Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.View the full article
    • deed?  you mean consent order you and her signed? concluding the case as long as you nor she break it's conditions signed upto? dx  
    • Well tbh that’s good news and something she can find out for herself.  She has no intention of peace.  I’m going to ask the thread stays open a little longer.   It seems she had not learned that I am just not the one!!!!  plus I have received new medical info from my vet today.   To remain within agreement, I need to generally ask for advice re:  If new medical information for the pup became apparent now - post agreement signing, that added proof a second genetic disease (tested for in those initial tests in the first case but relayed incorrectly to me then ), does it give me grounds for asking a court to unseal the deed so I can pursue this new info….. if she persists in being a pain ? If generally speaking, a first case was a cardiac issue that can be argued as both genetic and congenital until a genetic test is done and then a second absolute genetic only disease was then discovered, is that deemed a new case or grounds for unsealing? Make sense ?   This disease is only ever genetic!!!!   Rather more damning and indisputable proof of genetic disease breeding with no screening yk prevent.   The vet report showing this was uploaded in the original N1 pack.   Somehow rekeyed as normal when I was called with the results.   A vet visit today shows they were not normal and every symptom he has had reported in all reports uploaded from day one are related to the disease. 
    • Hi Roberto, Read some of the other threads here about S Sixes - they all follow the same routine of threats, threats, then nothing. When you do this, you'll see how many have been in exactly the same situation as you are. Keep us updated as necessary .............
    • The EV maker slashes more jobs and brings forward new models as profits drop by more than half.View the full article
  • 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

NatWest Business charges- A guide (incomplete at the moment)


Guest NATTIE
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6350 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

As the personal accounts info is complete, I think it is time that I pressed ahead with the charges from 2000 for business accounts.

I know the charges have slightly different amounts on them so here we go with first of all the charges that are levied as PENALTY charges

 

So charges as of 2006

 

Paid referral fee £30

Returned items £35

So first of all any charges I have missed for example unarranged borrowing? what is the amount.

And paid referral fees are they the same as on personal accounts? If so the dates I have.

Also the returned fees amount must have changed over the years so what has it been. Once I have these figures I will sort the title out and make a final post.

 

All I need on this thread is Penalty charges, amounts, dates so that it makes business claimers have an easy reference guide. I will give definitions as to how they work on the last thread once i have the info.

 

Thanks in advance for any help

Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the Lloyds TSB charges outlined in the booklet I received last week

 

Business Extra Tariff (standard tariff) - Unauthorised borrowing fees

 

First time overlimit by £50 or more - £15.00 (one charge per day maximun)

 

Increase of £50 or more from previous days closing balance - as above and continues until account is in credit or within agreed limit

 

Returning DD, bouncing a cheque or not paying a SO - £35 for each item unpaid

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ONLY looking at NatWest on this one I;m afraid. I am looking at other bank charges on personal accounts but it is a terribly slow process. Thanks for posting but I need NatWest Business Account Penalty charges only on this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Have been looking at my business account natwest statements and this seems to be the charges on my account

 

In 2000

excess borrowing fee was £3.50 per day

Chq return fee £27.50

Unpaid R/P fee £27.50

 

In Oct 2000 chq return fee £30

unpaid dd fee £30

unpaid R/P fee £30

 

Sept 2001 paid referral fee £12

 

July 2005

Unpaid chq/DD/SO fee £35

Late RTN fee £30

 

August 2005 Paid referral fee £12.50

 

Hope this is some help.

Jax

 

Marbles/HSBC - SETTLED IN FULL

Beneficial/HSBC - SETTLED IN FULL 01/08/2006

NatWest Cr Cd - SETTLED IN FULL in respect of default judgement obtained 06/09/06

Natwest - SETTLED IN FULL 20/10/06

Abbey T/A Business Account - SETTLED IN FULL 07/03/2006 :grin:

Abbey Current Account - SETTLED IN FULL 16/03/2006 :grin:

Citi - SETTLED IN FULL 17/05/2007 :D

Natwest Business Account - On going

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...