Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • See what the latest data on school suspensions tells us about the UK education system and early intervention.View the full article
    • The world's largest economy grew less than expected but rising inflation may delay a rate cut.View the full article
    • Hello, Following the submission of my defense, last night I received an email from DCBL indicating that the claimant intends to proceed with the claim (I've attached a screenshot of the email for reference) along with the N180 directions questionnaire. I'm unsure how they obtained my email, but I suspect it was through the courts' form when I completed the Acknowledgment of Service. This email almost slipped my attention. I have also today received a letter from court to state they have received my defense.  It appears they are requesting an online telephone hearing with the court. Could you please advise me on the necessary steps I should take at this point? Thank you for your assistance. Letter-Email 25-04-24.pdf N180 - Directions questionnaire (Small Claims Track).pdf
    • Default Amount £9237.88, all this started in 2006 Admitted debt £9075.65 Weightmans added £1515.01 immediately they became involved, no explanation The Statement shows when Marlin bought debt in May 2011 £10439.25 Their statements, not received until the SAR, are based on this. Cabot deducted £1515.01on their statements in January 2019, again did not find this out until SAR. Weightmans added in  2007 after the CH1 etc was confirmed by the court £741.50, made up of Process server fees, Court Fee (they tried for bankruptcy), Solicitors fee and Land Registry fee. Unspecfied Legal costs were added by Marlin in March 2015, again I did not know this until statements received with SAR I had been paying monthly, without exception until December 2018. I am minded to take the property charge, CH1 amount ,deduct all my payments and the subsequent fees, and request/demand a refund on the final payment made? I consistently disputed Weightmans balances, but they never responded. I also told Mortimer Clarke/Cabot that I disputed their amounts.  
    • Just follow this link and have read of some threads so your familiar with the process https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/347310-legal-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track/#comment-5178739
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Does yesterday's announcement affect unfair credit card complaints submitted to FOS?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6115 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

Hi on BBC news this morning test case is regarding unortharised overdraft charges not credit card charges which are under a seperate OFT investigation

 

all the best dpick:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law surrounding the reclaim of the Full credit card charges is exactly the same as for bank charges (ie Unfair Consumer Contract Terms Regulations 1999), therefore, I suspect there will be a full moritorium on the processing of claims depending the outcome of the test case to be heard in October.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The test case is regarding bank overdraft charges so credit card claims aren't affected by the OFT announcement and should continue as normal. :)

Can't find what you're looking for? Please have a look at Michael Browne's

A-Z Guide

*** PLEASE NOTE ***

I do not answer queries via PM. If you send me a PM, please include a link to your thread - any advice I am able to offer will be on your thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of OFT announcement states clearly currant account unauthorised overdrafts nothing is mentioned regarding credit card agreements though there is a separate investigation into credit card charges it is not connected in any way to this test case.

 

dpick

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law which is being tested is Section 5 of the Unfair Consumer Contract Terms Regulations - (ie are these charges an Account Charge or are they a penalty) whether bank overdrafts OR credit card charges the same law is being tested, therefore, if you go to court over credit card charges you'll be saying the charge is unfair under the UCCT Regulations and I suspect a judge will simply stay the case awaiting the outcome of the test case !!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law is not being tested. Whats being tested is if and how the law - specifically the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 - applies to the terms of the account contracts which permits the banks to levy 'overdraft charges'.

 

A credit card has a completely different type of contract with different terms, none of which are being tested in the OFT case. The UTCCR's, and also the common law principles, can only be applied to the specific terms of contract in each case, and not broadly.

 

Credit cards, mortgage charges, catalogue charges, even business account charges are not being tested in the OFT case, and therefore will not be effected by any stays or "waivers".

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although with credit cards there is a clear breach of contract and could possibly proceed. Current account charges are slightly different in that the banks argue there is no breach of contract. Some banks T & Cs state that the customers must not exceed their limit other banks do not place such a prohibition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law is not being tested. Whats being tested is if and how the law - specifically the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 - applies to the terms of the account contracts which permits the banks to levy 'overdraft charges'.
What about a case against 'overdraft charges' base purely on the common law?- ie a case such as

 

a) I have a contract with my bank

b) I broke it

c) They charged me as a result more than it cost them

 

I think you could make such a case without any reference to the UTCCR1999.

 

And why can't the OFT get things right?! THeir previous forrays into this area concentrated on transparency of charges, now it's fairness (effectively). What about lawfulness?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a case against 'overdraft charges' base purely on the common law?- ie a case such as

 

a) I have a contract with my bank

b) I broke it

c) They charged me as a result more than it cost them

 

I think you could make such a case without any reference to the UTCCR1999.

 

And why can't the OFT get things right?! THeir previous forrays into this area concentrated on transparency of charges, now it's fairness (effectively). What about lawfulness?

The penalty at common law angle is also being tested.

 

Here - The Office of Fair Trading: Questions and answers for OFT test case announcement 26 July 2007

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...