Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
    • Steam is still needed in many industries, but much of it is still made with fossil fuels.View the full article
  • 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

OFT may compromise on bank fees


SL56
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6066 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

A look to the future: Its TESCO baby.

 

 

Seeing the writing on the wall you would think that most banks would like to take market share by stopping all charges on their accounts. However they will not do this. they will comply with the FSA regs on the issue to the letter.

 

However at some point customers will still be fed up of paying even £12. The problem is that when you're selling fresh air its difficult to retain customer satisfaction.

 

At some point someone (I reckon Tesco) will wade into the retail banking market and start mopping up all the customers who currently hate their bank. Their account will be good: with a clubcard, no overdraft fees AND it will pay interest. They will do well. Too well. The rest of the banks will mutter. Then they will try and follow suit. It wont work. By then we'll all be banking at TESCO.

 

The crux of the matter is that banks are currently sending customers away with an empty shopping bag that they are paying through the nose for. Tesco know that this does not fly. They would rather make lots of little bits of money from you. This will drive down margins and banks profits. Tesco will become Britains biggest bank. The bank execs will wonder at what point they went wrong.

 

Banks: You've seen the writing on the wall. Don't say you had no warning. This will be seen in the future as a crucial fork in the road.

 

 

Tesco uses RBS at the moment for CC etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great idea plant the seed in there heads!!!!

 

 

 

A look to the future: Its TESCO baby.

 

 

Seeing the writing on the wall you would think that most banks would like to take market share by stopping all charges on their accounts. However they will not do this. they will comply with the FSA regs on the issue to the letter.

 

However at some point customers will still be fed up of paying even £12. The problem is that when you're selling fresh air its difficult to retain customer satisfaction.

 

At some point someone (I reckon Tesco) will wade into the retail banking market and start mopping up all the customers who currently hate their bank. Their account will be good: with a clubcard, no overdraft fees AND it will pay interest. They will do well. Too well. The rest of the banks will mutter. Then they will try and follow suit. It wont work. By then we'll all be banking at TESCO.

 

The crux of the matter is that banks are currently sending customers away with an empty shopping bag that they are paying through the nose for. Tesco know that this does not fly. They would rather make lots of little bits of money from you. This will drive down margins and banks profits. Tesco will become Britains biggest bank. The bank execs will wonder at what point they went wrong.

 

Banks: You've seen the writing on the wall. Don't say you had no warning. This will be seen in the future as a crucial fork in the road.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha - Tesco needs no seeds planting.........they've been eger to get on with this for a while....but this may be just the right time if they can get systems in place etc...........

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2. Banks will have to offer customers a 'basic' bank account that has a solo or electron card and cannot go overdrawn under any circumstances.

 

Not true. I have a Solo card and i've still got charged, so 'under any circumstances' is not true.

 

There is NO bank account at the moment where you will not get charged for returned payments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the banks do agree lets say £12 per item as a charge and you can't claim this back then what reason would they have to withdraw from the test case and pay the claims now?

 

Surley they would prefer to wait until the test case has finnished which could be several years and then say right we set the limit at £12 as the test case is only for if the unfair terms and conditions apply not how much should be charged.

 

Wouldn't be suprised if the banks wait until the OFT publishes its findings in Dec 07 then the banks agree with what they say is a fair amount which is most prob going to be around £12 as with the CCards and then settle the claims, but i expect a lot of people would still go through the courts for the full amount as with CCards. But i guess a lot of people would just take the offer and the banks would save ££££££££'s

 

Or drag the test case on as long as poss then agree to charge £12

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha Ha,

 

Thats the best bit.....they won't withdraw from the test case initially.......but they will offer to settle claims that are outstanding.....which means that if you have a case in court you will have to take the offer or wait until they formally drop the test case (which I reckon will be late 2008)8)8) This senario would solve a lot of problems.

 

Which is why.....if your case is in court......you will have to take the cash....or wait......:-)

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember: Banks CANT drag this one out. There are too many negatives in doing so. Stratigically they have to move forward. Think what the consumer reaction will be in 3 months time? I can see demo's on the streets, outside branches etc etc........much better to just pay and get it over with.....all they need to agree on now is a figure.

 

Also: Say it does go to court. The banks would probably get a 'fair' ruling of £2-3 and I would want 5 years worth of interest @ 8% for waiting. The banks get off the hook cheaper this way.

 

And: Put it this way - how many people do you you think consider their banks a safe place to go for a mortagage at the moment. They are losing trust big time.

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is not going to be a Court case, then what is to stop us going to Court and reclaiming all our charges since Judges are not hoodwinked by the banks over this "service" the banks are apparently providing.

The Courts will need proof that £12[if that is going to be the OFT target figure] is the actual cost to return a cheque etc and if they cannot do that then banks will still lose regardless of any directive from the OFT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is not going to be a Court case, then what is to stop us going to Court...............

 

The Courts will need proof that £12[if that is going to be the OFT target figure] is the actual cost to return a cheque etc.

 

 

If the test case doesn't go ahead we'll presumably be able to go ahead with our claims, as before. And the banks will then continue to pay up in full, as before (but maybe after some initial blustering), because they still won't allow these claims to be determined in court.

