Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If Labour are elected I hope they go after everyone who made huge amounts of money out of this, by loading the company with debt. The sad thing is that some pension schemes, including the universities one, USS, will lose money along with customers.
    • What's the reason for not wanting a smart meter? Personally I'm saving a pile on a tariff only available with one. Today electricity is 17.17p/kWh. If the meter is truly past its certification date the supplier is obliged to replace it. If you refuse to allow this then eventually they'll get warrant and do so by force. Certified life varies between models and generations, some only 10 or 15 years, some older types as long as 40 years or maybe even more. Your meter should have its certified start date marked somewhere so if you doubt the supplier you can look up the certified life and cross check.
    • No I'm not. Even if I was then comments on this forum wouldn't constitute legal advice in the formal sense. Now you've engaged a lawyer directly can I just make couple of final suggestions? Firstly make sure he is fully aware of the facts. And don't mix and match by taking his advice on one aspect while ploughing your own furrow on others.  Let us know how you get on now you have a solicitor acting for you.
    • Oil and gold prices have jumped, while shares have fallen.View the full article
    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
  • 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

Amex and advice


anthonyenglish
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6138 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

Hi all. I sent my letter notifying them of my charges and a breakdown of the charges applied on my card. Not a huge amount all told, £343, but something I would like in my account and not theirs. Today I got the letter shown below

 

..........

 

I refer to your letter received in this office on 21st June concerning the default charges applied to your account. Whilst I appreciate your comments, American Express maintains that the charges applied to your account were clear, properly disclosed to you and could have been avoided, provided you complied with the Terms and Conditions of its agreement with you.

 

In April 2006, the office of fair trading (OFT) issued its statement of position regarding default charges in Credit Card contracts, which considered default charges more than £12 to be unfair. In making its statement, the OFT identified legitimate costs for assessing default charges as including “staff costs, premises, telephone, letters and postage, IT systems, depreciation of assets related to running collection systems pre default notice, IT support and other central services such as human resources”. Had the OFT believed that a minimal sum of £1 or less represented a reasonable charge, no doubt it would have not set its threshold at anywhere near £12.

 

Following publication of the OFT’s statement and in line with its recommendation, American Express carried out an assessment of its default charge policy. Although the OFT’s statement position only concerned Credit Cards, American Express also voluntarily assessed its default charge policy in respect of Charge Cards. With effect from 1st July 2006, the default charge applied to American Express Credit Card accounts has been £8. This figure is significantly lower than the threshold set by the OFT and indicates the thorough and fair nature of the assessment carried out by American Express. However it does not affect the default charges applied by American Express prior to 1st July 2006 and therefore our previous default charges will not be amended

 

I trust this deals with your queries and that I have clarified the position of American Express.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Paul Greenfield

Executive Customer Relations Manager

 

..........................

 

OK iy looks like they don't want to play ball. I have not seen too many Amex stories on here and so wondered if anybody has had any joy with this lot. I must admit that they are very quick to respond.

 

My points are that it isn't about if Amex feel their charges are fair, I thought it was about the charges being illegal. All but one of my charges were before the lower rate was introduced. Also, by their own admission, their costs are now £8 regarding late payments. If this is the case, then surely their previous charges were unfair and so illegal.

 

Also, it is worth noting that they recently changed things with their card regarding missed payments. I missed a payment in September and was charged £8. Then in January, they increased my APR to 25.9%. I had £2.5k on the card and so could not pay it off. This means that since then I have paid an extra £20 per month due to the higher APR. I have asked them when it would be reviewd and they are not prepared to look at it for another 4 months. So over a year this would amount to £240, plus the £8. I nice [problem] as far as I can tell.

 

Does anybody know what I should do next? Is there a stock letter which I should use to take this further?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Standard reply from Amex. See my thread Josie8v Amex - I received all charges & interest back fromthem.

 

If you've sent the LBA issue as soon as 14 days up. They will then make partial offer -refuse that then they'll give you full amount.

 

Then next step Is to Cca them under s 78. They may well not have a true copy of your executed agreement. if they default on request you can suspend payments & they can't charge interest etc. They are in criminal default with my request at moment!

 

Remember No CCA = No debt or interest charges

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey that was quick. I'll check out the link you specified.

 

Just one more quick question. The £343 is just the cost of the charges and does not include any interest. When should I apply the interest? Is it the standard 8%?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can reclaim all interest they have charged you on your charges & then when you issue claim 8% on both charges & the interest from the date each was applied to your account. So by messing round they will give you 8% extra on your claim (aren't they kind)!

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be appearing thinck here, so just wanted to check this.

 

My LBA letter should just ask for the £343 only.

 

When I make the claim at the courts, I should ask for the £343 plus the 8%? So I only get the 8% (making it up to £420) if it goes to court.

 

If, after my LBA letter and before the court step they offer me the £343 I should take it as I cannot ask for the 8% before that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope.........

 

LBA letter = 343 & any interest they have charged you on those charges.

 

Then when you issue claim add a further 8% from the date of each unlawful charge & interest deduction from your account

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...