Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

OFT test case


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5963 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

:D

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

they called the bank rotten turkeys?

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

 

I just read on the BBC that each defendant is expected to take two days to present their arguments, meaning that the 8 days originally predicted for the case has gone well out of the window.

 

I suppose this will then have an impact on when Judgement is handed down?

 

More tactics?? Or reasoned, balanced arguments?? Pah!

Six Nations Champions 2009

Triple Crown 2009

Grand Slam 2009

:cool::-D:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

and how would we argue Full and Final? :rolleyes: lol ...like your thinking though :D

 

In the letters I received from ALL the banks where I got my money back, it stated "Full and final settlement".

 

Is that what you meant?

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

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

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Bankfodder has argued throughout that F&F is not actually binding in these cases, but I would have to go and find out where he said that and why. Something to do with consideration, if memory serves, but don't quote me on that. :razz:

 

Edit: I see Zoot's in the thread, Zoot, can you confirm? (or not, as the case may be? :-D)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, good luck to the banks getting the money back!!!

 

Talk about turning the tables - if they win and want it back, they are in the same position as us - we have it before they do, so perhaps I'll take it before they have a chance to get to it!

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

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

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

What Gez is saying is if the banks prove the "fees" for their "services" are legal it will set a precedent in law and everyone will be able to do the same.

 

So all sorts of services will start appearing on your direct debit statements and because they are direct debits you wont have any choice, the money will be gone from your bank account.

 

pete

 

That's a huge if

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just made a post on another thread that some of you may find interesting?

 

It concerns the issue of third party companies buying debts from lenders, and how they should be aware of the fact that some of the debt could consist in part of charges that the debtor may challenge and recover.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1334087.html

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

The more info you give these people the more they worm out of the tin.

 

If you think a banks tin could only hold 30 coins think again. They will replace the tin. Democracy only works when its being attacked.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just made a post on another thread that some of you may find interesting?

 

It concerns the issue of third party companies buying debts from lenders, and how they should be aware of the fact that some of the debt could consist in part of charges that the debtor may challenge and recover.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1334087.html

 

This will definitely frustrate the massive Debt Purchase marketplace if the OC and the DCA have to analyse each and every account and outline what might be charges/paid charges/unpaid charges. That's brilliant and will take the shine off the ease at which they can make a fortune.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a huge if

 

Indeed it is a huge if.. Which is why the "service fees" buls**t simply must be condemned & outlawed by both the OFT & the courts. If it is not, then penalty charges are effectively perfectly legal as long as you call them service fees.

It will give the green light to any company to introduce new services for which fees are applied. They won't have to ask you if you want these services, they can just apply them to your account and start charging you for them.

 

This would cause economic chaos..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Times Today High-street banks defend ‘rip-off’ overdraft charges as court battle commences - Times Online

 

"The comment was unfortunate because it was made before the OFT had even begun its continuing investigation into current account overdraft charges. It became obvious that, “a hornet’s nest having been stirred”, the matter should go to court for a decision on the issues, said Mr Rabinowitz.

 

He argued that the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, introduced in 1999, do not apply to overdraft charges because they do not constitute payment for a service. "

 

I'm sorry, I appear to be suffering a brain failure. What do most Banks' T&C call these fees now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO, not brain failure. Mr Rabinowitz, as the lead QC for RBS, has made what is called a 'Freudian slip. He meant to say 'fees' but his brain kept telling him to say 'charges' because that is what he truly believes they are. I just hope the OFT's QC points it out to the judge.

As regards the rest of his argument, if the best the banks can offer in their leading statement is bleat about the OFT putting the spotlight about their little [problem], then they should give up now.

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The future of free banking in Britain may rest on a High Court judge’s decision on whether charges imposed on account holders for unauthorised overdrafts are legal."

 

"If the OFT wins, some banking experts forecast the end of free current accounts as banks attempt to recoup their losses."

 

 

I'm really sick of all this insidious scaremongering and the underhand threats being circulated around by the Banks.

It is an obvious attempt to garner sympathy from customers who have never had to suffer the spiralling misery caused by these charges, by threatening to charge for other services.

Banks should just stop being so greedy, and accept that the interest paid upon borrowing is more than adequate.

 

To look at it another way, it is also an admission by the banks that they do actually make profits from these charges...... yet in such circumstances many banks presented them as merely being "to recoup costs incurred"

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

More misleading guff being spouted by the banks agents.

 

As I recall the campaign for the recovery of bank penalty fees began long before the OFT involvement or their declaration (unhelpful as it turned out) on Credit Card fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO, not brain failure. Mr Rabinowitz, as the lead QC for RBS, has made what is called a 'Freudian slip. He meant to say 'fees' but his brain kept telling him to say 'charges' because that is what he truly believes they are.

 

That made me laugh! :D

The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The future of free banking in Britain may rest on a High Court judge’s decision on whether charges imposed on account holders for unauthorised overdrafts are legal."

 

"If the OFT wins, some banking experts forecast the end of free current accounts as banks attempt to recoup their losses."

 

 

I'm really sick of all this insidious scaremongering and the underhand threats being circulated around by the Banks.

It is an obvious attempt to garner sympathy from customers who have never had to suffer the spiralling misery caused by these charges, by threatening to charge for other services.

Banks should just stop being so greedy, and accept that the interest paid upon borrowing is more than adequate.

 

To look at it another way, it is also an admission by the banks that they do actually make profits from these charges...... yet in such circumstances many banks presented them as merely being "to recoup costs incurred"

 

 

What has become of a society that forces the poor to pay for the benefits of those much better off who could pay for their banking without going broke

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm confused I thought the banks were arguing that the fees were for a service? Now they are saying their exempt because the charges are not for a service?

 

Is that not the reason the charges are a penalty and therefore unlawful or am I completely lost in this whole thing (which I expect I am)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"It could also lead to disappointment for about 50,000 consumers whose claims have been put on ice. Until now, banks have been routinely returning the full amount of a claim back to customers.

 

If the banks lose in the High Court, they may only have to refund the difference between the charges they imposed and a new acceptable rate of penalties set by the regulator."

What happened to 'if any part of a penalty is unlawful then it all should be repaid'?

The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm confused I thought the banks were arguing that the fees were for a service? Now they are saying their exempt because the charges are not for a service?

 

Is that not the reason the charges are a penalty and therefore unlawful or am I completely lost in this whole thing (which I expect I am)

 

It beats me as well. :-?

 

It is nice, however, to hear the Bank's QCs are as much in a muddle as their collections departments and DCAs always seem to be. :D

The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if successful whatever the OFT deem is 'reasonable' unless it is a true reflection of the banks costs will be meaningless as it is with credit card charges & still subject to challenge by the consumer

 

The court is being asked to determine whether or not the OFT has the power to regulate in respect of their fees under the Unfair Contract Terms legislation - NOT at common law

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the OFT wins, some banking experts forecast the end of free current accounts as banks attempt to recoup their losses.

 

Correct me if im but can someone please explain to me how one can lose money they never should have had in the first place?

 

Mailman

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the OFT wins, some banking experts forecast the end of free current accounts as banks attempt to recoup their losses.

 

Correct me if im but can someone please explain to me how one can lose money they never should have had in the first place?

 

Mailman

 

Read it as;

 

If the OFT wins, some banking experts forecast the end of free current accounts as banks attempt to recoup their forecasted profit losses.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5963 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...