Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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

Nat West CCJ & PPi Claim


knights templar
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3785 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

Hi Every body;

 

Contracted Nat West ;

 

Nat West Loan was a combination of loan and Overdraft which the bank advised me to take.

Defaulted on both loans due to unemploymement.

 

Nat West obtained a CCJ.

 

Payment in order since Court order.

 

Can I apply for refund of the PPI on both loans from both banks although there is a CCJ on both loans and how can I effectively do this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

read up in the PPI forum

 

and yes you can reclaim the PPI

 

what about unlawful fees too

 

bet you had loads on the HFC one.

 

you indicate TWO loans

one Natwest

one HFC

 

both have individual ccj's?

 

you'll need to make a thread for each claim

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi.html

 

do a customer complaint form and SOC for each

 

if you've not got the agreements/statements

you'll need to SAR each first

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

thread tidied

 

how are your claims going KT?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi dx10uk;

 

Sorry for the long delay ; have being on holiday ;

received responses from Nat West and HFC on PPI claim ;

 

Nat West claims that according to their records no PPI payment made on loan and

HFC states that the PPI payments were later with drawn by me ;

this I find puzzling;

but received a refund from Black horse less tax;

I must say the cheque is handy as I just came back from holiday;

I plan to pursue any bank charges on the Nat West loan which I defaulted.;

 

as for HFC; I will request formal details of all documentation on the loan as I do not have details of the agreement to find out whether what they are saying is correct:roll::oops:;

you can't trust these 'alleyway[EDIT] ';

 

Any ideas or suggestions.KT:wink:

Edited by ims21
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Have just received an offer from Nat West Bank for a reclaim of my PPI application;

but they have put a conditionality of acceptance that the pay out will be offset against the balance of the loan;

 

which I have expressed concerns on grounds that the loan is curently being paid off after a county judgement and payment are up to date;

 

secondly the PPI as I understand it is an unfair and illegal charge on the loan by the bank.

 

Any comments on my line of reasonning to Nat West Bank for the refund to be paid directly to me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

they cannot offset against the whole of the balance even with a CCJ

thats unfair to your other creditors.

 

just remember its a civil debt so PPI is unlawful not illegal [thats criminal matters]

 

i would write back stating you will not be bound by any conditions.

 

the debt is being paid off through the CCJ

 

there is no authority in the judgement box that allows them to do that

 

in effect they are going against the ruling of the judge.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

how does the ppi refund measure up to you soc figure

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Works on part-time basis for a transport business ; but lately do not get much work; what are my rights under the employment act; have been with company for over 5 years ; just keep quiet or ask company to find me work or make me redndant any suggestions?:???:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

natwest , hfc now lloyds

 

 

you really should have a thread for each

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Hi CAGS ; Happy christmas and Properous New Year to every one !!!!!!!!!!!

 

Have just received a letter from Nat West Bank accepting liability that the following charges were applied to my account between the periods 1904 to 1912;

 

these included upaid item fess ,

account keeping fees

and unarraged borrowing fees;

 

is it possible to claim back these charges from National Westminster Bank?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1904?

 

were these bank account charges

 

if so very diff?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi dx 100uk; Sorry made a 'boob' on the date ; well spotted; the date should be 2004 and not 1904; I quote from letter sent from National Westminster Bank; ' ftom your current account -I have reviewed transactions data between 09/12/2012 and 02/3/04 and can confirmthe total amount in charfes applied was £942.82' ; can I make a claim as it clearly states they were charges.:?:

Link to post
Share on other sites

not on bank accounts

 

but try

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

ims21,

Sent SAR to Nat. West Bank ;

just received a response from Nat West Bank ;

after I had highlighted to them inadequate documantation they hold on me ;

their response was unable to locate loan agreement ;

they claim as they were unable to locate loan agreement ;

we would therefore have no documents available apart from insurance added to the account.

 

What should my next move be ?

 

They conclude if I was not satisfied I should contact the Financial Ombudsman.

 

knights Templar:?:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ims21; Received SAR response from Nat. West Bank today ;

 

Nat West Bank unable to trace my loan agreement may send available information in the near future ;

 

Nat West Bank state ;

 

if not satisfied contact ombudsman ;

 

any ideas how to approach this or contact ombudsman for further investigation.

 

knights templar:?:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry...this is all very confusing.

 

You said earlier that NW stated they have no PPI showing on the account. (Post #11)

 

Then you say they have made an offer (Post #12)

 

What did their offer consist of, i.e. what is the breakdown of the figures?

 

If they have no agreement, what have they said about how they calculated the offer?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi dx100uk,

 

Received received from Nat West Bank ;

upon SAR request ;

that Nat West Bank unable to locate loan agreement and documents ;

although a judgement debt have been obtained at county court by Nat.West Bank

and debt being paid by instalments;

is it possible to challenge NatWest Bank to produce loan agreeement and documents in court

otherwise debt cannot be enforced by Nat West Bank .

 

knights templar

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Hi dx;

just received another offer from Nat.Westmister Bank that upon further investigation into my previous claim

which they have already settled ;

 

they claim to have found further errors and have made another offer again ;

but wish to offset this payment to my CCJ default balance ;

 

I know you have made a response to the same after the initial offer was made ;

 

does the same written response stand or are there any new information on the issues of offsets by these banks ;

 

the CCJ is being paid off .Thanks

 

Knights templar

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is your NatWest ppi thread.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...