Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for that "read me", It's a lot to digest, lots of legal procedure. There was one thing that I was going to mention to you,  but in one of the conversations in that thread it was mentioned that there may be spies on the Forum,  this is something that I've read quite some time ago in a previous thread. What I had in mind was to wait for the thirty days after their reply to my CCA request and then send the unenforceable letter. I was hoping that an absence of signature could be the Silver Bullet but it seems that there are lot of layers to peel on this Onion.  
    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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
      • 160 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 could drop test case !!!!!!!


adam1976brown
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6027 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

I've just read the article you posted. I cannot believe what I'm reading. The fact that penalty charges are illegal seems to have passed them all by. There is so much law to back this up I can't imagine what the OFT are thinking!

:-|

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi adam1976brown and clippy,

I heard about the LTSB stint yesterday on my way into work last night, and it sounds as if the banks are trying to squirm their way out of the trial more than the OFT, I think the OFT are as always only compromising on the side of the Banks, and with the LTSB saying they have looked at the 'FEES' as being too high (which I would take as an admittance to the fact) that they are going to inform their customers of when they may be near the point of going over any agreement on the account and allowing them the possible time to 'Pay In' to their account to prevent the 'Fee' from being charged. How sly is that.!!!! :mad:

What's betting the other Banks follow suit, but we have to remember the banks will not have discussed this between each other as that may be seen as colaboration!!!!:mad:

watch this space thats what I say!!

 

stay fresh peeps

 

regards

chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi peeps, If as I read the artical, the 'test case' is to determine whether the OFT can rule on the bank charges or not then the fact is that this case is irrelivent to our cases, meaning our cases shouldn't be stayed........ + the fact that the OFT agrees that the charges are service fees when we do not and the bank has said they are 'penalty charges' proves that this test case is irrelivent to our cases....... does anybody know if we can use a foregn bank, (eg: bank of Ireland) via the internet as a basic account, as if our banks want to charge £300 pa then I'm off...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the case is dropped then it seems fairly obvious to me that we still continue with our claims through the courts as nothing will have changed and we can still challenge them to provide their true costs in a court of law. Just my humble opinion anyway

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed Lula, but if your in a position like me (Read Chelseaboy vs Abbey) Then I think i've got a decent case to fight a probable stay application on the grounds that the 'test case' isn't relevent to my case as 1. The test case is about whether the OFT can rule or not and 2. The Oft's argument is over the amount of the 'service charge'........ In my case (and many others) the argument is that it is a 'penalty fee' over a breach of contract which is unlawful...........Therefore any stay in reference to the 'test case' is irrelivent as the test case is irrelivent to my case.... any fight against a stay should (in my oppinion) be allong these lines...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to read my thread PSM V ABBEY the judge stayed part of the case relating to UTCCR (1999) but was prepared to proceed on the part where the abbey, in their, claimed Breach of Contract as this can be argued at County Court on points of FACT not LAW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to read my thread PSM V ABBEY the judge stayed part of the case relating to UTCCR (1999) but was prepared to proceed on the part where the abbey, in their, written defence claimed Breach of Contract as this can be argued at County Court on points of FACT not LAW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question...Just what exactly does this mean for all of us?

 

Do we have cases that need to be answered? The courts that have "Stayed" cases pending this so called outcome should now be deemed to go to trial and the Judges made to review the very cases they have stayed and outlining whether or not the banks have totally abused process and that te stunts pulled lately by OFT and the banks should now all be ruled in favour of the consumer. Lets face it, it is our money and if the banks believe they were right and just in taking it in the first place they would not have paid out the millions they already have, now would they?? they have stayed and outlining whether or not the banks have totally abused process and that te stunts pulled lately by OFT and the banks should now all be ruled in favour of the consumer. Lets face it, it is our money and if the banks believe they were right and just in taking it in the first place they would not have paid out the millions they already have, now would they??

 

Ladidi

Ladidi

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always said that the oft will go soft with the banks.The banks combined are too powerful for the likes of the oft. What the OFT should have done is to get the help of the CAG and Martin Lewis right from the beginning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a look at this, from a newsletter from penaltycharges

 

"In most instances we would probably agree with the banks' arguments that these are not penalties as defined in common law," said Mr Elithorn.

 

Now what is interesting about this is the fact that Mr Elithorn use to be a Senior Manager for Capital One . See The Office of Fair Trading: OFT appoints new Senior Directors

 

So in realty his comments were not that surprising “however it does beg the Question what on earth is going on at the OFT” and is it all ex bank, credit card mangers making the decisions?

 

 

Is this correct? if it is, then it is a bloody disgrace and he is not impartial at all, DISGUSTING!!!

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Extract from penaltycharges news letter:-

 

We would advice people to WRITE to the OFT and ask them to confirm that

Mr.Elithorn Statement is correct, (remember spell it out) if they

confirm it is I would included this in your application for stays to be

lifted as clearly there is no guarantee the test case will ever get heard.

