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


  • Tweets

    No tweets were found.

  • 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
      • 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

Hello all. This forum is so helpful. I'm hoping I can get some advice on my situation with HSBC.

Just a quick recap of my situation:

 

A few months ago, it was suggested to me that I apply for tax credits. I didn't think my husband and I would qualify, but I went ahead and put in an application anyway. Meanwhile, my husband wasn't making the commissions he used to at his job (blame the recession I guess), so we found we were struggling to pay the bills. Things got progressively worse and we entered into a DMP this past December. Included in that plan is a £1500 authorised overdraft with our HSBC account (which we used to be able to pay off in full each month). The people at CCCS, who set up our DMP, advised us to open another bank account and we did so. However, as I'm sure you can guess, I completely forgot about having applied for the tax credits and the bank information they have is of course, our HSBC account. So imagine my surprise and dismay when I received a letter at the end of January telling me that they have deposited £513 for the Child Tax Credit into my HSBC bank account. That money has now been swallowed up by our overdraft. (I have updated my info and now get tax credits deposited to my new account).

 

I have been very upset about this, and did some searching online and found this forum and others suggesting that banks don't have a right to your tax credits or benefits. I'm still not sure if this applies to authorised overdrafts though, but I went ahead and tried to get my money back anyway. First, I went into my branch and asked for the money and they told me that because it was a tax credit, they would not give it to me. They said had it been Child Benefit, they would've given it to me, but the tax credit was fair game. I didn't agree with this, but after speaking with the manager and someone at their credit department on the phone, I left the bank without my money. I went home and wrote a complaint letter, stating that my tax credits were inalienable, quoted the Social Security Admin. Act, as well as the Tax Credits Act, and said that I wished to exercise my right of appropriation to use the tax credit money to pay for food, formula, and apply some towards our gas/electric bill. I got a 4 page letter back on Friday where they basically tell me to p*ss off.

 

They state: "you have confused 'charges' in the sense of fees, to which the Act has no relevance and 'charges' in the sense of a proprietary right attaching to benefits to which the Act relates, but which the levying of fees on overdrafts does not create".

 

They go on to say that "bank charges are in the nature of an expense and that tax credits are payable in order to help customers meet their expenses." They say "the Act talks about charges in the context of encumbering or mortgaging the benefits - it is legal terminology and does not prevent a bank from applying charges to money once it is in the account. I acknowledge that the income into the account is derived from state benefits paid to yourself, however your account is governed by the bank's stipulated terms and conditions and by conducting your account as you have then charges have been deducted drom your account". Then they basically wish me well going to the FOS.

 

I disagree with this, because I believe tax credits are payable to meet "necessary" expenses like rent, food, heat, clothing, etc. and NOT bank charges. Am I right here? I need help deciding what to do next. I threatened to go to the FOS, and I intend to do just that, but I need help arming myself with the correct information. Should I go to the FOS now? Or send back a rebuttal to HSBC - and if so, what else can I say to get my point across that they do not have a right to this money? (if indeed they do not have a right).

 

Thanks in advance

 

Brigette

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...