Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss.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

Son of Steven4064 vs NatWest ***WON***


steven4064
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6056 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

Son of Steven4064 (let's call him Steven4065) sent SAR on 14th December and got all his statements within 4-5 days but nothing else.

 

Sent a reminder on 2 January pointing out that they had until 25th January to comply fully with his request. Letter copied to Data Protection Manager (Alex Lyons) in Edinburgh.

 

From the statements it looks like the claim will be over £1500.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

We received the following reply yesterday:

 

"DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 I write in response to your letter dated 2 January 2007.

- Manual Intervention

With reference to your request concerning any 'manual intervention' to the administrative charges debited, these charges have been processed in accordance with the terms and conditions of our current agreement with you as a result of the activity on your account. In the event that you breach the terms and conditions, we will take the appropriate action, contacting customers when appropriate, or handling customer enquiries regarding their account status. When a customer has raised a concern in relation to this process, the decision will be communicated to the customer and where appropriate noted on the account.

If you have any problems please do not hesitate to contact us at the above address.

Yours sincerely,

Joyce E Tudor-

Retail Regulatory Risk"

 

 

 

Reminded MsTudor that they have util 23rd to answer the question properly or we'll apply for a court order. See what delaying tactics they try next.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Reminded MsTudor that they have util 23rd to answer the question properly or we'll apply for a court order. See what delaying tactics they try next.

 

I understand your frustration, but I wouldn't apply for a court order at this stage, if that is your intention. Stick to the plan, and follow the step-by-step guide contained within this forum. Any judge will need to see that you are being both 'fair and reasonable' when dealing with this matter. It will save a lot of red-faces in the long run:)

Either way, good luck.

:DSUCCESSESS:D

NATWEST01&02 won over 4k

See how

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/31683-muggins73-natwest.html

 

:)CURRENT CLAIMS:)

HALIFAX03

19-SEPT-07 APPLICATION TO HAVE STAY LIFTED

02-OCT-07 APPLICATION REFUSED

LLOYDS TSB04

10-MAY-07 LBA

 

ABBEY05

19-SEPT-07 LBA

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Would you credit it? (probably yes)

 

They have replied by sending exaclty the same letter again! Anyway, muggins73, we'll take your advice and go straight to the initial request for payment, rather than applying to the court for the missing information (that there have been no manual interventions). Presumably, we can always refer to this unhelpfulness on the N1 (can we?), if we get to that.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Letter from Stu this morning with a whole load of self-justification and a pile of brochures with terms and conditions for all sorts of Nat West offeings.

 

After wading through the guff there is, as a gesture of goodwill, an offer of £1415.00 in full and final settlement.

 

This is everything we asked for except for £157 interest and in response to our Initail Request for Repayment.

 

Seems Nat West is on the run.

 

Steven

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

However...

 

there is a sting in the tail. After waffling on about how wonderful they are in providing all their wonderful services for free they say,

 

"Whilst many of our services are provided without a corresponding charge, we do make charges when customers, by their actions, request an increase to or the creation of an overdraft in excess of their previously agreed limit. By reviewing such requests we provide an additional service to customers, in many instances allowing items to be paid either by creating or increasing an overdraft. These charges can be avoided entirely by arranging suitable borrowing facilities in advance."

 

Now that begs a whole load of questions: If I go overdrawn beacuse they slap an unlawful charge did I really 'request' it (perhaps I was just 'asking for it'). And do they really review my account every time I go overdrawn - I think not. (and if they do, how much does it cost - I bet we'd all like to know that!) And if they really do, why so coy about manual interventions?

 

Then the sting...

 

"Any charges that properly accrue in the future will be applied to your account in line with our published tariff and in accordance with your agreement with the bank. Should you be unwilling to accept any such charges, then we may need to consider if we are prepared to continue to provide you with your existing banking facilities. Instead we may offer you a simple account that does not offer borrowing facilities or other services that can result in charges."

 

Well of course, I don't mind (well almost not) paying charges that 'properly accrue', but that's the whole point, isn't it?

