Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi BankFodder, Stu007 This is correct BankFodder. Thanks for all the info Stu007, very interesting reading Regards
    • Seems as if Germany has their own version of Boris🤣   ”I know that some of you are impatient with my posts about German politics, and particularly my repeated pieces on our retarded Health Minister. I get that this can seem like inside baseball, and that all of you suffer under the very similar idiocies of your own Covid politicians. But, I just can’t help myself. Lauterbach is a special case, a truly monumental idiot who in his boundless incompetence and stupidity vastly exceeds his peers. It is my aim to make him the international symbol of pandemic derangement. I want pictures of this human incarnation of everything that is wrong with masking children and force-vaccinating millions printed next to future dictionary entries on Covidianism. We have seen the enemy, and it is this sad, stupid, Smeagol-looking loser, who thinks Eric Feigl-Ding is an authority and that clip-on bowties are fashionable.”     German Media Realise Their Health Minister is an International Laughingstock – The Daily Sceptic DAILYSCEPTIC.ORG The German media are waking up to the fact that their mask-loving Health Minister Karl Lauterbach is an international...
    • Guardian readers on here  trying to ignore this 🤣🤣🤣   “Was it my imagination, on Tuesday morning, that there were more than the usual number of possible Guardian readers looking down in the mouth? I don't think so. A few of them, with that hard-to-define but easy-to-recognise look of Guardianistas, appeared unusually pensive. Had some momentous event occurred that had made them question their prejudices? Later in the morning, I stumbled on a possible cause. There was an article prominently displayed in the Guardian print edition and on its website under the byline of the paper's Economics Editor, Larry Elliott. Its headline ran: 'I've got news for those who say Brexit is a disaster: It isn't. That's why rejoining is just a pipe dream.'”   STEPHEN GLOVER: Why won't the Tories trumpet the successes of Brexit when even the economics editor of the Guardian hails its benefits? | Daily Mail Online WWW.DAILYMAIL.CO.UK STEPHEN GLOVER: The headline of Larry Elliott's Guardian article ran: 'I've got news for those who say Brexit is a disaster: It...  
    • So I ask you –"when did you first have sight of this policy containing this exclusion?" And you answer – "when I brought the policy" And then I ask you – "what is the value of the damage your caravan has sustained" and you answer that it is probably a complete write-off    
    • Still waiting for the terms and conditions in a readable state please. Try reading what you have posted up on a telephone screen if you don't believe me.
  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Post in Some advice on buying a used car
    • People are still buying used cars unseen, paying by cash or by bank transfer, relying on brand-new MOT's by the dealer's favourite MOT station….
      It always leads to tears!
      used car.mp4

       

       
    • Pizza delivery insurance.mp4


       

       

       

      Parcel delivery insurance 1.mp4
        • Haha
      • 2 replies

Let battle commence :-)


Shanks
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6379 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

My prelim letter went of last month and I heard nothing, so my LBA was sent this week and I have now had a response to the prelim!

 

This is regarding an instituition not yet mentioned by anyone I can find on here so I will keep their name out of it for the moment - they will be named and shamed by the end though ;)

 

Their response is a total refusal to pay any money back and a standard fob off based on the following points:

 

The charges help cover the cost for the whole banking operation and not just a specific incident of a unpaid dd or exceeded overdraft

 

As such they will not provide a breakdown of the costs, I thought that they were only able to charge what it has cost them plus a reasonable markup. They must know what it costs?!?

 

I entered into an agreement and their charges are clearly displayed and fair, and they have always acted lawfully.

 

This seems to be the line fed by all the other banks etc so I'll ignore this one.

 

The new OFT ruling only applies to credit cards default charges.

 

Does this make them exempt from the general ruling and principle of our claims?

 

So do I need to respond to any of this as they will by now be reading my LBA anyway? I am more inclined to just leave it and wait for the reply to the LBA before contacting them but is that my best option?

 

I am well aware that they may take it as far as the courts and I am more than ready to go that far if required.

 

Cheers for all the help, Shanks

Prelim sent May '06

LBA sent June '06

Fob off now rec'd to the prelim

Copy of fob off now rec'd as response to LBA!

Full repayment of all charges since 1997 now received.

Account Closed

Donation made :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Their response is a total refusal to pay any money back and a standard fob off based on the following points:

 

The charges help cover the cost for the whole banking operation and not just a specific incident of a unpaid dd or exceeded overdraft

 

 

Bingo! They lose.

 

They clearly haven't been reading their textbooks on the lawfulness of default charges - this reply on its own blows them completely out of the water. (In fact, the mods might be interested in seeing a scan of it, if you can manage).

