Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes that looks fine. It is to the point. I think somewhere in the that the you might want to point out that your parcel had been delivered but clearly had been opened and resealed and the contents had been stolen
    • Hi All, I just got in from work and received a letter dated 24 April 2024. "We've sent you a Single Justice Procedure notice because you have been charged with an offence, on the Transport for London Network." "You need to tell us whether you are guilty or not guilty. This is called making your plea."
    • Okay please go through the disclosure very carefully. I suggest that you use the technique broadly in line with the advice we give on preparing your court bundle. You want to know what is there – but also very importantly you want to know what is not there. For instance, the email that they said they sent you before responding to the SAR – did you see that? Is there any trace of of the phone call that you made to the woman who didn't know anything about SAR's? On what basis was the £50 sent to you? Was it unilateral or did they offer it and you accepted it on some condition? When did they send you this £50 cheque? Have you banked it? Also, I think that we need to start understanding what you have lost here. Have you lost any money – and if so how much? Send the SAR to your bank as advised above
    • In anticipation of lodging my court claim next Weds 1 May (14 days after advising P2G that was my deadline for them to settle my claim) I have completed my first draft POC as below: Claim Claim number: xxxxx Reference: P2G MAY 2024   Claimant xxxxx   Defendant Parcel2Go 1A Parklands Lostock Bolton BL6 4SD  Particulars of Claim The defendant has failed to arrange for the safe delivery of the claimant's parcel containing a 8 secondhand golf clubs (valued at £265) that was sent to a UK address using their delivery service (P2G Reference xxxxx). The defendant contracted Evri to deliver the parcel (Evri Reference xxxxx) and refuses to reimburse the claimant on the grounds that the claimant did not purchase their secondary insurance contract. The defendant seeks to exclude their liability in breach of section 57 Consumer Rights Act. The secondary insurance contract is in breach of section 72. The claimant seeks reimbursement of £265, plus P2G fees of £9.10, plus postage costs for two first class letters to P2G of £2.70, plus court fees, plus interest. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from xxxxx to xxxxxx on £276.80 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx   Details of claim Amount claimed £276.80 I look forward to your thoughts and comments guys! As ever, many thanks - G59    
    • Hmm, that's strange how they got my email then.  I assume the below is ok to send to DCBL, Nicky?  Hello, I am writing regarding our ongoing dispute and the upcoming court claim reference xxxxxxxx. To ensure fairness and transparency in our communications leading up to the court hearing, I request that you use postal mail exclusively for all further correspondence related to this claim. Please refrain from sending any communication or documents via email. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. If you have any questions or need clarification, please feel free to contact me via postal mail at the address provided above. Yours sincerely, xxxx
  • 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 
        • 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...