 

We were thinking of accepting the offer (even though it doesn't include interest) but it seems in so doing we would effectively be agreeing to pay their unlawful charges in the future. On another thread NATTIE said we couldn't sign away our rights - quite right too. So, how should we proceed?

 

I am beginningto think we should carry on, accept the offer as a partial offer only, and go for the rest so that we get an unconditional offer. What does anyone else think?

  • Haha 1

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

This is exactly the same letter as I got. I asked for charges plus contractual at 29%. They offered charges, but no interest, so I have written back offering to accept charges plus s69.

 

Awaiting response.

 

This is a new tactic by Nat West and does have some implications especially for new claims. It will be up to each individual to decide if they think it is worth going through the whole court process to try to get s69 or contractual and I get the feeling reading thro the posts on this site that the courts are not always sympathetic to claims for contractual.

 

If you are confident of your claim then you have to decide if the time and effort is worth it for the interest!

 

This gets interesting!

Bicester1

 

MBNA WON £623

:)

GM Card Won £580

:)

Nat West CC Won £525.08

:)

Nat West Bank Won £2346.60:)

Lloyds PPI LBA

Barclaycard defence received. Trial date 30th July. Barclays missed deadline for servicing and filing of their bundle! Going to try for strikeout or summary disposal

HBOS about to issue N1

LLoys Bank LBA

 

I am not a lawyer. Get trained professional advice if unsure of your legal position. If my advice is helpful please tip my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that getting the interest or not is now secondary. The implications of them trying to get us to agree to future charges is the sinister element that has come in. This also seems to be a new tactic.

 

It will be that rather then the interest that makes us press on I think so that we can get an offer wit hno strings attached.

 

Steven

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, so that is how the new account I heard of a few months ago is going to work, No direct debits and no standing orders allowed and only atm withdrawal card. Now i did think it was for this reason and now i see it in black and white. By the way the first bit of the letter, re service is part of new t&c's effective from 1st February 2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the booklet they sent me (NWB 3773 December 2006) contains new T&Cs. It lays out all the unlawful charges VERY clearly (p12) and very helpfully.

 

NATTIE, what is your opinion on post 8. Am I right to continue to get an offer with no strings. I know what they are trying to do but, surely, getting us to effectively sign to accept the charges in the future doesn't make them any more lawful. And there is an implied 'or else' in there too. Or else what?

 

Also, the sentence about reviewing informal overdraft requests is obviously nonsense. But further, it is an attempt to deceive us into believing they do something for the money they take. I think that one could argue that the two things (deceptive claim to provide a 'service' and the attempt to 'persuade' us to accept the charges 'or else') probably constitute an abuse of position and hence are an offence under s4 of the Fraud Act 2006, or are dangerously close to doing so.

 

I am thinking of writing to the CEO of NatWest along these lines and pointing out that his staff (Stu et al) are putting him in a position where he personally could be prosecuted under s12 of the same act.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Yes like the Fraud Act! Would be very interesting to see the response.

 

Bicester1

 

 

MBNA WON £623

:-)

GM Card Won £580 :-)

Barclaycard LBA :-x

Nat West Bank offer received negotiating :p

Nat West CC offer received negotiating :p

Lloyds PPI prelim:wink:

 

 

Any advice is given informally. I am not a lawyer. Consult a trained professional if unsure of your legal position. If my advice is helpful please tip my scales!

Bicester1

 

MBNA WON £623

:)

GM Card Won £580

:)

Nat West CC Won £525.08

:)

Nat West Bank Won £2346.60:)

Lloyds PPI LBA

Barclaycard defence received. Trial date 30th July. Barclays missed deadline for servicing and filing of their bundle! Going to try for strikeout or summary disposal

HBOS about to issue N1

LLoys Bank LBA

 

I am not a lawyer. Get trained professional advice if unsure of your legal position. If my advice is helpful please tip my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

so sir fred Goodwin head of RBS GRoup plc limited. The non formal request is in the new T&C's leaflet sent out in statement insert November December and January. My personal opinion has always been that contractual interest is a difficult one to argue but each to their own. You can cross out conditions and return it to NatWest but always keep a copy

Link to post
Share on other sites

The interest on our claim is the actual interest charged by NatWest on the overdraft when the overdraft consisted entirely of charges. That doesn't seem unreasonable. We have certainly not claimed contractual interest on all teh charges whatever as some are trying.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Quick update. Sent Letter before Action on 17 Feb but unfortunately (stupid me!!!) left the date the same as for the initial request for payment - 27 January. Nat West responded with an identical response to the one they sent in reposnse to the initial request except that it said, "Thank you for your letter of 25 January..."

