Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Best course of action: Ombudsman or Court


bwdski
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6109 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

How are they "annoying sometimes"?

 

Can you explain further please

 

I was under the impression that they acted like a 'informal court', which are their own words.

 

But they do not make a decision based on the info you might provide, like a court does, but stick to their own remit. I submitted everything i could find on the bank paying charges + CI and they completely ignored everything, stating they only look at charges + stat 8% simple interest which the bank had offered. This is despite sending it to a department set up to look at things like what interest rate to apply, wasting about 6 weeks in looking at it again, and then only stating the same remit as before, so why waste time saying they will look at it again?

 

I have had 3 cases as above and have to settle at charges + 8% interest as the banks have offered that and i cannot take it to court now (would be only for CI).

 

On one complaint the bank offered me charges + compounded 8% interest and i agreed. The FOS then said the bank should have offered only simple interest and tried to get the bank to offer less, but in their own remit any offer the bank makes is binding on it, so i guess they can't do much.

 

I hope that explains how they can be annoying in that they stick to their own remit and won't look at anything outside it, so they're not really an 'informal court' but simply parrots following set guidelines.

 

The lesson is if you want charges + simple 8% interest then use the Ombudsman. If you want anything more then they are useless.

 

I'm not too sure how they are like on credit card claims or something more complex like defaults, s.78 or s85, PPI etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I wrote a preliminary to ationwide and got then standard letter fobbing me off and advising if I was not happy with their decisionto escalate it to the FOS which i promptly did enclosing a copy of Nationwide's letter, my prelim and a list of the charges plus interest. Sent recorded mail yesterday and now waiting. Hope I get a refund in time for my holiday in September.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that they acted like a 'informal court', which are their own words.

 

But they do not make a decision based on the info you might provide, like a court does, but stick to their own remit. I submitted everything i could find on the bank paying charges + CI and they completely ignored everything, stating they only look at charges + stat 8% simple interest which the bank had offered. This is despite sending it to a department set up to look at things like what interest rate to apply, wasting about 6 weeks in looking at it again, and then only stating the same remit as before, so why waste time saying they will look at it again?

 

I have had 3 cases as above and have to settle at charges + 8% interest as the banks have offered that and i cannot take it to court now (would be only for CI).

 

On one complaint the bank offered me charges + compounded 8% interest and i agreed. The FOS then said the bank should have offered only simple interest and tried to get the bank to offer less, but in their own remit any offer the bank makes is binding on it, so i guess they can't do much.

 

I hope that explains how they can be annoying in that they stick to their own remit and won't look at anything outside it, so they're not really an 'informal court' but simply parrots following set guidelines.

 

The lesson is if you want charges + simple 8% interest then use the Ombudsman. If you want anything more then they are useless.

 

I'm not too sure how they are like on credit card claims or something more complex like defaults, s.78 or s85, PPI etc.

 

So you got your money +8% interest back?

 

Isn't that what we're asking for?

Or at least, that's what the interest calculator works out for us.

 

Another victory for the Ombudsman?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you got your money +8% interest back?

 

Isn't that what we're asking for?

Or at least, that's what the interest calculator works out for us.

 

Another victory for the Ombudsman?

 

I asked for charges + unauthorised interest rate under mutuality and reciprocity (now dead) and fairness and balance as well as fair equity.

 

The bank offered me all the charges back before i went to Ombudsman, they then got me 8% interest and i refused, they looked at it again and said we can't help you more, so i've accepted the offers.

 

What i was saying above is that i had these offers way back in May (charges + 8% interest) and if the Ombudsman was not going to get me anything more, why did they waste my and their own time saying they'll look at it again? They would have known at the time that there's no use looking at it as it's not in their *self proclaimed* remit.

 

I'm also not happy that they tried to get the bank to decrease their offer (would have only made £50 difference) but their remit is to mediate and for me to accept or decline. They don't demand the bank to increase their offers, only make 'requests' which the bank declines, yet they want to demand a lesser offer to me.

 

(i said to an Adjudicator that the bank has offered compounded 8% which i am accepting, and she said they shouldn't do that, only offer simple 8%). Too late now as they sent me the offer in writing and i have accepted within the time stated.

 

They shouldn't be bothered what the bank offers as long as i accept or decline it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked for charges + unauthorised interest rate under mutuality and reciprocity (now dead) and fairness and balance as well as fair equity.

 

The bank offered me all the charges back before i went to Ombudsman, they then got me 8% interest and i refused, they looked at it again and said we can't help you more, so i've accepted the offers.

 

What i was saying above is that i had these offers way back in May (charges + 8% interest) and if the Ombudsman was not going to get me anything more, why did they waste my and their own time saying they'll look at it again? They would have known at the time that there's no use looking at it as it's not in their *self proclaimed* remit.

 

I'm also not happy that they tried to get the bank to decrease their offer (would have only made £50 difference) but their remit is to mediate and for me to accept or decline. They don't demand the bank to increase their offers, only make 'requests' which the bank declines, yet they want to demand a lesser offer.

