Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
    • Please provide advice on the following situation: I rented out my property to four students for 16 months until March 2024. Initially, the property was in very good condition, but now it needs extensive renovation. This includes redoing the bathroom, replacing the kitchen, removing wallpaper, and redecorating due to significant mold growth. The tenants also left their furniture on the grass, which is owned by the local authority. As a landlord, I've met all legal requirements. It seems the damage was caused by poor ventilation—windows were always closed, and heating wasn't used. There was also a bathroom leak fixed by reapplying silicone. I tried to claim insurance, but it was denied, citing tenant behavior as the cause by looking at the photos, which isn't covered. The deposit barely covers the repair costs, or else I'll have to pursue money claims, which I've never done before and am unsure about its legal complications or costs. Any thoughts on this?
    • The part in question was bought direct from Hotpoint (to replace a burnt door interlock and melted wiring). I'm unsure of the original retailer the machine was bought from, we're talking 5 years+ ago, but I can find out if absolutely necessary. It's one of the models that was listed on the recall list, but Hotpoint have stated for many years it wasn't an affected unit when given the serial number - I expect this is why they offered a FoC engineer visit because I sent them pictures of the (new ) burned door interlock.
  • 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 5814 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

So is it business as usual for basic account customer's?

 

The release says the OFT are looking into Current account charges

 

The OFT case doesn't affect credit card, PPI or business account claims. Business as usual for these- so enough to keep us all busy!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

So are basic account claims involved cus mines been stayed.

The oft press release only mentions current accounts.

 

Have i miss understood? Its possible

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Link to post
Share on other sites

So are basic account claims involved cus mines been stayed.

The oft press release only mentions current accounts.

 

Have i miss understood? Its possible

 

Despite whatever name banks put on them, day to day bank accounts whether basic or something more fancy are all current accounts. So yes, your basic account will be stayed because of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol a credit card is simply a bank account number with a fancy name on the card. They arent affected so why are Basic accounts?

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5th April 2005 the OFT announced that credit card institutions which did not reduce penalty charges to £12 (£16 for Egg) by deadline date 31st May 2005 might face court action mounted by the OFT. All credit cards complied by July 2005. This was a regulator ruling, not a court ruling. All court cases mounted by claimants over the past 2 years have been able to proceed because they were not in conflict with any OFT court action.

 

In April 2005 the OFT added that their £12 penalty ceiling also applied to banks and mortgagers, but all the banks and mortgagers laughed in OFT's face. Now virtually all Small Claims Courts have stayed cases of claimant-v-bank, because such cases would be seen as duplicating and some suggest contradicting the High Court verdict.

 

Credit card cases are currently able to continue unimpeded by stays, solely because the OFT has not yet announced a Test Case against credit card institutions.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But if this is all down to contractual terms isn't using the terms current account's in a press release misleading?

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Link to post
Share on other sites

This study follows an initial review carried out by the OFT into these charges. The finding of this initial review is that the OFT shares the public concern about the level and incidence of bank current account charges, but it recognises that the application of the general principles it set out in 2006 to the banking industry is not straightforward and that a more detailed examination is needed.

The decision to undertake a study reflects the OFT's desire to take a strategic approach to the examination of the fairness of these charges in the wider context of competition in the UK retail banking sector.

John Fingleton, OFT Chief Executive said: 'The UK retail banking market performs well in many dimensions, especially relative to international norms. However, the issue of bank current account charges is a matter of real concern to the banks' customers, and raises wider questions about competition and transparency of pricing. The initial scoping work we have undertaken has demonstrated to us that this is not only an issue for those people who are being charged, but also for customers who are not defaulting on their bank accounts.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres one for ya. The FSA Press release.

 

FSA publishes review of 'waiver' on the handling of complaints in relation to unauthorised overdraft charges

 

"The waiver we granted in July allowed firms to put complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges on hold until these complaints could be dealt with consistently and fairly. But it was important to review the operation of this waiver to ensure that it was working as intended. Our thorough review shows that it is appropriate for the waiver to remain in place.”

 

 

 

So direct debit charges are still reclaimable?

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

Stays will be considered on 22 May at a case hearing, the FSA has yet to announce any decision... so we wait;)

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked the FO this moring for advice on where we go now - reply posted below with obvious details blanked

Dear Mr xxxxx,

Our initial understanding of the High Court judgment is that it answers some of the legal questions about bank charges - but not all of them. And either side in the legal action - the banks or the OFT - might decide to appeal aspects of today's judgment.

So while we await further clarification, we will continue to keep complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges on hold.

We'll update you further as soon as we have more news.

yours sincerely

xxxx

Adjudicator

Financial Ombudsman Service

Tel: x

Fax: x

Link to post
Share on other sites

So surely now the FSA must put halts on all new bank charges until the OFT has reviewed what level is fair and not fair?

 

Today from the FSA:

The OFT and the banks will need to review the judgment and decide if they want to appeal. Also, the court has so far only looked at the preliminary legal issues. It has not begun to consider more substantive issues around whether the charges are actually fair and/or lawful. For now, firms can continue to keep cases on hold under the terms of the FSA waiver (PDF).
Link to post
Share on other sites

TideTurner: From my reading of the decision, that assessment is accurate only for the *present* T&Cs. The *historical* T&Cs operate on the breach-of-contract mechanism, unlike the present ones, and are thus subject to the common-law rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Chromatix, as I understand, the Judgement was lengthy and is currently being trawled through by both sides. Maybe then we will get a statement from the OFT as to how they intend to deal with complaints. I doubt it will be before 22nd May, maybe a few days afterwards if no appeal filed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...