Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • next time dont upload 19 single page pdfs use the sites listed on upload to merge them into one multipage pdf.. we aint got all day to download load single page files 2024-01-15 DBCLegal SAR.pdf
    • If you have not kept the original PCN you can always send an SAR to Excel and they have to send you all the info they have on you within a month. failure to do so can lead to you being able to sue them for their failure.......................................nice irony.
    • Thank you and well done  for posting up all those notices it must have have taken you ages.. The entrance sign is very helpful since the headline states                    FREE PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY in capitals with not time limit mentioned. Underneath and not in capitals they then give the actual times of parking which would not be possible to read when driving into the car park unless you actually stopped and read them. Very unlikely especially arriving at 5.30 pm with possibly other cars behind. On top of that the Notice goes on to say that the terms and conditions are inside the car park so the entrance sign cannot offer a contract it is merely an offer to treat. Inside the car park the signs are mostly too high up and the font size too small to be able to read much of their signs. DCBL have not shown a single sign that can be read on their SAR. Although as they show photographs which were taken the year after your alleged breach we do not know what the signs were when you were there. For instance the new signs showed the charge was then £100 whereas your PCN was for £85. Who knows, when you were there perhaps the time was for 3 hours. They were asked to produce  planning permission which would have been necessary for the ANPR cameras alone and didn't do so. Nor did they provide a copy of the contract-DCBL  "deeming them disproportionate or not relevant to the substantive issues in the dispute" How arrogant and untruthful is that? The contract and planning permission could be vital to having the claim thrown out. I can find no trace of planning permission for the signs nor the cameras on Tonbridge Council planning portal. and the contract of course is highly relevant since some contracts advise the parking rouges that they cannot take motorists to Court. I understand that Europarks are now running that car park which means that nexus didn't  last long before being thrown out.....................................
    • Hi,   I am not sure if I posted this already here but I don't think I did. I attach a judgement that raises very interesting points IMO. Essentially EVRi did their usual non attendance that we normally see, however the judge (for the first time I've seen in these threads) dismissed the notice and awarded me judgement by default because their notice misses the "confirmation of compliance" paragraph. in and out in 3 minutes (aside from the chat at the end with the judge about his problems with evri) Redacted - evri CPR loss.pdf
    • Just to update this. I did apply to strikeout and they did not attend the hearing. I won by defualt and the hearing lasted 5 minutes (court only allocated 15). The judge simply explained that the only matter he was really considering is if the Defendant could have any oral evidence to defend the claim. However he said he had decided that based on their defence, and their misunderstanding of law, and their non attendence he did not think they had any reasonsable chance so he awarded me SJ + Costs on the claim form + the strikeout fee. Luckily when I sent the defendant the order I woke up the next day to a wire trasnfer for the full sum of the judgement
  • 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

Office Of Fair Trading Test Case


Guest Wild Billy
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5877 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

Take it wherever we can get it maybelline ;) Well done Peter, keep on plugging away at him - just remember to run everything he says through the 'BS filter' as he's hostile.. :D

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

pressed before i finnished but the ICO have said that they aggree with the banks they do not want TRANSPARENCEY as this would destroy the Banks competativeness so as from now i beleive we are being sold down the river and this case will not go in our favour considering that the ICO are stripping away our rights under the banner of the FOIa and this has been happening since 1999

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Started to find out why and how HE knows; argued about Common Law as per the business claims, and how on earth van they win -what are they going to rely on to fight the Common Law stated case on penalties and "cloaked charges", then this guy goes all nasty, talking about US stealing their money and so on -

 

I was not getting anywhere"

 

"The banks are absolutely certain they will win"

 

They dont sound very convincing if this muppet lost his rag and started foaming at the mouth, now, does it?

 

I think you touched a sore point. In fact I think you shoved a red hot poker right up a very painful fact they cant get away with by blagging.

 

He most likely tells everyone the same yarn, "the banks are absolutely certain they will win- bla bla bla- snort". You caught him out. He chose the wrong guy to try and hoodwink this time.

 

(They dont like it up 'em, Captain Mainwaring.)