 

So, the courts won't need proof of the banks' costs, because the claims won't be heard in the courts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are only so many new stores you can open.......then what do you do?

 

Put it this way......if Tesco WERE thinking of going into the UK banking market.......then now would be a good time to go about it. Hey....they could even buy Northern Rock (which is undergoing a bank run at this very moment)

 

Northern Rock customers queue for cash as crisis hits high street - Telegraph

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tesco are in bed with the RBS group (which are huge when you look into what brands they deliver e.g. Churchills, Privilege, Direct Line,Lombard, Mint, One Account, Streamline, Worldpay etc).

They are actually considered to be the financial arm of TESCO (or would TESCO be the supermarket chain of RBS?);)

27th April - Requested Statements

13th May - Received Statements:D

15th May - Preliminary request for £4780 sent.:D

16th May - Royal Mail confirm Letter received.:D

23rd May - Received Letter considering claim. :grin:

30th May - Letter Before Action sent. :D

10th July - Times Up!! FOS claim going in.

16th July - Measly 30% of claim offered as goodwill

17th July - Rejected offer letter sent

25th July - Acknowledgement of Reject Letter received

26th July - Screwed over by the OFT,Banks, FSA & FOS all in one go.:evil:

Never even felt it happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the banks won't do it themselves, they are probably not going to allow Tesco or other clients for whom they provide the banking back-end to do it.

 

Think about it, if Tesco, Asda etc were to suddenly offer free in-credit banking with low borrowing rates and £2.50 penalty charge, it will affect the banks like RBS themselves, from whom Tesco will take customers.

 

Are the big banks gonna allow their lucrative profits to be taken by the likes of Tesco?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No chance! As you say Tifo, they stand to lose too much, and I doubt if TESCO would "bite the hand that feeds it" so to speak. Without RBS there is no Tesco Personal Finance.

27th April - Requested Statements

13th May - Received Statements:D

15th May - Preliminary request for £4780 sent.:D

16th May - Royal Mail confirm Letter received.:D

23rd May - Received Letter considering claim. :grin:

30th May - Letter Before Action sent. :D

10th July - Times Up!! FOS claim going in.

16th July - Measly 30% of claim offered as goodwill

17th July - Rejected offer letter sent

25th July - Acknowledgement of Reject Letter received

26th July - Screwed over by the OFT,Banks, FSA & FOS all in one go.:evil:

Never even felt it happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.....if Tesco put together their own back end systems then there would be no problem. But plenty of organisations would offer solutions. Do we not have the most competitive financial services market in the world? If RBOS wouldn't play ball....then someone would. If no one would then Tesco could build it themselves. Its not like they are short of the capital and the right access to skills and staff.

 

or they might just buy an bank....Northern Rock, A&L?

 

This is what their account should look like:

 

Free everyday account - no overdraft - no ability to go into one. If there is no money in your account - the direct debit or transaction bounces or is rejected - no charge.

 

1. Clubcard points on every purchase

 

2. Tiered interest on credit balance.

 

3. Pay money in (free) and withdraw ant Tesco and Post office and any cash machine.

 

4. Free withdrawals, deposits, transfers, foreign transactions, bill payments etc....a genuinely FREE account.

 

 

Called......The TESCO FREE account.

 

They could make their money on the cross selling, the fact that clubcard points would tie you to the Tesco brand, and the difference between deposit interest and invested amounts. Easy. Peasy.

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.....if Tesco put together their own back end systems then there would be no problem.

 

It's not easy or as cheap ... as you think.

 

And Tesco are first and foremost a grocer of 'pile em high sell em low' products. That's what they're good at and it makes them very good money so why risk spending money on volatile financial markets?

 

They would never make themselves a bank, not in the UK anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what their account should look like:

 

Free everyday account - no overdraft - no ability to go into one. If there is no money in your account - the direct debit or transaction bounces or is rejected - no charge.

 

1. Clubcard points on every purchase

 

2. Tiered interest on credit balance.

 

3. Pay money in (free) and withdraw ant Tesco and Post office and any cash machine.

 

4. Free withdrawals, deposits, transfers, foreign transactions, bill payments etc....a genuinely FREE account.

 

 

Called......The TESCO FREE account.

 

"Now available in your local store and post office. Just show your Tesco till receipt to the value of £50 or more to receive our FREE paying in and withdrawal facilities", much like you need to show to receive a discount on your Tesco petrol now.

 

Small print : "to qualify for our FREE account you must spend a minimum of £200 per month at Tesco. Monthly charges apply otherwise. Charges could apply at any time to any service at a rate specified by Tesco".

 

Now that's more like what it might look like ....

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Small print : "to qualify for our FREE account you must spend a minimum of £200 per month at Tesco. Monthly charges apply otherwise. Charges could apply at any time to any service at a rate specified by Tesco".

 

sigh.......yeah.......stilll........ahhhhhh sod this......I'm leaving the country..........I've had enough.

 

 

(and keeping all my money in gold bullion and cash)

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news: I have it on good authority that the local County Couts are being bombarded with request for stays to be lifted and they are none too happy with doing all the work. They will now be putting pressure on the FSA to come up with a solution to allow claims to progress - this may be the straw that broke the camels back (so to speak) - in getting rid of teh FSA waiver.

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...