 

I think that most of us would be happy with the charges plus 8% interest.

That's what we're going for anyhow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm happy as CI is difficult, but i'm annoyed they made me waste over 8 weeks to tell me the same thing as before when they have really not looked into it at all, contrary to what they stated before.

 

Each Adjudicator has their own advice on what to ask for (or not to ask) and really they have no idea i think and look to the bank to make an offer based on the 'formal investigation' stick.

 

They have stated in letters that there are no precedents in court or guidelines to follow so they cannot make an order against any bank, just requests.

 

I think they're keeping a balance of making both parties happy, where the bank gets to pay only 8% interest and not the extra costs and CI if it went to court, and the individual gets his/her charges plus 8% interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm happy as CI is difficult, but i'm annoyed they made me waste over 8 weeks to tell me the same thing as before when they have really not looked into it at all, contrary to what they stated before.

 

Each Adjudicator has their own advice on what to ask for (or not to ask) and really they have no idea i think and look to the bank to make an offer based on the 'formal investigation' stick.

 

They have stated in letters that there are no precedents in court or guidelines to follow so they cannot make an order against any bank, just requests.

 

I think they're keeping a balance of making both parties happy, where the bank gets to pay only 8% interest and not the extra costs and CI if it went to court, and the individual gets his/her charges plus 8% interest.

 

At the end of the day, I'd quite gladly wait 8 weeks to get my money back.

The Ombudsman have a 100% record so far.

Going the Ombudsman route is going to save a lot of paper and ink compared to going the court route.

 

Another reason as to choosing the Ombudsman... It's a "greener" option too... save a tree :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reason as to choosing the Ombudsman... It's a "greener" option too... save a tree :D

 

You'll need to balance the carbon footprint you use in the complaint by doing something positive elsewhere, like not driving during the period of the claim!

Link to post
Share on other sites

another clanger from the Ombudsman.

 

new case - they have asked the bank for information on how they calculated my charges and will keep me updated in 4 weeks time if i don't hear anything before then.

 

then they say i should let them know within 2 weeks if i am going to continue to use their service or take court action.

 

how can i decide to take court action if the bank hasn't replied to their, and my, request? only when the bank says Yeah or Nay and the Ombudsman says No Can Do will i decide what to do.

 

Are they trying to push me to court action cos they're so busy these days and why don't they do their job of actually mediating?

 

(and they did say the OFT has not set any charge for a default so there goes the banks £12 argument).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for clarity, will the Ombudsman award charges PLUS the relevant proportion of simple interest as originally charged by your bank (as calculated on the spreadsheets) plus (as a final resort) the 8%, or will he only award the charges + (as a final resort) the 8%?

Link to post
Share on other sites

FOS will only look at claims going back a maximum of 6 years from the date of your complaint.

 

They will ask for charges + interest charged by bank on these charges + interest at 8% charged by you on your claim.

 

They do no 'award' anything, just 'ask' the bank. This is because there is no legal precedent yet set in court for bank charges so they cannot say it is unlawful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any ideas on timescales, FO said they'd contacted the bank on 10th July, but heard nothing since?

Cheers

 

 

Ditto. And I received an offer of settlement from the bank, via the Ombudsman, yesterday that exceeded my original claim amount by 140 pounds.

 

If you haven't heard, it shouldn't be long. It will probably depend on the bank you are pursuing, it's not just the FOS timescales here, they give the bank 6 wks to reply to their request for information they need to carry out an investigation into the charges, if the bank does not respond within the 6wks the FOS will contact you and let you know.

 

I have a feeling you will receive an offer within the 6wks, as yet, the FOS has not had to investigate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to let you know, I've been offered my full amount via the FO £9922, not with interest, but considering what's gone on, I'm very happy with that! It'll take 6 wks to the banks paying up (why, i don't know , funny how it doesn't take an eternity for them to take it from our accounts!). Just thank myself lucky now!

Cheers

Tracy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto. And I received an offer of settlement from the bank, via the Ombudsman, yesterday that exceeded my original claim amount by 140 pounds.

 

If you haven't heard, it shouldn't be long. It will probably depend on the bank you are pursuing, it's not just the FOS timescales here, they give the bank 6 wks to reply to their request for information they need to carry out an investigation into the charges, if the bank does not respond within the 6wks the FOS will contact you and let you know.

 

I have a feeling you will receive an offer within the 6wks, as yet, the FOS has not had to investigate.

 

Thanx!

I had my letter from the FO yesterday, saying they had written to the bank, and the wait of up to 6 wks for payment. I really think myself lucky with now so many having to wait - bad decision by the OFT. They should have demanded the banks pay up existing claims, then new ones put on hold, after all they are supposed to represent the consumer.

Just hope the judges looking at this aren't in the Masons with the Banks :lol:

So whilst I'm obviosly pleased for me, the shine is taken off because if i had been one of the unlucky ones, I would have been so gutted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...