Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • while politicians trough at subsidised bars and canteens, claim thousaands in expenses while letting out their properties and tories vote to leave UK children hungry That ALL needs to stop
    • J&P Credit Solutions are specialists on debt recovery. Either way they seem to be swapping between the JandP and IDR whatever their exact definitions are.
    • Primary and secondary teachers are supporting pupils with their own money, buying food and warm clothing. Eight in 10 primary teachers in England spending own money to help pupils | Education | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Increasing numbers of children hungry and lack adequate clothing, with two-thirds of secondary teachers also supporting pupils  
    • I googled "prescribed disability" to see where it is defined for the purposes of S.92. I found HMRC's definition, which included deafness. I don't  think anyone is saying deaf people cant drive, though! digging deeper,  Is it that “prescribed disability” (for the purposes of S.88 and S.92) is defined at: The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations consolidate with amendments the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996...   ….. and sleep apnoea / increased daytime sleepiness is NOT included there directly as a condition but only becomes prescribed under “liability to sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting” (but falling asleep isn't fainting!), so it isn’t defined there as a “prescribed disability”  Yet, under S.92(2)(b) RTA 1988 “ any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of a licence to be a source of danger to the public" So (IMHO) sleep apnea / daytime sleepiness MIGHT be a prescribed disability, but only if it causes likelihood of "driving being a source of danger to the public" : which is where meeting / not meeting the medical standard of fitness to drive comes into play?  
    • You can counter a Judges's question on why you didn't respond by pointing out that any company that charges you with stopping at a zebra crossing is likely to be of a criminal mentality and so unlikely to cancel the PCN plus you didn't want to give away any knowledge you had at that time that could allow them to counteract your claim if it went to Court. There are many ways in which you can see off their stupid claim-you will see them in other threads  where our members have been caught by Met at other airports as well as Bristol.  Time and again they take motorists to Court for "NO Stopping" apparently completely forgetting that the have lost doing that because no stopping is prohibitory and cannot form a contract. Yet they keep on issuing PCNs because so many people just pay up . Crazy . You can see what chuckleheads they are when you read their Claim form which is pursuing you as the driver or the keeper. they don't seem to understand that on airport land because of the Bye laws, the keeper is never liable.   
  • 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

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 5738 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

Personally I think at the very best they will rule that charges are allowed at £12 much the same as credit cards have been allowed, and somehow will rule they dont have to pay the excess.

 

Now before anyone starts shouting or cancelling that cruise around the med etc, this is just me thinking out loud,

 

 

got to say tho' I am impressed with the number of hits this thread has had since started.

 

good luck to all of you..

.

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

  • Replies 992
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Sent to Sky News

With the recent news about the High St banks being taken to court to decide if its present charges are lawful.

 

A ruling has been made that all banks can take a step back while claims for reclaiming unlawful charges are suspended until the ruling.

This is fair enough but has the same been applied to the same unlawful charges being applied to accounts today and up to the day of the ruling.

Surely if consumers can not argue the charges then the banks shouldnt be allowed to apply them.

 

Also many many claimants who have worked very hard and spent many stressfull hours preparing the documents needed to take the banks to court are simply left waiting in the wings hoping for some good news that their claim will be allowed to continue.

 

As a member of Consumer Advice Group I would like to wish everyone claiming against the High Street Banks all the best and hope they are victorious in the end. after all these giants prey on the unfortunate in their time of most vulnerablilty and only succeed in making their lives even more a misery.

 

This is why the world is as it is today - GREED!

.

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

Personally I think at the very best they will rule that charges are allowed at £12 much the same as credit cards have been allowed, and somehow will rule they dont have to pay the excess.

 

I agree with you Dar I think that will be the outcome too. However if they honor claims that are nearly finished now, that should give all those who are claiming the same amount they are claiming at present. If that makes sense.

 

I think I need some vino. I spout better on a litre or two. :D

 

maggiebroom :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

although told by court case continuing,i think there needs to be a bit clarity on this,dont fancy carrying on with paperwork costing me more money and headache.tez.thats the first neg i have read from you darren.

Link to post
Share on other sites

although told by court case continuing,i think there needs to be a bit clarity on this,dont fancy carrying on with paperwork costing me more money and headache.tez.thats the first neg i have read from you darren.

did not mean letter,just little bit about£12 and not paying difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been dealing with Dino, and am in court next wednesday, he did offer a settlement to the full amount, however he applied conditions to it, one of them was that the majority of the settlement be used to settle a disputed account. He know's the account is in dispute and has been told that i won't settle an account that i disagree with. He now say's they will be representing in court and applying for a stay.

I emigrate to Australia next month and now don't know where i stand if it is stayed?

 

PLEASE HELP!!!

:D B & Q Store Card *Settled* - £365 (912 AUD)

:D First Direct 1 *Settled* - £1089 (2722 AUD)

:D First Direct 2 *Settled* - £469 (1172 AUD)

:D Goldfish *Settled* - £372 (930 AUD)

:D Barclays *Settled* - £903 (2257 AUD)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Put that to the judge, explain that if a stay is granted you will no longer be a resident of the UK when it comes to trial and therefore will not be able to represent yourself., advise the judge that they offered the settlement with conditions and see if he will take your side and order the payment as they were going to settle before the recent OFT ruling.

.

