Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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
      • 160 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 5813 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

as we see with northern rock people will vote with their feet eventually

 

What a fiasco. I don't think we have the truth on what is actually happening with Northern Rock. The media are claiming that there will be more casualties and that NR are a 'small' bank. Also, details have emerged regarding a takeover by a bigger bank.

 

If this bigger bank has withdrawn any facility previously provided to NR, it will put NR on its knees and leave it wide open to a takeover at a bargain price.

 

The majority of people in the queues outside the branches were 50+, and looking to take out their life savings to place somewhere safer. Also, the facility to withdraw funds across the internet has been restricted, with the excuse that the website has been overwhelmed with such requests.

 

This cannot be down to bandwidth as the rest of the site is accessible.

 

Tomorrow will be a very interesting day.

 

Check the share price here free of charge.

 

Telegraph Shares & Funds

 

Tide

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

i wish it were barclays bank.i am supprised no one is taking their money out of them yet because they had to borrow but i can see NR biting the dust before the end of the week,and snooty M king the creep,will get his come uppance for giving his support,it makes you wonder if the other banks have asked to make it difficult for NR in order to purchase them for nothing POLITICAL manouvers afoot.is MR M KING the same Person who was once at BA when FREDDIE LAKER bit the dust because all this has the same hallmarks,MR K likes to fix Prices from what i can remember

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of points here, the first is that we are rapidly approaching a number of deadlines in the test case on the 28th September.

 

Also, the majority of the banks are due to release their 3rd quarter results.

 

This crisis has been blamed on the American mortgage market, and nobody has mentioned the fact that the banks cannot make the charges they used to, which will affect profits. AND they are being forced to repay charges they have made in the past. This will also affect profits.

 

Maybe there's a few profit warnings on the way, when banks cannot produce the results to match their forecasts.

 

This will start a further panic.

 

All eyes on the actual results.

 

Tide

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest littlesally
These are the banks that can request a waiver -

 

Abbey National plc

Barclays Bank plc

Clydesdale Bank plc

HBOS plc

HSBC Bank plc

Lloyds TSB Bank plc

Nationwide Building Society

Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc

 

I started to read this thread but it is so long ..... :D and a few threads joined so it is disjointed and difficult to follow.

I do have a few questions though ...........

I notice that Natwest is not on this list, is that an oversight? Or can't they ask for a waiver, if not why not?

 

Why are the banks still paying out on some claims if they don't have to?

Is it worth carrying on or better to wait until this test case has finished?

 

A little confused

 

Sally x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest littlesally
nobody has mentioned the fact that the banks cannot make the charges they used to, which will affect profits. AND they are being forced to repay charges they have made in the past. This will also affect profits

 

Tide

 

Just seen this and don't understand.

My bank is still charging me the same amount for going over. They call it a "maintenance charge" now.

And I thought the point of this case was to see if they will be forced to repay the charges, so I don't understand you saying "they are being forced".

 

Been out of the bank loop for a while so have missed a few things.

 

Sally x

Link to post
Share on other sites

I started to read this thread but it is so long ..... :D and a few threads joined so it is disjointed and difficult to follow.

I do have a few questions though ...........

I notice that NatWest is not on this list, is that an oversight? Or can't they ask for a waiver, if not why not?

 

Nat West is part of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group and they are on the list;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

...and even they weren't, the FSA allowed all banks not involved in The Test Case to apply for a waiver permitting them to opt out of the FSAs complaints proceedure pending judgement of the The Test Case, providing they agree to abide by it.

 

Which they all have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest littlesally
nobody has mentioned the fact that the banks cannot make the charges they used to, AND they are being forced to repay charges they have made in the past.

 

Tide

 

And anyone know what all that means?

Natwest is still charging £28 and if they are being forced to repay what is all the concern about?

 

Sorry if all that has been explained already, but have you seen how many posts there are on this thread!!?

 

Sally x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

 

Very much agree with nevos.

 

My own personal opinion is that the banks would much rather NOT have a test case that could lead, eventually, to them being forced to pay back a proportion, at least, of every charge they've ever levied without the need for Court action, and that the OFT would much rather NOT have to fork out vast sums of money taking their case through every stage of appeal. My opinion on this is very much strengthened by the Northern Rock situation - the Government has shown very clearly that it will do anything to protect the Banks from serious risk, and I am convinced that it will do the same thing with the 'Test Case'.

 

I believe that, eventually, some sort of compromise will be reached, probably full of grey areas, which will leave things pretty much as they are now! Sadly, though, until we know for certain there's very little that we can actually do apart from making our opinions known! One thing we can be pretty sure of is that any compromise will take as long to achieve as the Court process.