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

I dont think anyone should have to write to Mr Elithorn or anyone else for that matter. I think it is high time they thought of the consumer as if they had thought it through in the first place before stating they will take on the banks in the high courts blah, blah no one would be in this mess in the first place.

 

The top and bottom of it is this. The banks got GREEDY, they took and carried on taking what they knew what was not theirs and not earned. The money taken belongs to the consumer, so the simple task is this. Tell us what it costs you truly and we will pay it and give back what is not earned by yourselves. simple! even a baby could do it a click of a couple of buttons on the computer!

 

Secondly, seeing as the OFT had said they would take the banks to court to get the matter resolved and gave them powers to "stay" all impending cases, the should now tell them to they should deal with the cases they have put hold and the courts in turn should now be told to review every single case they have "stayed" by way of "WIN" or come to court a justify with no more time wasting of the courts processes or asking for time to gather further info if they already everything that is required to hand.

 

Our hard earned money has been taken for long enough and should not be allowed to be taken any more! The banks dont give us time when we owe them, they scream and shout and stamp their feet and before you know it all kinds have happened before you can even say " hang on a minute, I wanna put a "Stay" on that or I would like to have more time and for you to justify why I owe you this money! They even have the "balls" to take away your overdraft in some cases without even giving you a chance and in some cases telling you, to repay it within 28 days or you wil owe us more money and we dont care about you because we dont know you! we just want your money!

 

High time they got out of their high chairs and came down to earth and said, ok we are sorry, we will repay within 7 days! But the chances of that as about as much chance of me winning the Lotto this year!!

 

I also think it is high time our government and MPs should earn their highly inflated salaries and start to put the people of UK first and tell the banks they should either repay without any more moaning or they should simply divuldge exactly what costs they have incurred for dealing with peoples overdrafts and bounced cheques etc and deduct this form what the customer is reclaiming. Cant be that much of a hard thing to do, can it???

 

Ladidi

Ladidi

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ladidi: Your right there but, they simply won't listen to us the consumer. What a business banking is, when you get hundreds and thousands of complaints from your customers and now you can simply put 2 fingers up to them all and carry on as normal, any other business you would have to change your strategy or go down.

 

I dont think anyone should have to write to Mr Elithorn or anyone else for that matter. I think it is high time they thought of the consumer as if they had thought it through in the first place before stating they will take on the banks in the high courts blah, blah no one would be in this mess in the first place.

 

The idea was you could use the reply from them to help remove a stay!

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

Yes, but you have to get clarification he has said this, are we going to get that? I`m not holding my breath or raising my arms in the air just yet. Why? Because they are all the same at the end of the day...OUT FOR THEMSELVES..

 

Mr Elithorn is out to make a name for himself, the banks are out for your money and our very government dont give 2 hoots either, as they need more of it to give free housing and furniture and free money to foreigners!!!

 

So what does that makes us "MUGS" in a word!!!!!

Ladidi

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats true but, they will then carry on the same route i.e. at each an every turn telling claimants lot's of bull***t about what exactly is going on and why they should accept the offers, why they would lose in court etc...continue forcing litigation and clogging up the courts. None of them have the bottle to hold their hands up and admit they are wrong, pay back the money and move on.

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

Hi all and everybody,

Most of the posts are right in what they state, the only thing is, we would be better off writing to the OFT for clarification on mr Elithorn has stated, and maybe he is out to make a name for himself, but maybe with enough of us asking the question to the OFT then maybe WE can determine what type of neme he receives!!;)

 

Remember it's still ongoing and if we push hard enough maybe the courts MAY turn their own decisions around and start recommencing our claims and I think this is a possitive move on our halves to keep persuing.

The banks still have to comply with the relevant letters which were sent to them, the only differences is they don't have to make you an offer! Yet they still have to comply, and if they don't. then we still put the claim into the courts, (it's just a matter of finding a court that is continuing the claims which is the hardest part.:mad:

I have had some positive support from my MEP saying that it is still in the minority with the courts as to who is staying cases and who is continuing!!

I'll check my email from my MEP and confirm the website which tells you where to look for the best courts!

 

oh Mr BM KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKERRRRRRRRRRRRRCCCCCCCCHHHHHHHINNNNNNGGGGGG another £1.26 today in interest cheers!!!!:D

 

stay fresh peeps

 

regards

chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'm confident of the law, the OFT saying that it believes the unfair terms bit doesn't apply is not my problem, I'm confident of arguing that it does. If it did not apply the the Hull strikeout orders would not have been beaten, one of the lines in the POC's drafted by a QC explicitly states that the charges are not core terms.

 

The only reason I have not pushed more vigorously for my brothers case to be heard is that it is in his interest for the case to be delayed (every day which passes moves him closer to owing the bank 0 pence!).

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The good thing about the OFT going down the service charge argument is that we can still bring cases relying on the former law.

 

I am definately going to put something in about this whenI see my MP.

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my when Abbey defended my 3rd claim they stated that I did BREACH MY CONTRACT so they have admitted that it isnt a serive charge at all, i dont understand how they can use a defence that relies on T&C's that have only just come into force.

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...