Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No, but all you'd do is blindly run the statute barred date for another 18 months. Just sit on your hands until you get a letter of claim, then send a CCA request.  
    • Just like last time, Evri requested more time so they have another 2 weeks
    • Just an update, finance company rejected my complaint saying they've found damage but can't tell when it's from even though I've shown them how the front end is misaligned in the advert photos compared to another identical model car they're selling.  Dealership now want to charge me to get the car brought back to me but will only discuss over the phone which seems off. They're also saying no damaged was picked up by JLR main dealership before I purchased it but my local JLR dealerships till this day haven't mentioned the damage to me because they don't go into stuff like that for some reason lol  Ombudsman case is still open, not sure if I should leave the car with them or just pay to have it brought back.
    • Hi all, I get esa and pip,  I have £1200 in arrears that I owed my ex partner, I have been paying £100 per month to clear this debt that was setup by standing order, as I have complex needs I forgot about this standing order and have overpaid mainternance by around £4000, I told CSA I am happy for my ex partner to keep overpayment I do not wish to seek anything back, however they have declined to take of the sum of £1200 and are still saying I owe this to my ex partner. In my second question it was announced that pip would stop for mental health, I don't understand the link below Disability benefits system to be reviewed as PM outlines "moral mission" to reform welfare - GOV.UK WWW.GOV.UK The Prime Minister has outlined a package of sweeping reforms to put work at the heart of welfare and... Does this mean my money is going to stop? I have spoken to my key worker and I am already recieveing help from mental health team and complex needs team along with connections and mind, I just don't get what is going on.
    • No, i haven't had one for about 10+ years. I am thinking of just going to the court in person and pay at the counter
  • 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

Final Warning for Banks


Deano1000
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6175 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

Banks get final warning over penalty charges!

 

Another week, another chapter in the never ending merry go round of the bank penalty charges saga! (cue rolling of eyes from everyone here at Money Hospital!)

A High Court judge has warned banks to stop behaving badly when their customers accuse them of penalizing them with unlawful overdraft charges.

Judge David Mackie QC of the Royal Courts of Justice, said banks were simply wasting the time of claimants and the courts, by pretending they would defend claims when they clearly intend not to.

He added if banks continue to do this he might award damages against them.

Judge Mackie’s comments appear to reflect the growing judicial annoyance at the banks’ attempts to avoid a test case at all costs. The statements from Judge Mackie left the banks with what sounded like a final warning.

About 300 claims for refunds of allegedly unlawful charges have been lodged at the London Mercantile Court this year and most of these have been referrals from County Courts in the hope that one being heard in the High Court and produce a test decision.

“If the banks had won, many fewer customers would have sued,” said Judge Mackie. “If the banks had lost, the claims would have been much easier to sort out than they are now,” he added.

Banks have so far settled out of court, normally only a few days before their case is due to be heard, which led to Judge Mackie expressing his frustration: “On the face of things each case raises serious issues which the court would permit to proceed to trial. But this is fantasy because, at least for the moment, we all know that there will be no trial.”

Judge Mackie said that in some cases bank customers had tried to claim damages for stress and inconvenience, but had so far been unsuccessful.

He did warn he would award damages in future if banks and their lawyers continued to:

  • fail to respond to some claimants letters
  • fail to negotiate for months and until a hearing date is set
  • demand extra information from the claimants, knowing they had no intention letting a court hear the matter
  • settle the case without telling the claimants they need not attend court
  • fail to show up in court

“Looked at in the real world where there will be no trial, these steps, which place completely pointless work and some anxiety on litigants in person, constitute unreasonable behaviour,” said Judge Mackie. “From now on we will generally be treating such conduct as unreasonable behaviour thus enabling any claimant who has been put to unnecessary work and inconvenience to be compensated for this.”

So, is this really the final warning for banks?

Do we think they are going to take any notice of what Judge Mackie said or are they just going to carry on with their underhand ways?

This is one story that is definitely going to run and run!

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6175 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...