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.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

The announcement refers to Unauthorised overdraft fees, what about bounced DD fee's?

GE Money S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued 21/11/06. Responded 01/12/06. Prelim sent 05/12/06 £406. Response 12/12/06- **SETTLED IN FULL** (£396)

HSBC S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued 05/12/06. NO charges in last 6 years.

Lowell CCA issued 21/11/06. Further reminder sent 8/12/06. Now commited criminal offence no response.

Capital One S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 08/12/06 Responded 03/01/07-Prelim Sent 16/01/07. LBA issued 06/02/07- N1 served 07/03/07- acknowledged 14/03/07.

Scotcall CCA issued 16/01/07. Criminal offence committed.

HFC Prelim sent 16/01/07. LBA sent- Final Correspondance issued with time limit of 29/03/07.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

on channel 4 the banking representive specified that thiS action was for Unfair overdraft fees NOT PENALTY CHARGES

 

what's the difference?

 

when we don't have enough money in our account and go OVERDRAWN they make a charge (i see the point that the charge is for returning the payment and not going overdrawn).

 

what exactly are unfair overdraft fees and why does this not apply to charges?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The announcement refers to Unauthorised overdraft fees, what about bounced DD fee's?

 

Anyone?

 

Also, did anyone else notice that despite the BBA woman stating they wanted to ensure consumers would get their say, the actual process will have NO consumer input.

GE Money S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued 21/11/06. Responded 01/12/06. Prelim sent 05/12/06 £406. Response 12/12/06- **SETTLED IN FULL** (£396)

HSBC S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued 05/12/06. NO charges in last 6 years.

Lowell CCA issued 21/11/06. Further reminder sent 8/12/06. Now commited criminal offence no response.

Capital One S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 08/12/06 Responded 03/01/07-Prelim Sent 16/01/07. LBA issued 06/02/07- N1 served 07/03/07- acknowledged 14/03/07.

Scotcall CCA issued 16/01/07. Criminal offence committed.

HFC Prelim sent 16/01/07. LBA sent- Final Correspondance issued with time limit of 29/03/07.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The most interesting thing about this is what the case DOESN'T cover. it covers the UTCCR and common law arguments that current cases rely on. it DOESN'T cover the unfair relationship terms of CCA 2006.

 

In effect, if the banks win, the result of the case will be void before the high court reaches its verdict.

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

Martin Lewis was present to respond to the woman who was present from the banking ombudsman.

 

Interestingly, he said that unless the banks refunded all penalty charges automatically as a result of this case then the OFT and FSA may have helped the banks in halting all claims until the test case is over.

Advice offered by ENRON is without prejudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received an email from FOS - everyone claiming should read the this OFT and banks etc going to High Court - see link

 

FAQs complaints about bank charges

 

Below is text of email

 

 

ombudsman agrees that High Court "test case" is necessary - to settle legal uncertainty on unauthorised overdraft charges

26 July 2007

In light of the agreement announced today between the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and a number of representative banks - to take a "test case" to the High Court about unauthorised overdraft charges - the ombudsman service has confirmed it will put on hold its own work on complaints about these charges, pending the outcome of the legal proceedings.

The law is one of the issues that the ombudsman has to take into account when making decisions on individual cases - and this important "test case" involving OFT and the banks is expected to give vital clarity on the key issues of law involved in disputes about unauthorised overdraft charges.

Responding to the news about the proposed High Court "test case", Tony Boorman, principal ombudsman, said today:

  • "This year the ombudsman service has been dealing with tens of thousands of enquiries and complaints about bank charges - and county courts across the UK have similarly been coping with significant volumes of bank-charge claims."
    "In the cases that the ombudsman service has settled so far, all disputed unauthorised overdraft charges have been repaid - but on a voluntary "goodwill" basis, without the ombudsman reaching the stage of investigating the merits of the legal issues. Meanwhile, cases heard in the county courts have so far resulted in a range of outcomes - with inconsistent and unpredictable judgments and no clear legal precedent being set."
    "So it's in the interests of everyone involved - consumers with current accounts, the courts, the banks and other current-account providers - that the High Court "test case" announced today should settle the legal uncertainties relating to the level, fairness and lawfulness of unauthorised overdraft charges."
    "We agree that it's also in the general interest for the ombudsman service to suspend its own work on complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges, while waiting for the High Court to make a decision on the significant legal issues involved."

It is expected that the decision by the ombudsman service to suspend further work on complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges will be reflected by a similar response by the county courts. For the county courts and the ombudsman service, the High Court "test case" should mean that very significant volumes of cases can be managed in a fair, cost-effective and orderly way. The ombudsman service's decision to put complaints on hold - while the key legal questions are answered - does not affect consumers' ability to bring complaints to the ombudsman about other banking-related problems, including financial difficulty or hardship.

To help with the fair and orderly management of consumer complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) has announced today that banks and other current-account providers can also put cases on hold, pending the "test case" decision. Once the law has been clarified, it should then be possible for these cases to be settled in line with what the High Court decides.

There is more information about how today's "test case" announcement affects complaints to the ombudsman service in the ombudsman's consumer factsheet on unauthorised overdraft charges:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/bank-charges.html

  • Haha 1

“It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if this works the other way- if they are taking legal action against someone when the debt includes a stack of unlawful charges?

 

It would really pee on the debt collector's collective bonfire if this could be used to force them to hang fire until after the test case....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, of course, this takes the heat out of the situation and relieves the Courts of thousands of pesky claimants.

 

By the time the test case is over, all the steam will have gone out of this campaign and the financial establishment will have had the use of our money for a further two years.

 

Very convienient.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Wild Billy

If we can't get payouts, doesn't it stand to reason that banks shouldn't collect "penalties" during this period either?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So listening to the programme and reading above I think this means.

1. Any claims relating to overdrafts will be held up

2. Any claims relating to credit card penalty charges will still be processed including bank credit cards!

3. Any penalty charges made by the bank on your bank account can still be claimed! Thought this is a tough one because it usually means you have went over your overdraft.

 

Advice required I think. :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive got my court date on the 6th of August, Ive filed my court bundles and everything...do you think that barclays will say naff off and wait until after the test case or what, I dont fancy waiting much longer now, its been over 6 months as it is!! My friend won the other day from barclays and got her full amount back..seems abit wierd that they would pay up until suddenly (when hardly anyone has heard a thing about it) they decide to suspend all refunds? Surely the judge would say eh hem cough up?

Cheryl :roll:

 

Barclays Account 1 ~ March 11th *WON* ~ £2600.00

Barclays Account 2 ~ Awaiting court date.

MBNA ~ May 2nd ~ £440 *WON*

HFC ~ April 3rd ~ £380 *WON*

HFC #2 ~ May 10th ~ £75 *WON*

Egg #1 ~ Pending

Egg #2 ~ Pending

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...