Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

"The OFT recognises the desirability of achaiving a fair and orderly resolution of the relevant issues and will not object to any request or application for a stay of any court proceedings between banks and their customers concerning the relevant terms/charges."

 

Thanks OFT so no way we are going to get these stays lifted

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

"The OFT recognises the desirability of achaiving a fair and orderly resolution of the relevant issues and will not object to any request or application for a stay of any court proceedings between banks and their customers concerning the relevant terms/charges."

 

Thanks OFT so no way we are going to get these stays lifted

 

That's not up to the OFT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

my typings c*#p :(

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

 

Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not up to the OFT.

 

 

I know, but they could have put pressure on the FSA to overturn their decision in the light of their mission statement:

 

The OFT is responsible for making markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand why some people are finding this thread a little defeatist, but there are some of us that can't afford to wait two months for OUR money to be returned let alone two years.

 

For us - this decision is as good as a loss. I'll be bankrupt before any decision. Look at how many cases we've won - The OFT/FOS/FSA were not needed here - at least not if they were going to award such a one-sided waiver.

 

It's a disgrace. There's something fishy going on, and it makes me mad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, but they could have put pressure on the FSA to overturn their decision in the light of their mission statement:

 

The OFT is responsible for making markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive.

 

That's not up to the FSA either.

 

ONLY a judge can decide whether to stay a case, and/or grant or lift a stay. That's the long and short of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should be looking at the bigger picture.

 

If they were found to be unfairly charging customers by the court, and the test case proved to be a precedent for all subsequent claims, then the banks would have to stop charging customers immediately.

 

So how would they then make the money lost through not charging customers unauthorised overdraft fees etc?

 

I believe this is a carefully planned tactic by the banks to give them plenty of time to implement new ways of banking, charging customers in other ways to make up the lost revenue in not charging unauthorised overdraft charges etc.

 

So the outcome of this case really does not matter to them, maybe a slightly better outcome if they win, but regardless of that i believe we will ALL be banking under new terms and conditions with these banks in 2 years time.

 

Banks are smartarses, and i don't believe for one second they are not doing this without having a carefully thought about PLAN B.

 

They never put all their eggs in one basket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well i'm going home having just seen 15K slip through my fingers. Booked a holiday for the kids to Lapland on the strength of it.

 

How stupid can one get? I'll have to cancel now.

 

After several successes and with what I thought was another £10k on its way, I had also promised myself a holiday. Gutted.

All comments are my personal views - if in doubt then seek professional advice. If you think i've helped then please tip my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

only a judge can decide if the stay stands or not...He can also put conditions on it and the application in my last post argues a pretty good case for conditions. It's worth a try people and those with overdrafts would have them technically frozen.

 

The OFT has no jurisdiction on a judge and he may feel that if the banks have got a freeze on litigation then the claimant should have a freeze on his charges till the dispute is settled.

 

:!:

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

 

Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

If only people could think as one we could bring these ****es (the banks ) to their knees. Mass closure of bank accounts or everyone putting their money into a post office account.

 

Its only a few of the big banks that lead the pack

Barclays

RBS

HFSC

LLyodds

and proberbly a few others

 

Going for less known banks,

 

If only

The Waiver is an FSA Conspiracy with the banks against the consumer - Complain to your MP and the FSA about their shameful act!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is the difference between claiming your bank charges and claiming your credit card charges?

Surely its the same principle behind them both, so why can you still claim cc charges whilst the test case is in progress.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is the difference between claiming your bank charges and claiming your credit card charges?

Surely its the same principle behind them both, so why can you still claim cc charges whilst the test case is in progress.

 

Peter have you not read the OFT statement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

With referrence to my post no.359 in this topic.

 

The more i think about it the more i am certain the banks probably don't even expect to win this case. This is just a great way for them to implement their new terms.

 

They know they haven't got a leg to stand on regarding this, because if they did they would have gone to court a long time ago, and saved themselves a great deal of money.

 

So for everybody not making a claim yet, don't delay, claim today. The banks are in the wrong and they know it, they know they will never win this test case, and they are using it as a delay tactic to bring in their new terms and also hoping that this test case news will stop many people from claiming their money back.

 

So don't let them get away with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is I don't reckon anyone is stopping their claim - it's the FSA that is stopping us claiming!!!

 

Of course we want to continue...that's the point. We can't.

 

Im talking about people who haven't yet made a claim really, and could be thinking otherwise, because i bet there are a few of them.

 

Unfortunately, we have just got to chew the fat for a while, well quite a while in actual fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if this has already been posted but it is the statement from the FSA website.

 

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) today (Friday 27 July) issued a 'waiver' from its complaints handling rules that apply to unauthorised overdraft charges complaints. This follows the decision by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and some firms to initiate a test case in the High Court to resolve legal uncertainties on the application of the law to these charges.

This action means that, until the test case is resolved, any bank or building society that applies for the waiver will not be required to handle complaints relating to unauthorised overdraft charges within the time limits set out in the FSA rules. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has adopted a similar approach and the county courts are expected to follow.

Clive Briault, Managing Director, Retail Markets, said:

"The FSA supports the test case on unauthorised overdraft charges as the current situation does not provide certainty or consistency for consumers or firms.

"We have granted the waiver to help facilitate this test case. We believe it is not in the interests of all consumers for complaints to continue to be dealt with in the current inconsistent way. Once there is certainty on these charges, complaints can be dealt with fairly and consistently. To ensure consumer protection we have imposed a number of conditions on the waiver that firms must adhere to."

The conditions in the waiver include dealing promptly with complaints once clarity is achieved and communicating clearly with consumers throughout the process. The FSA also expects firms to continue to help their customers avoid incurring unauthorised overdraft charges in the first instance and to continue to deal with hardship cases.

The FSA will review the waiver in two months time to ensure, among other things, that firms are complying with its conditions. The FSA can also revoke the waiver at any time if it considers that the waiver is no longer appropriate, for example if progress on the test case is not being made or if a delay in the resolution of the test case is likely to cause undue risk to consumers.

The FSA will publish later today the results of thematic work on how firms are currently handling complaints on unauthorised overdraft charges. Practices varied across the visited firms, but in some the FSA found significant deficiencies and important areas of weakness in their approach. These included:

  • a failure to respond to complaints fairly and consistently; to address adequately the subject matter of complaints; or to ensure complaints are resolved at the earliest possible opportunity;
  • unfair closure of accounts, or threats to do so; and
  • false or misleading statements made to complainants.

Do we actually think the FSA will stick by their word? (ref: the highlighted para)

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 highlighed paragraphy is the OFT's get out clause, just in case the puplic kick off because of the way we have been shafted by todays decision.

The Waiver is an FSA Conspiracy with the banks against the consumer - Complain to your MP and the FSA about their shameful act!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...