 

Just my opinion, of course, but would be very interested in what others think.

 

All the best - Adam.

  • Haha 1

I do my best to be helpful, but at the end of the day I'm not a professional - please seek further advice if you're not sure. On the other hand, if I have helped, please click my scales - thanks ;)

 

Current Claims (all for friends!) -

 

Abbey - over £4k - Court claim issued & AQ filed ('Tish vs Abbey'). Alloc'n Hearing 21 Sept - Claim stayed 29/8/07.

Cap One - just under £2k - WON (just over 2k!)('Tish vs Cap One')

Cap One - just under £1000 - WON (just over £1k) Nov 07 (JimmyBoy vs Cap One)

Lloyds TSB - £3.5k - Court claim issued, defence rec'd and AQ filed; Alloc'n hearing 7th Sept Claim stayed 29/8/07! (JimmyBoy vs Lloyds')

MBNA - over £1k for mis-sold PPI - WON - approx £1500(IpswichWitch vs MBNA . . .)

Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the responses I had back from the OFT, having sent the letter from this site.

 

(sorry it wont copy them over for some reason and they are too long too write).

 

In a nutshell they gave me the basic blah blah blah about why the test case was carried out and the waiver etc.

 

I then wrote and said it didnt answer my questions, and why was the banks allowed to continue charging their penalty charges whilst we were unable to continue with our claims, and how unfair and one sided it was etc etc.

 

and Mr Howards response was

 

"The consumer panel believes that the issue of bank charges during the interim period is one of the questions that should be addressed during the FSA's review of the waiver at the end of September. The panel will be consulted by the FSA as part of the review process and we will carefully consider the position of consumers faced with continuing to have charges levied whilst being unable to proceed with their court cases. Of course if the test case finds that the charges are unlawful, consumers will be able to ask for repayment of all unauthorised OD charges, including those levied during the period since the test case was announced"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jules,

 

That's all very well and good, but what about those who are experiencing hardship and still being charged whilst this is resolved?

 

Just got another bad taste in my mouth, and again get the feeling that those who were supposedly set up to oversee the industry are not powerful enough to take any action against the lenders to protect the consumer.

 

Will somebody please stand up and be responsible for this mess.

 

Tide

Link to post
Share on other sites

FSA are the BANKS/FINANCE CO SPIN DOCTORS they are the ones who put or paint a nice rosy picture as to how well they are looking after their consumers...ooops sorry i meant their PAYMASTERS BANKS AND FINANCE,,,has anyone any idea which judges will be used on the case,this will be very interesting one to find out,no doubt the BAnks etc already know who is who...

Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the responses I had back from the OFT, having sent the letter from this site.

 

(sorry it wont copy them over for some reason and they are too long too write).

 

In a nutshell they gave me the basic blah blah blah about why the test case was carried out and the waiver etc.

 

I then wrote and said it didnt answer my questions, and why was the banks allowed to continue charging their penalty charges whilst we were unable to continue with our claims, and how unfair and one sided it was etc etc.

 

and Mr Howards response was

 

"The consumer panel believes that the issue of bank charges during the interim period is one of the questions that should be addressed during the FSA's review of the waiver at the end of September. The panel will be consulted by the FSA as part of the review process and we will carefully consider the position of consumers faced with continuing to have charges levied whilst being unable to proceed with their court cases. Of course if the test case finds that the charges are unlawful, consumers will be able to ask for repayment of all unauthorised OD charges, including those levied during the period since the test case was announced"

 

The waiver has been granted to allow the banks to accrue enough interst on the charges in order that any claims they pay out are paid for by the interest.....the OFT will drop he case and we will continue to be able to claim for charges.

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 thought the OFT's response was very informative myself. Interesting that the consumer panel of the OFT will be consulted in the waiver review and not just the legal dept

 

 

It may be interesting, but it's obviously a load of crap.

 

Either the OFT's consumer panel is so powerless it has not been listened to and therfore its involvement is just lip service, or their policies are so far out of touch it's unbelievable.

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

Is it not interesting how the FSA have gone awfully quiet after I offered to take them to court because I am fed up of the bull's muck they keep emailing me in answer to my question.

 

I have asked them to explain how their waiver decision complies with their obligations under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 in that every decision they make to change the rules should be in the consumer's interest.

 

If they fail to adequately explain this, I have offered to let a Judge decide.

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

IMO this government will do anything to prevent any kind of financial run on NR, bank charges, no win no fee compensation lawyers and wage increases. Fragile economy with trillions in consumer debts.

 

Keep at them un1boy :)

Donate to keep this site open

 

Any help or advice is offered as just that, help and advice without any liability. If in doubt consult a legal expert or CAB.

 

Make Cash Flow Forecast

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...