Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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 
        • 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

Grant123 Vs BOS/HBOS.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6044 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

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

How are you Grant,

Any progress yet?

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you still looking for T&Cs?

 

Have you tried here?****Serious request please.****

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone

 

I have just received a Notice of claim form for one of my claims. Howard has until the 10th of September to reply.

 

Unless I've missed something, the form does not instruct me to do anything.

 

I take it the next step in the process will be if and when Howard files his defence or requsts a stay.

 

Back to sitting on thumbs, I think !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, that is exactly what it is.

 

So i think twiddling those thumbs might be a better idea..:eek:

HOW TO...DUMMIES GUIDE TO CAG...Read here

STEP BY STEP GUIDE...Read here

F&Q's... Read here

EVERYTHING YOU NEED THE A~Z GUIDE...Read here

 

Go to our Cag Toolbar Download page here

 

Please don't forget this site is run on DONATIONS If this site has helped in any way, then please give a little back. ;-)

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. All I know has come from this site. If you are unsure, please seek professional advice. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had noticed new avatar Grant, but didn`t want to be first to comment. LOL It is not only Thumbs that get sore DK

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great avatar grant..! So thats what you do on here all night...:D

 

 

Glad to see you found something useful to do with your thumbs!!!

  • Haha 2

HOW TO...DUMMIES GUIDE TO CAG...Read here

STEP BY STEP GUIDE...Read here

F&Q's... Read here

EVERYTHING YOU NEED THE A~Z GUIDE...Read here

 

Go to our Cag Toolbar Download page here

 

Please don't forget this site is run on DONATIONS If this site has helped in any way, then please give a little back. ;-)

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. All I know has come from this site. If you are unsure, please seek professional advice. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

You dont have to type it up. Have a look through this link and see if yours is the same.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/110071-urgent-halifax-defence-filed.html

 

There isnt really anything you can do now. Just wait to hear from the court.

HOW TO...DUMMIES GUIDE TO CAG...Read here

STEP BY STEP GUIDE...Read here

F&Q's... Read here

EVERYTHING YOU NEED THE A~Z GUIDE...Read here

 

Go to our Cag Toolbar Download page here

 

Please don't forget this site is run on DONATIONS If this site has helped in any way, then please give a little back. ;-)

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. All I know has come from this site. If you are unsure, please seek professional advice. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning all

 

The defence from Optima is the same as the one Kelvid received, here it is below.

 

I am correct in thinking the mainstay of their defence is that I agreed to the T and C's therefore the charges they make are fair game, And Also paragraph ten seems to say that they believe their charges are fair !!.

 

Any advice appreciated !

 

 

Here is how Halifax defence is worded:-

 

1. Save as is specifically admitted in this Defence, the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the POC.

 

2. It is admitted that the Claimant had an account with the Defendant, numbered XXXXXXXX & XXXXXXXX ("Account").

 

3. At all times, the Account has been subject to the applicable terms and conditions ("Conditions"), which form part of the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant and to which the Claimant agreed when he opened the Account. Under the Account Conditions, the Defendant is entitled to apply charges to the Account, inter alla and so far as is relevant to this claim, for;

3.1 each calendar month when a debit balance on the Account exceeds any authorised overdraft limit;

3.2 refusing to honour payment instructions issued by the Claimant where there are insufficient funds available for withdrawl from the Account (after taking into consideration any authorised overdraft limit);

3.3 honouring payment instructions issued by the Claimant where the overdraft limit has already been exceeded, or is exceeded as a result of honouring the payment instruction.

 

4. The Defendant will contend that the Claimant received a copy of the Conditions and the said Tariff Charges.

 

5. The Claimant appears to be claiming charges applied to the Account. By vitue of the Conditions referred to in paragraph 3 above, the Claimant was in breach of Contract and the Claimant became liable to pay fees to the Defendant in accordance with Tariff of Charges applicable at the relevant time. In accordance with the Conditions, such fees were debited from the Account.

 

6. Further or in the alternative, even if it is said that the Claimant did not breach the terms of the Conditions referred to in paragraph 3, the Defendant was entitled to Charge the fees in accordance with the Conditions and the Tariff of Charges applicable at the relevant time, and the charges were reasonably applied for the agreed banking services.

 

7. In view of the facts and matters referred to in paragraphs 3,4 and 5 above, the Defendant denies that the amount of £XXXXX or any amount was unlawfully debited from the Account and the Claimants claim for the repayment of that amount is therefore denied.

 

8. The Claimants contention that the said fees are unenforceable is denied. The fees reflect and are proportionate to the Defendants administrative expenses incurred due to the Claimants breach of Contract or in the alternative, it is found that there has been no breach of contract by the Claimant, that the fees have been reasonably incurred in accordance with Conditions and Tariff of Charges detailed in the contract.

 

9. Further, the Defendant denies being in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and or the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and that the terms and conditions satisfy the test of reasonableness.

 

10. Further or in the alternative, even if the said fees are not proportionate to the Defendants administrative expenses incurred (which is denied), the Claimant remains liable to pay such fees as may be found to be proportionate and the Claimant is not entitled to claim repayment of the full amount of each charge made to the Account.

 

11. No admissions are made as to the amounts claimed by the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the same.

 

The defendant believes that the facts stated in the defence to be true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...