Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The case against the US-based ride-hailing giant is being brought on behalf of over 10,800 drivers.View the full article
    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
  • 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
      • 161 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 5848 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

Just typical, I have been going through the posts here and am just as fed up as I was about to do N1 on Tuesday. I was looking forward to the money for christmas and had no. 2 claim ready to go.

 

I used to work in financial services and was involved with the pension mis selling and subsequent claims. Based on this, I reckon the banks are employing delay tactics and will seek as many facilities from the FSA as possible. I have no experience of the OFT but I have with the FSA and believe that if pressured they in turn will pressure the banks and may remove/amend the waiver.It will take a lot of people sending a lot of letters to both OFT and FSA highlighting the imbalance and requesting removal of the waiver.

As to the banks now undertaking more work to demonstrate the validity of the £30+ charges, I think this would have to be proven to have been in place historically.

The pension provider I worked for, knew it was going to have to pay big time and was basically Sh*tting themselves regarding what the FSA said and told them what they had to comply with.They wanted more time to deter people and to make interim offers and to buy time to generate the revenue from other lines of business so the impact was not too devastating.

Peoples main concern is the delay in getting a refund, if we all apply continued pressure to the OFT and FSA things should be sped up, it is good that a case is being heard, but I reckon the banks when they lose will seek favourable refund methods and stagger the money just to be awkward.

Not sure on this one but I imagine the FSA have a duty to acknowledge complaints as with any other organisation, imagine the workload if 100000 complaint letters needed replies every week?(all to be signed for)

On a positive note, the banks need to comply with whatever the FSA tell them to do, they may see this as a small victory but it is early days and no doubt they will seek further stalling of procedures.

I agree with Josie8 "What we now all need to do is try and devise a strategy to stop the banks benefiting from the stay and keeping on imposing penalty charges" - we do need t devise a strategy.

We need to carry on with the claims, object to any stays and apply pressure wherever possible. I think we need to act fast and email/post/call OFT and FSA repeatedly until we are heard. 80-90% of banking is with 7 banks in the UK - there is only so much "voting with your feet" we can do - we would just move to another bank in dispute and the musical chair banking begins, they won't lose out then.

We should switch to non UK accounts or start our own bank!!anyone fancy being a fat cat?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

crfx250,

If the FSA receive enough of an increased workload and it is because they are a limited company then they will incur increased overheads which they will want to avoid, so consumer contact should not be dismissed. If nothing else it is more publicity for the consumer and hopefully more claims and therfore more emphasis on the banks to resolve the matter quickly.

What the banks do have in there favour is in the case of a ruling that £500m has to be refunded or whatever the figure be, they will have a strong argument not to release that amount of cash in to the economy all at once.So more delay.

This ruling is just for the link with UTCCR issue, then an appeal or two and then the next issue to clarify each kind of charge that has been taken.Then more appeals etc. I reckon this is how they will delay things further.

This is the very first step in what could be a lengthy process, unless the consumer makes it known that certain interim decisions are not acceptable. The waiver decision is going to be revisited so a campaign to overturn this sould be launched. If consumers do complain and the waiver is not overturned then this will only serve to demonstrate that

1) the OFT/FSA and the banks are too cosy

2) the OFT has no power or intention to represent the consumer effectivley

 

What a great opportunity for credit unions to take a market share!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but if 500,000 consumers request something, are ignored then the 500,000 consumers are well placed to state that they are being ignored by an organisation that is supposed to be on the consumer side.

The point is to make it clear to all that they are in cahoots.They will not want this made clear, so will want to avoid it. This can be avoided, albeit temporarily, by removal of the waiver.

The FSA are also in a position where they need to be seen to be doing something.

Just my opinions and based on experience with the notoriously ambigious FSA guidance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...