Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Nationwide Refused to pay Decreasing Term Mortgage Insurance due to age of joint homeowner at death


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2605 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

Hello Everyone,

 

This is a piece of advise for my mother who is currently going through lots of old paperwork.

 

Back in 1990, she and my grandfather bought a house between them, both named on the mortgage with the Nationwide. Both her income and his pensions (he was 70 at the time) were used to get the mortgage.

 

Both had to have Decreasing Term Mortgage insurance linked to the property in the event of either of them dying as it would clear the mortgage.

 

In 1992 my grandfather died and whilst dealing with his affairs, my mother (and I as a teenager) visited our local NW branch where we were told that the mortgage would be cleared in full due to his death. The amount at the time was circa £20000.

 

This was a Friday afternoon and I clearly remember how relieved my mother was as this was a huge pressure lifted off her mind. Our home was secure.

 

We had been asked to return on the Monday morning following which we did. On arrival my mother was taken aside and apologised to by a senior member of staff. There had been a mistake.

 

Due to my Grandfathers age (72) the insurance would not pay out as he was not covered. The premiums were up to date and like I said the policy was sold less than 2 years previously.

 

Apparently he should never have been sold the insurance policy due to his age at the time of taking out the mortgage.

 

My mother was very upset and the member of staff apologised again stating that due to the mistake, the NW would refund the policy payments made. It was a few hundred pounds and no where near the £20000 she was expecting to be getting paid out that day.

 

And that was that. Back then with no internet and my mum was a lay person, she took what the NW said at face value. She was a long standing customer 15+ years at the time and trusted the staff to know what they were saying - even though they had messed things up big style when selling the policy alongside the mortgage less than two years previous.

 

Ive tried looking online but to little avail as this seems quite a rare instance nowadays.

 

Can anyone advise as to the best way to try and gain some redress with this issue please? I think it was handled appallingly and NW should have swallowed the mistake back then.

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a dreadful story and I quite agree with you, there should be some kind of redress. However, the passage of time is very much against you.

 

In my view it is very good case of treating you unfairly but the FCA ICOBS rules were only introduced around 2004 maybe 2009 and so I don't think you could rely on them now.

 

I would have said that this is a good example of a breach of contract by the nationwide but unfortunately the limitation period for contractual breach is six years and although there is discretion in the courts to waive the limitation period, not sure what arguments you would have in your favour and also you can be certain that the nationwide would resist vigourously and if you lost the case it would cost you a lot of money.

 

If you did have a case then you would be suing for the £20,000 plus all of the interest since 1992. This would be a very large amount of money indeed and would take you to a litigation level where if you lost, you would have to pay not only your own litigation costs but the costs of the nationwide.

 

I'm really not sure what to advise. It shows how disgusting these people are and how they won't meet up to their responsibilities. We think that the banks have behaved badly in the years leading up to 2009, but you can see that they were always at it. I suppose that the staff you are dealing with only wanted to save their own backsides because I expect that they knew that they would be in big trouble if you had asserted your rights at the time – which you could have done.

 

The only thing I can suggest is to try and raise the issue again with nationwide and eventually make a complaint to the FOS. However, the FOS is worse than useless in most cases and in your case I don't expect you to get any joy at all. However, you might feel like ruffling a few feathers – and you never know your luck. You never know, the nationwide might make you some small offer as a gesture of goodwill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BF, your words are helpful and as much as I expected tbh.

 

I think we will send a letter off to NW to start the ball rolling so to speak - we have nothing to loose at this stage and everything to gain!

 

Who would you suggest as being the best department/address to direct this letter to?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it has been going on so long so that obviously there is no hurry, I would consider raising it with my member of Parliament first of all. See if you can go visit your MP and have a chat with him/her. If they are sympathetic, they might be prepared to write a letter of support on your behalf. I think that that might be very helpful in helping the nationwide to focus a little on what they have done to you. I think it's worth getting the ICOBS regulations and pointing out that you have been treated unfairly and it is just a matter of bad luck that this kind of treatment was only enshrined in legislation a few years later.

 

As for who to contact, I'm afraid I have no idea. I suppose that if you raise it as a formal complaint which you want to take the ombudsman then you could simply beginning at your branch. Make sure you do everything in writing, of course

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to say that there is a limit to taking civil remedy over this matter and that is 6 years after the date you knew about the wrong.. There are exceptions to this but they are rare. Also there was the opportunity to go to the insurance ombudsman at the time. If you have the paperwork and it is their final response and doesnt mention this arbitration then there may be an exception to the 6 year ruls as it can be argued that you didnt know about ther wrong.

Chances of getting anywhere? very slim

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...