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

Cheers dar£n, you do have all the answers, 5*****

:D B & Q Store Card *Settled* - £365 (912 AUD)

:D First Direct 1 *Settled* - £1089 (2722 AUD)

:D First Direct 2 *Settled* - £469 (1172 AUD)

:D Goldfish *Settled* - £372 (930 AUD)

:D Barclays *Settled* - £903 (2257 AUD)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you remeber me telling you about my friend who was in court on Wednesday and the barrister settled there and then and the judge gave them 28 days to settle?

 

Well she has just phoned me frantic she is so scared Barclays will not pay her.

 

I must admit I am not sure now any ideas?

 

She has had nothing in writing and no contact from the bank yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, the best thing to do is to carry on with your claims, it is up to the judge to stay the case .. in my case no stay has been ordered and i am proceeding to have the banks defence struck out as they have failed to comply with the district judges orders. i have spoken to the court and they have told me that the 'BANK CHARGE' cases are proceeding as normal in our court. lets hope that not all judges order stays especially where the banks abuse the court process and fail to comply with directions

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you remeber me telling you about my friend who was in court on Wednesday and the barrister settled there and then and the judge gave them 28 days to settle?

 

says it all in your post, it was settled there and then, that means they cant go back, the judge has ruled that they have to pay.

 

your friends nightmare is over..well almost.....lucky

.

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

Krysta Campbell ****

Legal Clerk

Tel: 0207 116 4753 or 0207 116 5835

Fax: 01452 638 359

E-mail: [email protected] Krysta Campbell is away from 20th July until 14th August, according to her out of office. The person dealing with her claims whilst she is away is:- [email protected]

Tel: 020 711 63565

 

I was just told that Krysta's email address was: [email protected]

 

I presume this is incorrect & it should be krysta, otherwise many people would have noted it..... AND that she was back in sometime next week....... she is dealing with my case which is 13th August 2007 so maybe it would be better if she was still on holiday while I turn up to court on my own!!!

 

Oh well!

 

I even reconfirmed her email address! :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think at the very best they will rule that charges are allowed at £12 much the same as credit cards have been allowed, and somehow will rule they dont have to pay the excess.

 

 

Would I be right in thinking that the credit card 'permitted charge' is only a guideline, and has not actually been legally tested? Surely in any test case, the Bankers would have to fully disclose their costs, which is what we've wanted all along? If the cost do prove to be at the level we all know they are, then how can a charge of even 12 quid stand up?

 

Or am I being too innocent.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a small claims hearing date of 6 August with Macclesfield County Court. I just read the previous posts and, panicking, rang the court to ask if my claim has been suspended due to the OFT test case being announced today. The clerk I spoke to said she hadn't received any directions to this effect and that my hearing date still stands. I also just rang a friend of mine who is just finishing his training to become a barrister. He said not to believe all of the hype and that nothing is cast in stone just yet. Of course, things may develop during the next few days and I don't want to reassure people prematurely - if you have a hearing date, I would call the court to see what their position is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As in anything legal, it pays to carefully read what the OFT have said.

 

Their court action is to do with overdraft charges. This is different to bank and credit card charges.

On some things I am very knowledgeable, on other things I am stupid. Trouble is, sometimes I discover that the former is the latter or vice versa, and I don't know this until later - maybe even much later. Read anything I write with the above in mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would I be right in thinking that the credit card 'permitted charge' is only a guideline, and has not actually been legally tested? Surely in any test case, the Bankers would have to fully disclose their costs, which is what we've wanted all along? If the cost do prove to be at the level we all know they are, then how can a charge of even 12 quid stand up?

 

Or am I being too innocent.....

 

You are right.

The OFT and FSA said that £12 was not a true cost, but that anything over £12 was totally unreasonable. This meant the CCards dropped to £12 to keep them happy for a while.

 

However, the same as what will happen with the Banks, no Credit Card companies decided to just repay the difference straight off! Buggers aren't they!

 

what this means is, if the court decided that £12 was a 'fair' price, but the banks still hadn't disclosed how this number was decided, then we could still pursue cases in light of the fact that they hadn't proved anything, just 'came to an arrangement' in a 'gentlemanly' way.

 

Just MHO!

 

Peter

Sign my petition to the Prime Minister here:

PETITION

Thanks

Peter

 

!!!WON!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As in anything legal, it pays to carefully read what the OFT have said.

 

Their court action is to do with overdraft charges. This is different to bank and credit card charges.

 

I agree on CCard charges, but would say that Overdraft Charges and Bank Charges are one in the same!

Sign my petition to the Prime Minister here:

PETITION

Thanks

Peter

 

!!!WON!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

From reading the OFT statement, I believe they are including all Bank charges under the heading of 'overdraft fees' generally.

 

Re my last post, Peter, my point is that unless the Banks actually DO cough up with their costs, then how can ANYONE determine an actual fair charge? IMHO this saga could just go on... and on... and on.

 

I sincerely hope that the OFT actually approaches this case with the attitude we have seen from so many CAG members. I don't want them to settle for a 'Gentleman's Agreement' (oxymoron where banks are concerned!) because that helps no-one. If their intention is to settle this situation once and for all, we HAVE to have full disclosure.

 

 

 

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My Court date is Tuesday 31st - I'm going to appear, even if Barclays don't turn up. I have an email saying that they were settling, followed funnily enough by a telephone call holding it off until a final court date as Tuesday is a prelim hearing.

 

After todays news - am I surprised - err NO. But I'm still going

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...