Jump to content
We are now - The National Consumer Service ×


  • Tweets

    No tweets were found.

  • Posts

    • Hi Can you put post up in PDF redacted your full Tenancy Agreement we need to see it all not just those clause As for the Estate Agency stating your Rent and Deposit is paying for the Redecoration of the property is wrong as this was there and the Landlords responsibility to claim those cost back from the Previous Tenants from either their Rents or Tenancy Deposit therefore the Redecoration cost is the Landlords Problem not not yours nor your Rent or Tenancy Deposit (until end of Tenancy) I would be writing to the Estate Agency asking further to your telephone conversation with XXXXXXXXX  on XX/XX/2025 you require Clarification as it was stated by your employee that I would not receive any rent nor deposit back as compensation as the Landlord was using this to Redecorate the Property. Neither my Rent nor Deposit should be used to Redecorate this Property due to the Previous Tenants as this should have been claimed back from the previous Tenants via either there Rents or Tenancy Deposit. Further to this I collected the keys as agreed on the 5th July 2025 to move into this Property with no mention at all from your Estate Agency that due to all the Redecoration ongoing when I went to that Property on that date I was not able to move into the Property as Agreed in me Agreement. You have then move my moving in date to 11th July 2025 therefore my Rent payments should commence from 11th July 2025 and I require confirmation from PPM Estate Agency and if refuse this full clarification as to why and what Housing Legislation and clauses from my Agreement. DO NOT PHONE and ask this unless you can record the call Send it by email but also follow it up in writing and get free proof of posting from the Post Office
    • Heat pump makers are ready to raise output, but demand is still sluggish.View the full article
    • The deal is part of the Trump administration's push for more aggressive adoption of artificial intelligence in the government.View the full article
    • Apologies for my laziness.  I did say I would read through the WS and suggest changes about two months ago ... but got lost in the fun of going on holiday twice. I promise that sleeves will be rolled up in the morning!
  • 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
      • 162 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
        • Thanks
        • Like

Recommended Posts

Seems as though Santander aren't honouring agreements with previous Alliance & Leicester account-holders who have been transferred to Santander upon their takeover.

 

My old A&L account was under a debt management plan run by Consumer Credit Counselling Service with all fees and charges suspended on condition regular payments were made. This account was changed to a "Santander Account" and guess what? After a few months they have started levying a monthly £100 fee (or given the punitive amount I would describe it to be a fine). I can only assure that a.) Santander have "forgetten" that the account is the subject of a dmp, or b.) they have no scruples at all. What is the point of increasing the debt of someone who obviously cannot pay it? Together with my other creditor, Santander receive a monthly payment by CCCS on my behalf. I would assume that they also have the copy of my monthly budget originally forwarded to Alliance & Leicester by CCCS.

 

There's no way any payments have been missed as CCCS take the money by direct debit every month, then apportion the money to pay both creditors the correct amount. I've also increased my monthly payment.

 

While I know that banks retain the right to charge interest and fees on accounts under DMPs these have to be fair. I've got the impression that since we (the consumers) lost the court case that the bankers now know that it's open day for charges and Santander seem to be in the vanguard with their atrocious new "super charges".

 

Isn't there some rule against deliberately increasing a debt knowing the debtor is not in a position to pay extra fees and charges?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

While I know that banks retain the right to charge interest and fees on accounts under DMPs these have to be fair. I've got the impression that since we (the consumers) lost the court case that the bankers now know that it's open day for charges and Santander seem to be in the vanguard with their atrocious new "super charges".

 

Hi I could be wrong with this but as far as I know the OFT case was about Current account bank charges, nothing at all to do with Loan/Credit card charges though creditors would like it to relate to them as well.

 

I have reclaimed credit card charges and interest applied to those charges totalling approx £1200 in the last 12 months having to issue court claim in each case before the creditor made an out of court settlement.

 

dpick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...