Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • Well, we have also been done by Yewtree Cars/James Harrison! We bought a Land Rover Discovery from him off a dealer site on 28th December 2020. He advertised it as 1 loving owner (true, I tracked him down on Facebook, really nice guy!)   throughout the advert WOW full dealership service history, WOW new cambelt, WOW new MOT, WOW full valet including decontamination clean WOW, WOW, WOW!!!   We paid £4500 for the car plus £280 for delivery from Solihull to Winchester. He sent 3 texts reminding us to ‘look after the delivery guy cuz he’s a top man’! Soon worked out that HE was the delivery guy!   They dropped the car off and scarpered. It was dark when it arrived, initial thoughts were it was disgusting inside. I have never seen such a filthy interior. He even left his sweet wrapper inside.   He drove the vehicle down to us (we thought that we were paying for a transporter). It was running on fumes, so we took it out to get fuel. Straight away noticed automatic gearbox slipping. Not a good start.   Next day messaged dealer asking for the receipt, twice, he said that he was in Dubai (in his dreams!) for 2 weeks but would send it when he got back. Before he delivered the car, he said that if we weren’t happy he would personally come and collect it.   Sent him a message (I like to keep proof of conversations) to say that we certainly weren’t happy and wanted to return it. His reply was - SOLD AS SEEN, YOU GOT A CHEAP CAR!   Thinking we would have to cut our loses, we had a new gearbox put in, only to find that the crankshaft had also gone and then the bottom part of the engine had to be replaced. Also the suspension at the front was leaking oil (mentioned as an advisory on the previous mot, which he said had been done). He forged an entry in the service book saying that it had just had a cambelt change (false Land Rover stamp), confirmed by previous owner and Land Rover.   So, after 8 weeks of being at the garage and £7000 - YES £7000! later we certainly did get a cheap car from him. Are we going to let this go? NO!   I have found out his real name and I am going to pursue him through the court until I get this money back. He is the worst kind of confidence trickster, a liar and a thief.   We will have no hesitation in scouring Solihull for him, whatever it takes.  
    • So for various reasons, which 'm happy to discuss and debate, largely driven by the available sites apparently being O/AZ, and with the 2nd dose being 10-12 weeks after the first O/AZ apparently giving very little protection from the new strains appearing O/AZ efficiency apparently being about 55-65% with one dose and Pfiser giving much better and wider protection from a single dose I'm NOT going for the O/AZ and giving up the chance of faster better protection from pfiser even if it means waiting a couple of weeks.    
    • @Andyorch   I didn't know that. Thank you.
    • Are you saying the 6/3 year rules does apply to me, even if I only realised it was mis-sold in 2019?   The agent is talking as if I knew this was not compulsory in 2003 when I signed for it 😕   
    • Yes, was received.   Sitting on my hands has never been a strong point.    
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Office Of Fair Trading Test Case


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4690 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Last i heard, they either will or have made an application to the master of the rolls in england, which means it will take a while for the decision to be granted. So, I'm 99% certain, you're going to be jumping for joy tomorrow:)

Now if this is true i will be jumping for joy:D

99% sounds good to me:-)

I suppose it also depends on the Judge and if he wants to possibly adjourn because he knows there is a application to the master of the rolls but don't think he will.

If i do get judgement:) is there any right of appeal or would they not bother?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now if this is true i will be jumping for joy:D

I suppose it also depends on the Judge and if he wants to possibly adjourn because he knows there is a application to the master of the rolls but don't think he will.

If i do get judgement:) is there any right of appeal or would they not bother?

 

In theory, there shouldn't really be any chance of them sucessfully appealing... but the banks DO seem to get away with murder, so i wouldn't like to guarantee it.

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
In theory, there shouldn't really be any chance of them sucessfully appealing... but the banks DO seem to get away with murder, so i wouldn't like to guarantee it.

Your not wrong there:mad:

I guess i will have to keep my fingers crossed. I will let everone know tomorrow. Just hope i don't have a maverick judge

Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be something about Quo fans being against the Forum Rules.. ;):D

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Must be something about Quo fans being against the Forum Rules.. ;):D

 

They let ginster pasty eaters in... they have no shame...

 

Standards Are Falling, I tell you.

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

Who...me? What? ::: pseudo-pastie crumbs drop from chin.... ::: :lol:

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see what happens with the judgment in the Brennan case tomorrow - the OFT and the banks may end up with a test case a bit sooner than they had anticipated!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've followed this thread right through and have formed the following opinion.