 

You've sent the LBA, so time to wait and see, I think.

 

And name and shame - go on - there may be other customers of theirs on here waiting for some encouragement.

 

BC

Never knowingly underweight

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Bernard Coleslaw. It is one of those situations when you think you are right, but they do put that seed of doubt in your mind and after a while stewing on it you almost get convinced by their arguments.

 

But no more, as you say the LBA is now in so I wait with interest to see what comes next.

 

I will name and shame them when it is done but in the meantime if a mod wants to see a copy of the letter I am happy to scan one in for them.

 

Cheers

Prelim sent May '06

LBA sent June '06

Fob off now rec'd to the prelim

Copy of fob off now rec'd as response to LBA!

Full repayment of all charges since 1997 now received.

Account Closed

Donation made :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what you mean.

 

The particular point I quoted was an interesting one, as I'm sure that they cannot use the income raised from default charges to subsidise their operations - it should only be enough to cover any actual loss caused to them by your breach of the contract.

 

To get someone admitting in writing that the fee you've paid goes to fund their banking operation might be significant!

Never knowingly underweight

Link to post
Share on other sites

yup it seems to me that they have admitted the basis for the charges being unlawful! Should be interesting if it makes it to court.

 

You've sent them the LBA, and assuming you've given them 14 days to respond, wait the 14 days and then, if they haven't refunded you, issue a court claim.

 

If they respond but not with an offer, you've no reason to bother contacting them again - you;ve given them plenty of opportunity to pay up.

 

 

Good luck! (and I'm intrigues as to who it is now lol)

... a little

Mahala is a powerful thing ...

 

If you like my advice, please click the scales.

All advice is offered informally. If in any doubt, seek professional advice.

Barclays:claiming £908. Defence filed

Simply Be: settled in full

Abbey: Claim issued for DPA compliance order

GE Capital: Claim issued for DPA compliance order

Aktiv Kapital: Failed to comply with CCA disclosure. Debt unenforceable.

If this site has helped you, please make a donation to help keep it going.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bernard Coleslaw and Mahala, I have to say I was a little surprised to see that written down, but I wasn't sure enought to start laughing straight away :D (of course it hasn't stopped me now)

 

Mods if this is significant and you want a copy let me know.

 

Cheers, Shanks (all will be revealed soon, within 14 days perhaps....)

Prelim sent May '06

LBA sent June '06

Fob off now rec'd to the prelim

Copy of fob off now rec'd as response to LBA!

Full repayment of all charges since 1997 now received.

Account Closed

Donation made :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

:D:rolleyes: Talk about burying your head in the sand. I got a response to my LBA this morning. It said nothing more than "please find a copy of my earlier response", i.e, the reply they made to my prelim. Oh yes and the obligatory "here is a copy of our Service Promise" :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

They just don't get it do they?

 

Oh well, onwards towards the end of the 14 day notice then MoneyClaim here we go.

Prelim sent May '06

LBA sent June '06

Fob off now rec'd to the prelim

Copy of fob off now rec'd as response to LBA!

Full repayment of all charges since 1997 now received.

Account Closed

Donation made :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which bank is this with?

  • Confused 1

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a response from my bank, sadly not offering anything but just repeating their stance about "all we've done is legal and according to our t&c's etc etc

 

But I did notice one thing... I have all my statements and added the charges up and came to over £1000, I have rechecked them and they come to the same figure. In their response they have stated that in the last 6 years I have had only £320 odd put to me in charges. I have counted from May 2000 to when I sent my prelim.

 

I have added the "Account Charges" along with the interest charged if i was forced into overdraft, as displayed in the spreadsheet. I have checked and rechecked these amounts.

 

Given that I had all the statements I didn't worry about getting the dpa info from them. Do you think this is just an effort on their part to reduce the liabiliy or have they made a mistake? Should I pick them up on this or just let the courts decide based on my statements?

 

I guess it might be my error but I have one statement dated Aug 2000 with over £300 charges and another one dated Sep 2000 with £280 charges. Just those two take me well above their listed figure without any of the other smaller months figures. So I amconfused as to where they get their listed fiugure from.

 

Suggestions anyone? Cheers

Prelim sent May '06

LBA sent June '06

Fob off now rec'd to the prelim

Copy of fob off now rec'd as response to LBA!

Full repayment of all charges since 1997 now received.

Account Closed

Donation made :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Small bump hopefully for someone's opinion :) ;-)

Prelim sent May '06

LBA sent June '06

Fob off now rec'd to the prelim

Copy of fob off now rec'd as response to LBA!

Full repayment of all charges since 1997 now received.

Account Closed

Donation made :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...