 

On the contrary, peteranderson, I think you did very well!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FSA don't have the power to grant a waiver anyway, so I am going to point that out to them.

 

The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 gives them their power and also sets the "8 Week rule." The act clearly states that the "Authority" (FSA) can only amend the rules if the benefit to the consumer is in proportion to the change.

 

Now, if we were to enter a legal case agains the FSA, can they prove that the benefit to us of having our claims not paid is in proportion to allowing the banks to keep charging?

 

Hope this makes sense.

 

Ok, so I am going to send a letter stating asking them to explain under what act of law they have granted the waiver:

 

 

 

Modification or waiver

 

148 Modification or waiver of rules

 

(1) This section applies in relation to the following—

(a) auditors and actuaries rules;

(b) control of information rules;

© financial promotion rules;

(d) general rules;

(e) insurance business rules;

(f) money laundering rules; and

(g) price stabilising rules.

(2) The Authority may, on the application or with the consent of an authorised person, direct that all or any of the rules to which this section applies—

(a) are not to apply to the authorised person; or

(b) are to apply to him with such modifications as may be specified in the direction.

(3) An application must be made in such manner as the Authority may direct.

(4) The Authority may not give a direction unless it is satisfied that—

(a) compliance by the authorised person with the rules, or with the rules as unmodified, would be unduly burdensome or would not achieve the purpose for which the rules were made; and

(b) the direction would not result in undue risk to persons whose interests the rules are intended to protect.

 

I am hoping that they will reply with something like the above.....we will see..

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

just a little something uni have a good read is the ICO diseminating the DATA PROTECTION ACT AND OUR HUMAN RIGHTS THIS SEEMS TO HAVE BEGUN AFTER 1999 AS CONTRACTS PRE 1999 ARE NOT TO BE PUT ON THE CRAs register until the ICO find a way round to make 40,million credit card files available and in their words they will put them on record anyway i think this perhaps may have something to do with the limitations act that is coming due in oct07 but look at this reference of what ive sent

EUR-Lex - Recherche simple

Link to post
Share on other sites

just a little something uni have a good read is the Information Commissioners Office diseminating the DATA PROTECTION ACT AND OUR HUMAN RIGHTS THIS SEEMS TO HAVE BEGUN AFTER 1999 AS CONTRACTS PRE 1999 ARE NOT TO BE PUT ON THE CRAs register until the Information Commissioners Office find a way round to make 40,million credit card files available and in their words they will put them on record anyway i think this perhaps may have something to do with the limitations act that is coming due in oct07 but look at this reference of what ive sent

EUR-Lex - Recherche simple

 

Thanks Patrick, I'll look over it.

 

You are aware though that the ICO have no power to act or rule against anyone though, don't you? And, that a Judge does not have to take into account anything that the ICO publish or say?

 

Theri responses to complaints are simpy their view on whether the DPA may or may not have been breached - thye are, yet again, just another completely toothless tiger and an utter waste of space!!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

shocked i thought they had the power ,but what i have found about them has been disturbing they are trying to get the other 40 million credit card accounts onto the CRA register and are going to do it regardless of any legislation i found it in their files and with some cross refrencing their it was this was a reply to the finance co and banks ...i will try finding it again today because that is a scandal of mammoth proportions all the data is pre 1999

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone

 

Have just received a letter from the court, telling me that my case is cancelled or as they put it the court is vacated on the 31st August 2007, but have informed me that the test case in supposed to be Jan or Feb 2008/:mad: :mad:

 

I somehow new this was going to happen, and am so annoyed at all the work that we have put ourselves through, but at least it is in the court line, so everyone keep going;)

 

If they lose in court we are quids in. I was just about to alter my figures on a N244 form and pay the court another £35.00 for the privilege, so I will hang fire on that one.

 

I think that they will do this as a matter of course now, but keep putting those papers through so that you are in the system and don't be down hearted we could come out smiling

 

Ta Ta for now

 

Jay

 

[email protected]

Link to post
Share on other sites

icon1.gifThe Stay - Here is the application grounds for the removal of the stay

 

 

If it is at the courts own initiative you may not have to pay the fee - worth checking

 

Jan

Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus:)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif

offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed

 

"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery

 

 

PROUD TO BE AN ORANGE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also in view of the Luton Courts ruling it's still worth applying to have the order setaside or in the alternative asking the court to order the bank to cease adding penalty & interest charges.