 

So we have degenerated into complete confusion!

 

We have decided that the best thing to do is to ignore the last 2 letters and send the LBA again with the correct date. The 14 days now ends on 31st March.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We (hubby & I) both sent initial request letters 20.02.07. Hubby got an offer last week £1700 (£90 less than claimed) and has accepted. They haven't replied to any of my letters so sent LBA 7th March. Think they are bogged down and won't have noticed your duplicate!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's hope we don't just go round in circles.

 

On another tack, (see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/56427-theft-act-15a-there.html) I am thinking of sending the follwoing to the CEO of RBOS group (owners of Nat West):

 

Sir Fred Goodwin

The Royal Bank of Scotland plc,

36 St Andrew Square,

Edinburgh,

EH2 2YB

 

Dear Sir Fred,

 

My son has recently been in correspondence with the Customer Relations department of Nat West with a view to reclaiming charges imposed on his account for unauthorised overdrafts and refused direct debit payments, which he, along with many others, believe to be unlawful. In his latest response, Stuart Higley says the following,

 

Whilst many of our services are provided without a corresponding charge, we do make charges when customers, by their actions, request an increase to or the creation of an overdraft in excess of their previously agreed limit. By reviewing such requests we provide an additional service to customers, in many instances allowing items to be paid either by creating or increasing an overdraft.”

 

The Nat West booklet NWB3773 spells out that a charge is applied to the account of a customer who makes an “informal request” for an overdraft by inadvertently going overdrawn, etc, or indeed by going overdrawn because of a charge imposed on the account by the bank itself. The above paragraph implies that someone reviews this “informal request” as part of the services offered by the bank. Now everyone knows that no one does any such thing. All that happens is that the computer automatically imposes the penalty charge. This paragraph is dishonest, and the dishonesty is an attempt to justify an unlawful act (the imposition of a penalty for breach of contract) by the bank.

 

I would like to draw your attention to section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006, which say that an offence has been committed if a person

 

(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,

(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and

© intends, by means of the abuse of that position—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

Section 12 of the same Act says that if the offence is committed by a corporate body with the consent of “a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body Corporate” then that officer is also guilty of an offence and liable to be proceeded against.

 

Now it seems to me that Mr Higley’s letter could be putting you and other directors of Royal Bank of Scotland group in a position where you might be open to prosecution under this Act since Nat West is obviously in a position where it is expected to safeguard customers’ financial interests and, as I pointed out above, Mr Higley’s letter constitutes dishonest abuse of that position with a view to making a gain for the bank and causing a loss for the customer.

 

I felt that you ought to be made aware, if you are not already, of the possible consequences of actions by your staff.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Steven4064

 

Any comments anyone?

 

rolleyes.gif

:rolleyes:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

steven4064

I've got a comment that may or not be of consequential help I dont know, but reference your third paragraph, I would think that their staement may be hard to prove as dishonest, but I think you would have a better chance of proving "Negligent miss-statements" which is covered by the Libel Act, under the New Libel Act it is no longer necssary to prove damage. Have a look at the New Act it might be useful it might not.

 

I think they are making negligent miss statements.

 

sparkie1723

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Don't worry steven.......... nearly there now mate!!! Good luck, hedgey xxx :p

Can't find what you're looking for? Please have a look at Michael Browne's

A-Z Guide

*** PLEASE NOTE ***

I do not answer queries via PM. If you send me a PM, please include a link to your thread - any advice I am able to offer will be on your thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...