Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Visiting scotland I came across a car park at The Falls of Shin operated by Civil Enforcement Limited. The car park requires visitors to pay using the awful Phone and Pay app or over the phone using an eqully terrible automated service. Their signs state a time limit of 10 minutes after arriving to pay, and both methods require needlessly lengthy registration process only for payment to be rejected when attempting to pay by both. The Cafe were able to offer us some assistance and register our vehicle so hopefully we sould avoid a fine but this seems like entrapment and would still stop us returning again. How is this legal without giving visitors the option to pay on site?
    • click the link. dx  
    • There are two things to immediately clarify. Firstly, why did court papers go to the wrong address?  In 99% of backdoor CCJ cases here the person moves and doesn't update the vehicle log book address.  Or they move and they don't inform the parties who they are in legal dispute with of the new address.  Does either of these apply to you? Secondly, given this has been going on for over three years without presumably any ill effects on you, how important is it for you to have a clean credit file?  I ask as, if you do absolutely nothing, the CCJ will disappear in April 2027.
    • Sorry to ask, but I know I had SB template on PC, but can't find it. Also any search for template\SB letter takes me back here.  Any help to get to SB letter would be appreciated. I know I used it on a car HP co that wouldn't honor my FCS refund and after 6 years came threatening ( or rather their DCA). Worked a treat. Thanks in advance
  • 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

Barclays Litigation Team Good or Evil? You Decide..


dar£n
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5750 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

  • Replies 992
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Emailed to Lit Team

.......Could I ask if you aware of the decision to allow local branches and their staff to refund bank charges?

 

In light of the OFT 'Test Case' which now looks like it will not go ahead, will leave the question of the lawfullness of bank charges unanswered.

 

This in turn will return the situation to consumers pursuing claims to court.

 

I would appreciate any comment you may have on the subject.......

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gingerninja

 

daren has emailed barclays lit team to ask exactley that question and were waiting for a reply at the mo

 

it is something which has been suggested on a few threads that im aware of but we are still waiting for it to be confirmed

 

regards

 

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest with you guys, I tend to agree with Saintly [again !!!!!!]

 

It has been common practice for banks to back down on new charges applied once confronted. but only as a 'one off basis'.

It is already accepted that if your account has had no charges applied within 12 months they will waiver the first one but continual charges, not so sure.

 

It may be that banks are authorised to issue refunds once court proceedings have been started but even then prob have a limit.

 

Again IMHO I think this is a case of Chinese whispers that started by one person getting 'ONE CHARGE' repaid.

 

As soon as I get a reply [from ANYONE] I will post here and put everyone out of their misery LOL

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before peeps get carried away, this is ONLY heresay and Ginjerninja should read the previous page before putting down deposit on the MX5.

 

Chinese whisper thats turned into a rolling snowball.

 

Slick

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

Not sure if I should post this here so feel free to move/delete this if it is wrong - I'll stick it in my thread too just in case.

I spoke to a customer services person at Barclays yesterday and she mentioned bank charges, basically she asked whether I'd ever had any repaid. I laughed and said that I actually had a court case on hold at the moment because of the OFT to which she replied...

1) why did you go to court - why not just speak to us?

2) when did you ask for them as I (she) got all of mine back about a week before the OFT case

3) Oh well, it's a shame and it's a delay but you'll get all of the charges back I'm sure

I was stunned to be honest but I guess you can't really take point three as gospel really can you given her position in the company (with all due respect to her - I'm sure she won't be deciding who gets what and when!). I was surprised by point two too as I always thought that anyone who works for a bank is banned from having an overdraft or is that just for people who advise/chastise people on their banking habits?

As for point one, I politely pointed out that I did contact Barclays and that I have at least two emails telling me they would settle my claim.

Anyway, I'm not sure whether that conversation made me feel better or worse to be honest!

Cheers,

KA.

Prelim letter received by Barclays: 26/03/07

**************no reply***************

 

LBA received by Barclays: 10/04/07

**************no reply***************

 

N1 filed at court: 25/04/07

N1 received by Barclays: 04/05/07

Offer of £1,885.00: 04/05/07 (turned down)

Offer rejection received by B'clays: 08/05/07

Barclays Acknowledge Claim: 11/05/07

Barclays Defence Filed: 18/05/07

 

Directions Hearing Date Set: 06/08/07

Case Stayed Until Feb '08

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I went to court the judge said if I had evidence of e mails confirming an offer of refund then the case was totaly compromised and that a stay was not appropriate. I did not receive offer in an e mail just verbally - but he said that was enough for him not to order a stay. Barclays paid up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble here is verbal promises mean 'jack', unless we can get these comments in writing they mean nowt.

 

barclays employees can have O/D's but they dont like it, they cant 'not' allow it as it might be seen as discrimination against an employee.

 

What we need is a thread where people post any comms received from the banks offering to settle out of court.

 

see here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclays-bank/115124-have-you-been-offered.html#post1144274

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DINO HAS LEFT THE BUILDING!!!!

 

Sent email to Krysta - No reply [surprise]

 

Forwarded it to Dino, got this reply:

Thank you for your email. I will be out of the office for the foreseeable

future.

 

In my absence please direct any urgent correspondence to my colleague

Eleanor Dangerfield (eleanor.dangerfield@barclays.com). Unfortunately, my

emails will not be read until I return.

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Its Official Dino, No longer works for Barclays [prob cos he was customer orientated ??]

 

For everyone who is following this thread for info about local branches paying out....This is direct from Barclays Litigation Dept.

I have now taken over Dino’s caseload as he is currently not working for Barclays Bank PLC.

In response to your query:

Local branches have always had the ability to refund a small amount of charges to customers usually as a goodwill gesture on the first occasion that a charge has been taken. I am unaware that this situation has been extended further than small refunds.

As regards the OFT case, an 8 day hearing is listed to commence on 14 January 2008. The main purpose of this litigation is to determine the lawfulness of the bank charges once and for all so that all the banks and other institutions are consistent and the issues are decided one way or the other. I have not heard any information stating that the test case is not due to proceed as planned.

 

 

 

sorry its not better news :(

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...