 

1. The test case is in relation to the UTCCR - nothing else

 

2. The banks are buying time

 

3. The consumers were not informed of the test case as there may have been a security issue given the amount of people affected with any outcome

 

4. I will continue as usual with a TSB claim I had as a teenager

 

5. Any refusal from the banks to provide information will be met with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office, FSA and OFT

 

6. Any application for a stay will be thoroughly challenged

 

7. Any delay in my claim being heard will simply result in a substantial increase in the amount of interest claimed

 

8. Any delay will also provide valuable time for thorough research and organisation of my current claim

 

9. Any judgement made in the banks favour will cause a public outcry

 

10. All claimants should continue as normal and fob off any excuses the banks may give

 

11. All claims should still be made at Court which will save any limitation issues and put pressure on all parties as the amount of claims increases

 

12. The banks are in big ship, and are now begging for help as they (edit)are inundated

 

13. I will move all of my accounts away from those I feel are trying to shy away from their responsibilities now they have been found out - (edit)

 

14. The next few weeks will show by the banks actions their true intentions when agreeing to this test case

 

15. The BBA are shipping themselves (but are the only true guardian the banks have)

 

16. The FSA cannot be trusted

 

17. The OFT bow to pressure and are underfunded

 

18. All correspondence between the consumer and the banks collectively will cost millions, I will be writing a letter a week

 

19. New claimants will be deterred

 

20. I will strive to keep this in the public eye in case it fizzles out

 

21. I will go public with my claim with the BBC

 

22. I will consider a complaint to the police against those ultimately responsible for setting procedure within the banks

 

23. I will never trust / empower these people again by allowing them to babysit any money I have and will withdraw everything in cash

 

24. I consider this to be the best sure investment I have ever made

 

Tide

 

25. I will now research and compose solid arguments for the return of ALL charges EVER applied to my accounts since it was opened under section 32 of SOL.

 

26. I will research every reasoning and case law I can find to be allowed to apply compounded annual interest at the highest rates possible from the date of the first charge and compounded annually right until the date all my payments are finally returned.

 

27. I shall trace and account for every penny in interest applied to me due to my losses. This includes the proportion of any extra interest I may have paid upon consolidation loans that is due to the repayment of these original charges.

 

27. If my current bank tries to ever apply any charges between now and the date that the OFT case is decided I shall refuse to pay them, and similarly cite my own contention to refuse to pay as the lawfullness of the charges are currently the subject of a test case.

---------------------------

ARE YOU A BUSINESS CLAIMANT?

 

CAG NOW HAVE A BUSINESS CLAIMS FORUM !

GO HERE !

 

CAN'T FIND WHAT YOUR LOOKING FOR?

 

Look here.

Got your old T&C's ?

Visit this thread to help others.

 

-----------------------------

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be something about Quo fans being against the Forum Rules.. :wink: :grin:

:mad: :mad: :mad::D

If I've helped, please tick the scales at the bottom left of this message!

 

17th Sept: Found this site! :)

 

Lloyds TSB

 

22 Sept: Subject Access Req.

3 Nov: statements arrived. Charges calulated at:

A/c 1 - £2,178.01 + int of £1,206.54 (18.4% authorised)

A/c 2 - £206.11 + int of £211.07 (18.4%)

7 Nov - prelim.

3 Dec - LBA

13 Dec - £750 offered

23 Dec - £750 credited

28 Dec - rejection letter

2 March - issued

16 April - complained at court failure to forward defence

 

Halifax

 

22nd September: Subject Access Request.

4th November: No reply so LBA giving 7 days.

 

Cap One

 

22nd September: Subject Access Req.

5th October: Letter saying no record of account!

15th October: Replied telling them to try harder...

22nd October: Subject Access Req acknowledged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've followed this thread right through and have formed the following opinion.

 

1. The test case is in relation to the UTCCR - nothing else

Tide

 

Actually, to be really pendantic, the test case is in relation to whether, in principal, a representative sample of the standard terms of business of the major banks can be said to be fair in relation to the UTCCR and Unfair Contract terms Act, and also (as a counter claim) whether the terms are charges in receipt of a service, rather than charges on breach of contract.

 

it may also be amended at a latter date by the OFT to include a claim against the banks founded upon the basis of the enterprise act, that the banks are operating as an unlawful monopoly insofar as these charges are unrepresentative of the true market costs of the services enjoyed.

 

That last paragraph is a real sting in the tail... only two organisations in the UK could bring it, and it's practically unarguable by the banks, and would leave them open to fines in the billions of pound region.