 

 

For automated systems this should give the banks something to think about as anything like this where they have to manually intervene will become a nightmare for them on a larger scale. Imagine having to stop and reverse any charges on certain accounts? - Love it, they give us enough grief!

Link to post
Share on other sites

would nt it be interesting to see the MINITS OF THE MEETING between the FSA/BANKS/OFT to see what led them to their decision of a stay...because some of the first words to be used was , this meeting was establish TRANSPARENCY as i see it this was dropped on further investigation of the wording to the OFT AND FSA when it changed TRANSPARENCY ,so the outcome will be excactly what the BANKS AND ALL OTHER FINACE Co want is that they as PAYMASTERS to the FSA want and demanded a meeting with a GOVERMENT DEPARTMENT(should nt their be some sort of minits to this meeting),FAIRNESS as long as its in their favour TRUTH as long as it suits them and JUSTICE AND CLARITY that they want your money without a court appearance without having to explain there charges/penalties...and for us to even to try to come to a consensious with pathetic attempts by some to ridicule others perhaps they are the one who are helping to pull the trojan horse into this domain who knows,everyone is entitled to an opinion

 

what I don't understand is why the OFT have entered legal action - tey could have just ruled that the bank's HAVE to provide evidence of how much the breaches cost, and then make a decision accordingly.

 

The FSA made a ruling about mortgage exit fees without having to go to court.

 

It's just the OFT trying not to be the bad guy!!! It's scandalous....

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they had much choice. Don't forget that it was the banks

that initiated the test case, not the OFT.

 

Really? If that is the case, why are the banks not the claimants?

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FSA have confirmed that the banks asked for the case. Some kind of

test case was inevitable so it made sense for the banks to initaite it and

therefore control the timetable, the agreement, the waiver and the terms and extent of refunds if the charges are proved unlawful.

 

I've no doubt the OFT jumped at the chance to be seen as being pro-active.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FSA have confirmed that the banks asked for the case. Some kind of

test case was inevitable so it made sense for the banks to initaite it and

therefore control the timetable, the agreement, the waiver and the terms and extent of refunds if the charges are proved unlawful.

 

I've no doubt the OFT jumped at the chance to be seen as being pro-active.

 

Oh, I see. I was under the impression that the OFT acted because people threatened them with legal action for failing in their duties.

 

I still don't understand why there needs to be a test case - the OFT should just tell the banks to give them evidence of the cost of the breaches.

 

And if this case rules in favour of the banks, it only means that the UTCRR are not releavnt, doesn't it? Not that the charges are actually lawful.

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, evidence from the banks to the OFT of how much breaches cost are not relevent untill there is a legal ruling on whether UTCRR aplies. Surely the application of UTCRR is the test as to whether the charges are lawful or not.

 

It is notable that the test case agreement does not include any reference to disclosure of the banks charge costs and will only come into play once the application of UTCRR is established.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a group hearing for many claims heard at the the same time in Leeds or Hull Mercantile Court in June. All the banks settled before they went into court.

 

CAG and Moneysavingexpert.com wheeled out a QC to defend some of them. He ate the bank's solicitors alive and spat out their bones.

 

All except Alliance and Leicester who defended and were ordered to provide evidence by the end of September.

 

It was clear to the Banks that Alliance and Leicester was going to suffer the same fate as all the others and lose, thus humiliating the whole Banking business in this country.

 

Thus, to delay the day of judgement and to save face, the Banks clearly pleaded for a case in an upper court whereby they could come to a "wee understanding" and save face, without the plebs ripping them apart in a County Court.

 

Hence the "OFT Test Case"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the A&L case was a stalking horse to test CAG and MSE. There may well have been discussions before this case, but A&Ls humiliation after getting all butch and saying they would defend, put the banks in a postion of having to do something and probably tipped the scales in favour of "coming quietly".

 

After A&L settled, no amount of handbags at dawn being threatened would have been taken seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...