Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hmm yes I see your point about proof of postage but nonetheless... "A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid,  must be delivered either (Where a notice to driver (parking ticket) has been served) Not earlier than 28 days after, nor more than 56 days after, the service of that notice to driver; or (Where no notice to driver has been served (e.g ANPR is used)) Not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales." My question there is really what might constitute proof? Since you say the issue of delivery is a common one I suppose that no satisfactory answer has been established or you would probably have told me.
    • I would stand your ground and go for the interest. Even if the interest is not awarded you will get the judgement and the worst that might happen is that you won't get your claim fee.  However, it is almost inevitable that you will get the interest.  It is correct that it is at the discretion of the judge but the discretion is almost always exercised in favour of the claimant in these cases.  I think you should stand your ground and don't give even the slightest penny away Another judgement against them on this issue would be very bad for them and they would be really stupid to risk it but if they did, it would cost them far more than the interest they are trying to save which they will most likely have to pay anyway
    • Yep, true to form, they are happy to just save a couple of quid... They invariably lose in court, so to them, that's a win. 😅
    • Your concern regarding the 14 days delivery is a common one. Not been on the forum that long, but I don't think the following thought has ever been challenged. My view is that they should have proof of when it was posted, not when they "issued", or printed it. Of course, they would never show any proof of postage, unless it went to court. Private parking companies are simply after money, and will just keep sending ever more threatening letters to intimidate you into paying up. It's not been mentioned yet, but DO NOT APPEAL! You could inadvertently give up useful legal protection and they will refuse any appeal, because they're just after the cash...  
    • The sign says "Parking conditions apply 24/7". Mind you, that's after a huge wall of text. The whole thing is massively confusing.  Goodness knows what you're meant to do if you spend only a fiver in Iceland or you stay a few minutes over the hour there.
  • 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

Westy1 v Abbey


Westy1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6083 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

Early this year I received three cheques from Royal Bank of Scotland amounting to over £8,000 in settlement of my claim for unfair bank charges on three accounts. Spurred on by this I offered to help my daughter recover her charges from Abbey.

 

In February I sent £10 and the standard Data Protection Act S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) - they sent a series of acount charges, but only up to January 06.

A further request resulted in copy statements from August 2006 to close of account.

Telephone requests and assurances that the missing statements would be sent resulted in no further data being sent.

 

So I sent the Abbey a LBA on 14th. May - no result.

 

Finally, on 22nd. May I completed an N1 claim in the Whitehaven County Court for breach of the DPA. So far so good....

 

This week I received a copy of the Abbey's defence - it was a proforma.

As you might expect, they deny liability for unfair bank charges, but also claim that the missing bank statements are microfiched data and that this "does not fall within the definition of a relevant filing system" under the DPA. I looked around this site and found that in view of the Information Commissioner's ruling last year this was simply not true!

 

I have sent a further letter directly to the Abbey's Regulatory Compliance Department, informing them of the impending court action and giving them a final chance to comply - quoting the Information Commissioner's ruling.

 

Let's see what happens...

 

I think if they don't comply I should ask the court to strike out their proforma defence, as advised elsewhere on this site, on the grounds that it is a waste of resources since they have always settled before court in the past.... Failing that I think I have the necessary arguments to hand to put together the court bundle... Can't wait for the court allocation questionaire!

 

I'm also wondering if I should start a new small claim for the unfair charges now, just to get things moving on. I could use an estimate of charges, and when I get the missing data from Abbey I could submit additional information to the court.

 

Anyone else in this position? Anyone been to court with Abbey?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Westy

 

Hope you dint mind JonCris asked me to pop in and have a look at your thread, he is out of contact right now with respect to the forum.

 

Re your questions about Abbey and their non-compliance, if you haven't already done so make sure you have a copy of the ICOs letter regarding their view of both Abbey's and Barclaycards fiche systems.

 

Also check their website for guidance on what is and isn't a relevant filing system.

 

The CAG contact at the ICO told me ages ago they were revising the guidance to confirm their views about what is and isn't caught by the DPA in terms of relevant filing systems.

 

When i discussed this with her it was so wide as to potentially catch my companies personnel files which are buff folders with papers in, so fiche is definitely in!