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

Hehehehehe! noomill060- you want to get some Benilyn for that... ;):D:D:D

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I confess to having only read part of this thread but would like to ask, does this apply to claims for unfair charges by other financial institutions such as mortgages (my hearing is on Wed):(

'rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to the earth like dew, which in sleep had fall'n on you, ye are many, they are few.' Percy Byshse Shelly 1819

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now if this is true i will be jumping for joy:D

99% sounds good to me:-)

I suppose it also depends on the Judge and if he wants to possibly adjourn because he knows there is a application to the master of the rolls but don't think he will.

If i do get judgement:) is there any right of appeal or would they not bother?

 

As with any 'Judgement by Default' the defence can apply to have it set aside and will probably cite the test case as the reason for that.

 

FC

Barclaycard: SETTLED AFTER LBA

Barclays 1: AT COURT

Barclays 2: WITH FOS

Capital One: SETTLED AFTER N1

Egg: SETTLED AFTER LBA

HFC: S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)

Lloyds TSB: S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) - WITH Information Commissioners Office

RBS: AT COURT

Link to post
Share on other sites
I confess to having only read part of this thread but would like to ask, does this apply to claims for unfair charges by other financial institutions such as mortgages (my hearing is on Wed):(

No it doesnt affect mortgage claims

:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites
As with any 'Judgement by Default' the defence can apply to have it set aside and will probably cite the test case as the reason for that.

 

This is absolutely true in principle, but given that the judgment is being made (assuming a default judgment is indeed granted) because the Defendant ignored a judge's directions, the Defendant, as I understand it, would have to give good reason for having ignored those directions before they would succeed in an application to set aside.

 

IMHO, of course and I stand to be corrected.

If I've helped, please tick the scales at the bottom left of this message!

 

17th Sept: Found this site! :)

 

Lloyds TSB

 

22 Sept: Subject Access Req.

3 Nov: statements arrived. Charges calulated at:

A/c 1 - £2,178.01 + int of £1,206.54 (18.4% authorised)

A/c 2 - £206.11 + int of £211.07 (18.4%)

7 Nov - prelim.

3 Dec - LBA

13 Dec - £750 offered

23 Dec - £750 credited

28 Dec - rejection letter

2 March - issued

16 April - complained at court failure to forward defence

 

Halifax

 

22nd September: Subject Access Request.

4th November: No reply so LBA giving 7 days.

 

Cap One

 

22nd September: Subject Access Req.

5th October: Letter saying no record of account!

15th October: Replied telling them to try harder...

22nd October: Subject Access Req acknowledged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's Monday, I hope the day is favourable to those who's judgements are to be processed and that they get some outcomes and not just granting of stays.... Good luck ppl

Link to post
Share on other sites

p.s photoman.

used your SAR & LBA and still no responce to my request for all data, only sent me bank statements for 6 years not as i requested from your SAR all data, contracts, faxes, letters ect, barcalys bastardos

 

hels bells

 

obvioulsy sent LBA [yours] but they seem to be stuck at the 6 year thing. x

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is absolutely true in principle, but given that the judgment is being made (assuming a default judgment is indeed granted) because the Defendant ignored a judge's directions, the Defendant, as I understand it, would have to give good reason for having ignored those directions before they would succeed in an application to set aside.

 

IMHO, of course and I stand to be corrected.

My view on the matter aswell is the same as PWARD33. As pointed out the Defendant would be asking for the matter to be put aside after having ignored the Judges last orders. The Judge will also be aware that the orders were ignored four days before any announcment was made on the Friday.

I would think this way as i have £2200 resting on this Judgement LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

For all that did not know Tom Brennans' judgement is today, so OFT could be too late.

 

Question - section 32 of SOL?icon5.gif? - anyone

I'm not an expert so check everything I tell you, however click me scales if I've been useful.

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

 

There is no freemasonry like the freemasonry of Golf

Link to post
Share on other sites
For all that did not know Tom Brennans' judgement is today, so OFT could be too late.

 

Question - section 32 of SOL?icon5.gif? - anyone

 

So? TB's judgment will be to see if he will be allowed to proceed with his court case, so it will make not one bit of difference to the OFT case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The situation is that it appears from what I have read that the banks are going to ask the Master of the Rolls to stay all court cases. Whether this will happen or there is something that as a Consumer Group we can all get together and fight with the help of a legal team and or whether there is any substance to getting cases that are stayed by the courts overturned!! as I along with many others feel it is unfair to stay current claims when the test case has not yet been heard.

 

I agree and have posted on CAG and MSE suggesting they use the £100K fund and do something about this.

Donate to keep this site open

 

Any help or advice is offered as just that, help and advice without any liability. If in doubt consult a legal expert or CAB.

 

Make Cash Flow Forecast

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...