Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Novis V Natwest - Claiming £2168.06 ***WON***


weebag
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6370 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, thought I would start a thread on the case of my Fiance v NatWest. By the way, what a fantastic websites this and Moneysavingexpert are. I suddenly feel as though I am starting to get some control back over our lives!

 

Anyway - sent a letter to branch on 3 August asking for £2168.06 and giving 14 days to respond (as per template)

 

Yesterday recieved letter dated 10 August from branch saying "I am not yet able to answer your concern fully, as I need to look into matters further. I will contact you again within the next 10 working days either wilth a full response to your concern or an update."

 

The letter came from the Customer Lending Centre in Brighton (local branch is Eastbourne).

 

So - what is my next course of action? Im thinking send a Letter Before Action to the Customer Relations Manager, Freepost NAT12685, Borehamwood WD6 1BR and copy in the Customer Lending Centre - any comments?

 

The only thing that concerns me is that my Fiance also has a loan with Natwest - whilst we have a parachute current account should Natwest decide to shut account down, we can not afford to repay the loan yet. Anybosy been in this situation?

 

Once again, thank you to all contributors to the website - wish Id found it a long time ago!

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont worry about the loan they cant touch it, its a separate agreement! yes send your lba in, they are using stalling tactics hoping you will drop it they wont come back with anything positive, give them until the 19th though before you send lba, so you can prove that you have given them a reasonable amount of time to comply ok? good luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

cillitbanger- i have continually read about this idea that 14 days is a delaying tactic. It really isn't, it is to allow NW to get the information on that one individual acount. On NW computer systems the max you can view account transactions including charges is 1 year. That's information that you can view immediately on screen. The 14 days in my opinion is to get the information and then send out a response.

Having said that the next step is LBA on this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

To give a positve response is to admit that they are wrong and we all know that it wouldn't happen. I think that getting statements is to make sure that if someone says they are owed x amount that this is the right amount even though they will decline a refund or offer a partial refund. Hope that answers your question and apologies for a slight hijack on the thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick update..

Letter from Natwest today, from customer lending centre in brighton (not signed).

 

Basically a bugger off letter...BUT..we are claiming BANK charges...and the letter refers to that fact that they do not accept the OFT finind in relation to CREDIT CARD charges...seems they have sent a standard letter out, without checking in reflects the facts.

 

They offer £175.00 as a gesture of goodwill and in full and final settlement.

 

LBA here we come....

 

Weebag

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Weebag - I'll keep an eye on your case as I have a personal loan with Natwest, too. It's an interesting situation, because a standard condition on their loans is that you maintain a current a/c with the bank until the loan has been repaid - which could be taken to mean that they can't close your a/c in a fit of pique.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Weebag, I'm a week behind you with my MCOL, and for a similar amount....will watch this space with interest ! Good luck !

 

Shelty.

M-Stanley, Marbles , Barclaycard,Cap 1, NW CC's x 3, NWest, MBNA , HSBC CC ALL WON

 

Outstanding

Halifax initial 11/10 acknowledged 19/10 LBA 25/10

LTSB initial 12/10 LBA 26/10

Barclays initial 3/10,response 9/10 LBA 17/10,MCOL 1/11, defence &AQ 10/12

Bof Ireland mort' S.A.R 16/10, initial 23/11, LBA 7/12,MCOL 23/12

NatWest home loans S.A.R sent 23/10,Initial 16/12, LBA 6/1

NatWest business a/c initial 9/11, LBA 25/11, MCOL 9/12, AQ 20/1,cheque recieved 17/2 but had to send it back !!

HSBC c/a AQ returned 17/2

HSBC bus' a/c MCOL 17/2

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The latest installment in the case...

 

Recieved a defence from Cobbetts yesterday, and also a request for further information (CPR18).

 

Am figuring that I dont need to do anything ref their defence, but will respond to CPR18 request saying that is likely to end up in small claims, and so do not need to respond. Will also send copy of charges.

 

Do i need to update the interest on the charges when I send another copy?

 

Any help appreciated!

 

Thanks

 

Weebag

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hello all - some help would really be appreictaed now!

Just got a letter from Cobbetts. Thought it may be an offer, but no :-(

 

It says "we note your comments regarding our Request For Further Information. It is our clients contention that your POC did not properly particulurise your claim. For example. our client cannot properly defend a claim where you have not given the details of each charge you claim is disproportionate and unreasonable.

 

The Court is bound by an overriding objective to deal with cases justly and ensure that parties are on an equal footing. It was clearly the case that our client could not respond to your claim where you did not provide sufficient particulars."

 

By way of info, my claim was by MCOL and POC as follows :

 

Particulars of Claim

Claimant has account ( xxxxxxx/ xxxxxx)

with Defendant from approximately 1999

conducted on their standard terms and

conditions. Claimant is claiming the return

of £1769.80 taken by Defendant in charges

over 6 years. The Defendant's charges are a

disproportionate penalty and therefore

unenforceable as they are contrary to common

law. They are also invalid under the Unfair

Contracts Terms Act 1977 s.4 and under the

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

Regulations 1999.Para.8 and sch.2.1.e.

In the event that the charges are not a

penalty they are unreasonable within the

meaning of the Supply of Goods and Services

Act 1982 s.15. Defendant has declined

justification of charges despite repeated

requests. Claimant claims interest under

Sec. 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a

rate of 8% a year from 23/11/2000 to

06/09/06 of £411.50 and also interest at

same rate up to the date of judgment or

earlier payment at a daily rate of £1769.80

x 0.00022

 

Can someone offer any advice?? I submitted the spreadsheet of charges once to Nat West, twice to Cobbets and CC the court.

 

Thanks

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Had a cheque come through the post today for £2,400.77 :D

Had usual clauses in, so have sent letter rejecting that....but kept hold of the cheque (just not cashed it)

 

Seems like it is all over bar the shouting now!

 

YES!!!

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for you!!

 

I'm sure it'll be pretty loud shouting too! :eek:

IF MY COMMENTS HAVE HELPED PLEASE CLICK MY SCALES

 

Don't be like the banks - give a little back

 

 

:D NAT WEST - WON - £4282.36:D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...