 

In respect of the way forward, personally if they do not comply i would make a claim against them under Sec 13 of the DPA for damages (use your estimate of charges to determine the level of damages).

 

I have included a claim for non-compliance on my latest claim against abbey which is underway now. i am waiting for a court date sometime soon.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

So..... my claim continues.

Having received a rubbishy proforma defence from Abbey, I have served them with a S18 CPR request for information, to be provided within 14 days. I have also written to the Whitehaven County Court sending them a copy, and requesting permission to ammend my Particulars of Claim, so that I can now include a claim for the unfair charges.... well, they brought the matter to the attention of the court, not me, so it is only fair that they should provide me with the full information regarding their defence, in order that I can prepare my papers for court..... I think they'll fold, but I'm quite prepared to go the whole way if necessary!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Well.... now I have gone and done it!

Using the advice from this site I have submitted a ammended Particulars of Claim to include a claim for refund of bank charges which Abbey mentioned accidentally in their defence to my Data Protection Act breach claim.

I also sent in an application for strike out of Abbey's defence together with the suggested draft directions order, requiring disclosure of charges details etc....... all be recorded delivery to the bank as well as to the court.

Abbey have got themselves into a corner by not responding to anything I sent them. Now let's see how they try to get out of this one!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now what!! I got a letter from the Whitehaven County Court today:

"It is ordered that there will be an allocation hearing on 17th. September at...."

"And it is ordered that the Claimant should attend in person. The defendent may attend by telephone" (My italics).

 

So is this good news? Does anybody have any idea what I can expect at an allocation hearing? Why does the claimant have to attend in person, but ShAbbey can attand by telephone (Darned cheek!).

 

Can anyone help?

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW

 

Dont get to excited about the paint and the corner.

 

The court sonly interest is in seeing claim settled, either out of court or if it gets to court, with both parties taking part, unlikley i know.

 

I suspect Abbey will take it to an allocation hearing and settle shortly thereafter if they stick true to their form.

 

Re the strike out have you made a formal request using the n244 or just written in?

 

At the AQ hearing sexpect to see either a barrister or a solicitro from abbey and if there are any contensious issue i.e. charges over 6 years old or CI, they will ask the court to strike them out effecitvely.

 

For your part you need to go along and make your case for the claim going ahead in tact.

 

HTH

 

glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reassurance Glenn - I just wrote a letter to request a strike out. Shouyld I have used an N244? Should I check with the Court if the request is OK, or if they want me to use an N244?

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you really want them to strike out the defence then the best bet is to make a formal application i understand. However, there are potential dangers, although i think they are small, that if you got a hearing to strike out their defence they could ask the court for costs should you lose the application.

 

Generally as far as i can make out courts wont strike out unless they have extreme provocation.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

OoooooK.... So, I'll just leave things as they stand now and hope it works out alright.

I'm printing out the witness statement for the allocation hearing and all the other stuff the website says I should take..... but with a bit of luck the ShAbbey might settle when they receive copies of my statements etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Well, well.... This week I recieved the statements and list of charges I requested under my subject access request! Pity it is over the 40 day limit for such requests! I think Abbey are hoping that I will not be able to proceed with my court case against them because they have now complied, BUT they don't seem to realise that failure to comply with the 40 day limit is in itself an offence and that I can claim compensation (I think up to £5,000!) from Abbey for that in itself, and damages as the court allows.

 

They reminded me about the High Court case, but I wrote to the judge with new ammended particulars of claim, removing the request for an order to comply with the DPA, but claiming compensation and damages for breach of the Sixth Data Protection Principle, and with revised schedule of unfair charges now I have the actual figures to hand. I have asked him not to grant a stay due to human rights, etc.

 

Well, the Allocation Hearing is on 17th. September... and I'm all ready for it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on - we are almost in the top five of petitions! We have 23,119

Only another 3,000 names required to beat 26,006 for Ghurka pensioners!

Email all you friends and family.....

send them this link Petition to: follow the Bank Charges Reclaiming Charter, which aims to end both the current suspension of reclaiming & the financial misery caused by unfair penalty charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...