Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Seminole v Abbey: £10,235 RECEIVED


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6353 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

Really, really well done :D

I think you should change your avatar to a tiger :D :D

 

With BIG STEEL COHONAS!!!!!

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

absolutely great news...have a bit of bully boy tactics right back at you abbey

Abbey £4340.59 *WON* Jan 07

 

Abbey II MCOL 31/03/07 £8800.00

 

Please note..I AM NOT AN EXPERT ANYTHING WHAT I POST IS PURELY MY OPINION AND MAY BE WRONG IT IS JUST BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OR EXPERIENCE

 

Read my latest claim its a fast track potentially

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/61406-noobrider-abbey-take-2-a.html?highlight=noobrider

 

read my first claim which includes attending a directions hearing in court

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/10576-noobrider-abbey.html?highlight=noobrider

Link to post
Share on other sites

"However, having reviewed the schedule of charges supplied under cover of your email dated 6 July 2006, we note that your claim includes various charges which were incurred more than 6 years before the date on which you issued your claim (13 June 2006). We would point out that you are prevented from reclaiming these charges by the Limitation Act 1980.

In particular, you are not able to reclaim the charges you have listed as incurred during the period 30 September 1999 to 30 May 2000."

 

From Seminole's post.

 

How does this leave the argument that we may be able to go back further than 6 years? - see Bankfodder's thread in "general".

Are you going to try and argue against this? That the banks were deceiving you as to the true costs of the charges?

I ask because I am interestd in going back beyond six years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"However, having reviewed the schedule of charges supplied under cover of your email dated 6 July 2006, we note that your claim includes various charges which were incurred more than 6 years before the date on which you issued your claim (13 June 2006). We would point out that you are prevented from reclaiming these charges by the Limitation Act 1980.

In particular, you are not able to reclaim the charges you have listed as incurred during the period 30 September 1999 to 30 May 2000."

 

From Seminole's post.

 

How does this leave the argument that we may be able to go back further than 6 years? - see Bankfodder's thread in "general".

Are you going to try and argue against this? That the banks were deceiving you as to the true costs of the charges?

I ask because I am interestd in going back beyond six years.

 

It makes no difference to the argument whatsoever; Seminole is retaining the right to question that the SoL applies in his case... he hasn't challenged that yet. All he's done is say "please give me my money back". They've said "You can have SOME of it". The real fight (if Seminole chooses to fight it) comes later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick update: Filed estimated £5,000 claim today at Clerkenwell county court.

If you dont mind me saying your finances must have been in a real mess to claim back the level of charges you have/are!!

 

All the best WHUFC X

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolute blinder :D Dare you to open an Abbey account with it:rolleyes: . Maybe not:razz: must take the weight off you a lot and wish you all the best.

 

Regards bish.

Abbey : £8070.41*PAID IN FULL*14/02/07:D

Capital one : LBA sent 17/09/06 £1,087.22

Marbles : LBA sent 17/09/06 £720.00 ; £720 offer accepted:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you dont mind me saying your finances must have been in a real mess to claim back the level of charges you have/are!!

 

All the best WHUFC X

 

They were, I make no bones about it. However, it was partly (and only partly) cause by the unlawful charges imposed by Abbey amongst others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW!!!!

 

Well Done.

.

Barclays - £268 - Moneyclaim

Capital One - £172 - Moneyclaim

Abbey (2nd claim) - Moneyclaim

---------------------------------------------------

 

HSBC - £2164.46- PAID IN FULL

MBNA - £471 - PAID IN FULL

NatWest - £307 - PAID IN FULL

Abbey Business - £314.15 - PAID IN FULL

Link to post
Share on other sites

They were, I make no bones about it. However, it was partly (and only partly) cause by the unlawful charges imposed by Abbey amongst others.

Thanks to this site both my wife and I have sent our first lettes out!! Watch this space!!

 

All the best WHUFC

Link to post
Share on other sites

WELL DONE. THIS MAKES ME MORE DETERMINED.

;) nn

FAQs: click here: http://READ THESE

 

Any views or opinions expressed are in good faith, to the best of my ability. I don't like to admit it, but I have been known to be wrong. Check other threads and if in doubt, seek professional advice.

 

 

Abbey: SETTLED IN FULL:lol:

BoS M/card SETTLED 27/09:lol:

Aqua CC (Halifax) SETTLED 28/06 :lol:

GMAC Request for refund 14/6; Prelim 31/7; LBA 11/9

First National Mortgage Data Protection Act sent 14/6 Statements 26/7

Cap 1 - SETTLED IN FULL:lol:

Abbey x 2: 50% offer refused AQ filed

Link to post
Share on other sites

wow Congratulations Seminole!!!

NatWest - Settled in full 22/05/06

 

RBS- Prelim sent 9/05/06 £1,147

£500 offer 27/05/06, rejected 30/05/06

LBA sent 25/05/06 :razz:

MCOL 15/06/06

Defence received 20/07/06

Settled in full 01/09/06 wahey!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

fantastic news, well done

Halifax Current Account - Claiming Over £2k

Halifax Card Services - Claiming Over 1K

Capital One - Settled

Citi Cards - Claiming Over £1k

Abbey National - Claiming Over 3K

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic!

