Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The firm has benefited from the AI boom, making it the third-most valuable company in the US.View the full article
    • Former billionaire Hui Ka Yan has been fined and banned from the financial market for life.View the full article
    • In terms of "why didn't I make a claim" - well, that has to be understood in the context of the long-standing legal battle and all its permuations with the shark. In essence there was a repo and probable fire sale of the leasehold property - which would have led to me initiating the complaint/ claim v SPF in summer 19. But there was no quick sale. And battle commenced and it ain't done yet 5y later. A potential sale morphed into trying to do a debt deal and then into a full blown battle heading to trial - based on the shark deliberately racking up costs just so the ceo can keep the property for himself.  Along the way they have launched claims in 4 different counties -v- me - trying to get a backdoor B. (Haven't yet succeeded) Simultaneously I got dragged into a contentious forfeiture claim and then into a lease extension debacle - both of which lasted 3y. (I have an association with the freeholders and handled all that legal stuff too) I had some (friend paid for) legal support to begin with.  But mostly I have handled every thing alone.  The sheer weight of all the different cases has been pretty overwhelming. And tedious.  I'm battling an aggressive financial shark that has investors giving them 00s of millions. They've employed teams of expensive lawyers and barristers. And also got juniors doing the boring menial tasks. And, of course, in text book style they've delayed issues on purpose and then sent 000's of docs to read at the 11th hour. Which I not only boringly did read,  but also simultaneously filed for ease of reference later - which has come in very handy in speeding up collating legal bundles and being able to find evidence quickly.  It's also how I found out the damning stuff I could use -v- them.  Bottom line - I haven't really had a moment to breath for 5y. I've had to write a statement recently. And asked a clinic for advice. One of the volunteers asked how I got into this situation.  Which prompted me to say it all started when I got bad advice from a broker. Which kick-started me in to thinking I really should look into making some kind of formal complaint -v- the broker.  Which is where I am now.  Extenuating circumstances as to why I'm complaining so late.  But hopefully still in time ??  
    • At a key lecture in the City of London, the shadow chancellor will also vow to reform the Treasury.View the full article
    • Despite controversy China's Temu is becoming a global online shopping force.View the full article
  • 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 5804 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 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Somebody has just told me, and this could be nonsense, that claims in progress could be suspended until the outcome of this is known.

Lloyds settled in full

£4010.02:D

 

Halifax CC settled

£417.00 :D

 

Lloyds PPI

£3672.15 Refunded off loan :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody has just told me, and this could be nonsense, that claims in progress could be suspended until the outcome of this is known.

 

 

Could they?

 

Both the court and FOS?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said it could be nonsense. I have not seen anything that supports this. I certainly hope not anyway

Lloyds settled in full

£4010.02:D

 

Halifax CC settled

£417.00 :D

 

Lloyds PPI

£3672.15 Refunded off loan :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the BBA's reaction:

Banks join OFT in test case to establish legal clarity on overdraft fees

 

26/07/2007

 

 

Tomorrow morning a number of banks and financial services organisations(1) are taking the initiative, working jointly with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and the Financial Services Authority (FSA), to ask the UK courts to clarify the legal position regarding bank overdraft fees.

Court process

 

Banks believe the fees customers pay for unarranged overdrafts are fair and clear. However, this is clearly an issue where customers, as well as the banks, would welcome legal clarity. This is why banks have joined with the OFT to approach the courts for a ruling on this issue. It is unclear how long the case will last as that will depend on the court process.

Working together

 

The banks have approached the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to agree a way forward to handle existing customer complaints. The FSA has agreed to issue a waiver(2), with immediate effect, to suspend the handling of customer complaints on this issue pending a decision by the court. Other banks who are not party to the court action will be applying to the FSA for a waiver and as such will be bound by the outcome of the court case.

What this means for the customer

 

The FSA has agreed that all existing or subsequent customer claims for refunds of bank charges will be recorded by the customer's bank or building society but any decision about potential refunds will be put on hold until the outcome of the court case. Offers which have already been made to customers will be honoured if the customer chooses to accept.

Banks will be writing to the UK courts requesting a stay(3) of all claims pending the outcome of this test case. The banks will be writing to customers with outstanding complaints advising them personally of their position.

Angela Knight, chief executive of the British Bankers' Association (BBA), said:

"Establishing legal clarity on the issue of bank charges is of paramount importance, not only for the banking industry, but for all customers now and in the future."

"The banks have always been firmly of the view that the fees they charge customers are fair and clear. The court case will clarify these points and provide certainty for customers and banks alike."

 

For further information, please contact:

Press Office (020 7216 8970 )

Out of hours contact (020 7216 8888 )

 

Notes to Editors:

(1)The BBA's members involved in the legal action are: Abbey; Barclays; Clydesdale; HSBC; HBOS; Lloyds TSB; Royal Bank of Scotland/NatWest; and Yorkshire banks; and Nationwide Building Society.

(2) The FSA this morning issued a press release announcing the details of this waiver. This can be downloaded from the FSA website (see link below).

(3) Banks will apply for a Stay of Proceedings on all current and pending cases to the Master of the Rolls for England and Wales, to the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland and to the Sheriff Courts in Scotland.

Related Links

 

FSA website (External Link)

OFT website - questions & answers (External Link)

Link to post
Share on other sites

To what stage should we continue upto? The LBA still to be sent in or just the first letter? Also how long do we think until this case goes to court? (i appreciate this may be guess work at moment but hopefully somebody with more experience than myself will be able to make an educated estimate)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just read the Notice at the top of this forum

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/announcement.php?f=11&a=107

 

Does this mean that ALL claims are now suspended ?? :eek:

OR is there are date when this suspension of claims comes into effect ?? :mad:

 

Oh dear, or dear - this could take ages (years even, knowing how quick the OFT are [NOT])

 

What happens next ??

If you think this post has been of help, please click on my SCALES on the left - thanks :-) :-x

 

Peter Anderson

Me Vs Morgan Stanley - WON £490

Me V's LTSB - Private & Bus Acc - £18.8k (since Oct1997)

inc: S.69 Interest (and growing daily) -;)

Please remember to DONATE when you have WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

How the OFT works

So why is it the OFT have taken the plunge now?

 

Could it possibly be related to the two threats of legal action looming over

them for not taking action sooner? I rather think it could.

 

Here's their record on default charges so far:

 

Credit cards - April 2006: ''We wanted to bring about a swift change across the whole market in the shortest possible timeframe''

 

Bank charges - April 2007: ''There is no quick fix''

 

Bank charges - July 2007: ''The OFT considers that a quick determination of this point of principle will assist in securing a clear and orderly resolution of the fairness of these charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

does it apply to all banks and for both current accounts and credit cards or only the banks listed as "Abbey; Barclays; Clydesdale; HSBC; HBOS; Lloyds TSB; Royal Bank of Scotland/NatWest; and Yorkshire banks; and Nationwide Building Society"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made a claim with the bank but just about to take my court docs to court tomorrow, so do I still do this as well

 

I've had all the normal 'push offs' and time wasting bits

 

Including some brand new T&C's today that don't mention charges

 

It's now "Advanced overdraft service fees", and "Instant overdraft fees" ?? this is the Abbey

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the bit about banks "working closely" with the OFT.

 

They are being dragged kicking and screaming into the High Court.

 

"Working closely" in the same way as any other dodgy trader does when he gets collared by Trading Standards.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...