances, free overdraft facilities and to have agreed reasonable charges for my financial mismanagement (bouncing cheques, unpaid DD's and the like). This way, I am still able to get my salary and bills paid without funding the lifestyle of a multi-millionaire into the process.

 

What say ye all? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the surface the end of free banking may not be bad as first thought.

 

It may have the effect of the banks having to actually compete with each other to keep our business as it may open the market up to more online accounts which will be able to offer, if not free banking, then maybe reduced cost banking due to the lack of direct overheads.

 

The problem as you say it that the banks, in some ways, have us over a barrell as long gone are the days when we used to get paid weekly in cash and most of the utility companies would accept bills being paid in the same way.

 

Hence it is not as easy to change your bank as it is with the phone or credit card companies.

 

I would hope that,after all of the bad publicity that the banks have had over recent months for their penalty charges, any charges that are introduced for running an account woukld be looked at by the OFT prior to introduction.

 

Also what action would we be able to take if,for example, you had a DD to pay but there were insufficient funds your account.Would the bank charge you two fees-one for the actual DD itself and then again when it bounces?

 

A whole new can of worms could be opened.

PPMAN159

 

If this comment has helped please click on the scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steve,

 

I think everyone would agree with you regarding the way banks are run at the minute.

I am currently with A&L at the moment but you still get charges like any other bank , and i am now at the court stage , claiming nearly £3000 back. I do get free postage on anything i send to the bank if i take the envelopes to the Post Office.

I was originally with National Girobank which was state run until Maggie decided to sell it to A&L , cant remember if these charged me anything as it was that long ago , but i do remember i use to get weekly statements every time my wages went in.

 

Joe

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi PPMAN159, thanks for your input.

 

There's no easy solution and where people impsoe themselves on the bank with unauthorised overdrafts then they should be charged but this whole scenario is a result of the banks making a profit from it. If it only costs £4, for arguments sake, then charging £38 is a rip off and not fair on the consumer.

 

I would happily run a basic account where I paid a reflective charge for getting my sums wrong and earned no interest for money that was in that account if it meant that I wasn't paying a insulting fee to make the bank more money.

 

What I think the consumer wants in this scenario is a fair service for a fair price - not to be, and please forgive the picture this analogy may give you, rolled over a barrel and shafted by the banks fat cats.

 

Your suggestion that charging consumers for a service so that the fat cats can get fatter but by a different means than unlawful charges will open banking up to greater competition smacks or corporate rhetoric and I would suggest that you've been duped by the banks marketing hype (in the nicest possible way). Banks are in the business of making money, not providing a service. Like many other industries where specialist knowledge is provided (solicitors and estate agents spring to mind) there is very little thought given to providing a service and banking is no different - in my most humble of opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Joe1969, thanks for reading and responding to my drivel. :)

 

Thanks also for reminding me that it was indeed Girobank that was the state run bank. Not one of Maggie's better decisions I'll grant you. Maybe it's time for a resurrection or phoenix from the ashes to help out the consumer.

 

I don't want any interest or other bells and whsitles. I just have 3 accounts. A cash account for my day-to-day spending, a bill paying account with one standing order in and all my DD's and SO's out and an instant access savings account. I have a cheque book and debit card on my main account and cashcards for the other two. I don't have any overdraft facilities and always try to operate my accounts within my means but would be happy to pay a reflective charge if and when I get it wrong. Why should I now be charged for these 'basic' and essential facilities?

 

I think Richard Branson should do his public imagine another power of good and set up another Girobank - a non-profit/non-loss making banking service. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...