 

I bet you are still grinning!!

 

great work.

.

.

.

Sign the Phil Whitmore petition: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/PAYUSBACK/ :)

 

 

Abbey Current Account claim for charges £1307.11

 

26/01/07 Awaiting court date

25/01/07 Courts lost my file!! Said it will be sorted soon

23/11/06 Defence recieved from Abbey

20/11/06 Statements a full 6 years received

16/11/06 AQ completed & submitted

30/11/06 Claim number 6SQ06250 recieved from courts

24/10/06 Claim submitted to courts x3 copies

21/08/06 Prelim letter asking for it back, sent to Pam Speed. 14 days up 05/09/06.

21/08/06 Data Protection Act non compliance letter sent. 7 days up 29/08/06

11/07/06 Reply to Pam Speed Data Protection Act fob off letter.

10/07/06 Data Protection Act fob off letter received from Abbey. dated 06/07/06.

29/06/06 Data Protection Act statement request sent

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seminole - how many more days before the cheque arrives..? I am waiting to hear the 'end' of the story....

Abbey - 547.00 settled in full.

Second claim: £204 WON.

Barclaycard - 142.88 incl interest due WON BY DEFAULT as they didn't even bother entering a defence. Barclaycard paid up £184.88.

 

MBNA - Concluded £634.31

Capital One Concluded £148

Kinda disappointed I've no more banks to go after now...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations, Seminole:-D. Mine won't be as much but I'm looking forward to it just as much - they've got until 1st August for DPA statements (only got back to 2004 at mo!).

Wanabee:cool:but easily :confused:ed!!

23/6 Data Protection Act + £10

6/7 Pam Speed ltr

7/71 yr sttmts (2nd a/c) Faxed auth. 4 £10m'fiche

9/7 Screen prints 1 1/2 mths 1st a/c/2 1/2 mths 2nd a/c

11/7 20 mths sttmts 1st a/c

25/7 DPA reminders

1/8 40 DAYS UP & NOTHING

5/8-8/9, 7/8 3 "sorry not happy"/"m'fiche not covrd"ltrs

9/8 IFO form & backup mat'l

10/8 LBA/calcs 2 Dawn Hoyle

CHECK COPY STMNTS - DON'T HAVE CHARGES AT FRONT

12/8 a/c info fm 2001

18/9 £505 GWP offer

26/9 Rej. ltr/7 days 2 court action (1st a/c)

10/10 Moneyclaim form online (1st a/c)

20/10 Ack of Serv rec'd

3/11 AQ 2 court

20/11 Abbey AQ @ court

4/1/2007 Preliminary court hearing due

30th Dec. 2006 REC'D FULL PAYMENT INTO BANK ACCOUNT - ABBEY's WITHDRAWN!!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheque for £10,235.37 received today and being paid in tomorrow :D

 

I said I would share some thoughts about this and here they are.

 

We know that Abbey don't have the stomach for a fight. They prevaricate, they delay, they behave obnoxiously but when you get them into a corner, they invariably give up. Normally they say that they it's not "commercial" for them to defend a small claim because they couldn't recover their costs. I believe that their surrender in my case proves that this is a lie.

 

First of all this was a big claim. It was way over the small claims threshold and opened up the possibility of fast or multi track allocation. If they had the stomach for a fight they could have recovered some or all of their costs. They copped out.

 

Having said that they did go through the motions of filing a defence. What really seems to have paniced them was the threat of a declaration that the charges were unlawful. I deliberately left the timeline in the thread a little vague but Abbey offered settlement within two working days of receiving my email. They knew that a combined money claim and declaration would mean that either the claim would end up in court or they would have to pay a much larger financial settlement to get it withdrawn. This is very similar to the Stephen Hone case and it goes to prove that, six months down the line they have been unable to come up with a defence to these claims that they are confident would stand up in court.

 

I am not for one moment suggesting that everyone should seek declarations as there is a risk in this. However, you can draw your own conclusions about how Abbey dealt with this claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pussycat, you have balls of steel, I would have been cacking my pants, well done and many congratulations once again:D

 

edit: you have changed your avatar!!!! do I have to call you the Prince of Darkness now :-)

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

go out and celebrate..... when the cheque clears that is dont want you going overdrawn.!!

 

 

well done!

if i have helped you at all click please the scales on top right!

 

ABBEY

11/4 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) SENT OFF

1/6 LBA SENT

22/7 LETTER SENT REQUESTING THEM TO REFUND CHARGES

15/7 STATEMENTS RECEIVED (ALL 6 YEARS WORTH)

20/7 CLAIM ISSUES IN OLDHAM COUNTY COURT.

8/8 CLAIM ACKNOWLEDGED GIVING THEM TILL 21/8.......

SETTLED IN FULL!!!!!!!

 

T MOBILE i won!

16/6 Data Protection Act SENT OFF

 

5/8 t mobile have failed to comply with the Data Protection Act/S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) reques ....BRING IT ON BABY!!

7/8 LBE SENT GIVING THEM 7 DAYS TO COUGH UP MY CASH

7/9 FULL REFUND BEEN SENT!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

One question though Semi, do you still have an account with them or did they close it?

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...