Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Found 10 years of vintage bank statements from NAT WEST


Justabout done
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1790 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,

I've found that I had kept every bank statement from mid 1980's to 1998 with Nat West.

I had a couple of mortgages, several loans and what appear to be excessive bank charges,

I will send an SAR, but it is likely that I have more information than they hold, unless they're very good at archiving.

During the course of reading each one I found various bodies who had received money regularly from me,

but I don't have a clue who they were/are, some seem to be directly connected to the bank account.

 

I would appreciate any help with identifying the following, I have tried googling but haven't had much success.:-

 

MSD Premium Funder.

Forward Trust.

Lombard Tricity.

Fredrickson IN Ltd.

Bishop Court IBA.

Bradford Insurance.

Edited by Justabout done
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well not alot you can do now anyway

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

MSD Premium Funder....loan co.

Forward Trust...loan co

Lombard Tricity...loan co

Fredrickson IN Ltd...DCA

Bishop Court IBA.??

Bradford Insurance. Insurance co

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

Thank you for giving me this information.

 

Bishops Court IBA took money from my account from 1992 until 1998, it appears to be related to amount of money owed in my " Credit zone".

 

As far as I know I was never involved with any debt collection agency.

 

I have never taken out any Insurance with Bradford Insurance who took varying amounts of money from my account by SO from 1993 until 1998, which was when any outstanding money owed to NAT WEST were all paid up from redundancy payment.

 

Thank you for your help but -

I don't understand, do you mean that I can't claim anything although I have evidence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Outside of 6yrs

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

Wrongful payment or mistake. P'haps but not with SO's as you must have authorised them

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

I must have authorised them, but was I capable of making an informed decision at that time due to learning difficulties?

 

I am more concerned about the Mortgages & loans with PPI I had.

 

As to SO's being authorised, I have recently been diagnosed as Autistic, hence I am and always have been a vulnerable adult, to whom the bank was throwing money.

When I went over my overdraft I was offered the "Credit Zone"-- more money to spend-- yippee.

 

I think I must have got off on the wrong foot with my original post.:?:

 

I took two mortgages and several loans with NAT WEST between early 1980's until 1998.

 

The following firms took money from my account by DD the sums vary and appear to be related to the amount of various monies the bank had loaned:-

MSD Premium Funder.

Forward Trust.

Lombard Tricity.

Fredrickson IN Ltd.

Bishop Court IBA.

Bradford Insurance.

 

Whether by ordinary loan or their * CREDIT ZONE *. I was almost always overdrawn within my overdraft limit, then they offered several thousands of overdraft facilities with this credit zone.

 

I was a lot younger, naive and believed everything I was told by anyone with authority!

 

Are you saying that I can't claim back any PPI sold or excessive bank charges because I've only just realised this had happened?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suspect there is PPI there yes and you've confirmed to have 'products' that would have had it now. [ what I thought - you've ppi that what those companies provided]

 

I doubt you'll get penalty charges back unless it was caused by any mis sold PPI.

 

so the only way to know is to sar natwest and hope you get all your mortgage/loans stuff in return which comfirms PPI on them

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

Thank you. :)

Is not the "outwith 6 years." legally from the time one realised or found out that X was so? I'm sure that I read that somewhere.

 

 

It is from "actual" or "constructive" knowledge, whichever is sooner.

So, if you didn't actually know, it is 6 years (the 'limitation period' for contract law, as here) (but 3 years for personal injury!) from the point at which you should have known, or would have known once you made inquiries

The thorny issue with constructive knowledge is "should you have made inquiries".

 

For insurance law : apparently not.

https://www.rpc.co.uk/perspectives/professional-and-financial-risks/who-knows/

The prevailing view seems to be that the company will have constructive knowledge of facts that should have been revealed by an internal enquiry that was actually undertaken. However, there is no duty to undertake a reasonable enquiry – thus the company is not deemed to know facts that would have been discovered had a reasonable enquiry been undertaken. Yet, if a fact would have been discovered but for the wilful turning of a 'blind eye', the company will be deemed to know.

 

 

Within personal injury cases the Court of Appeal has decided that each case stands on its own merits, ..... confirming "Dyson LJ’s test in Whiston"

http://insurance.dwf.co.uk/news-updates/2014/10/constructive-knowledge-and-limitation-revisited-and-restated/

 

the issue of constructive knowledge should be determined by reference to the knowledge which a person might reasonably be expected to acquire, which must depend on all the circumstances of the case.

 

 

which doesn't actually set out a single yardstick....

Link to post
Share on other sites

for ppi it works like this :

PPI CCL 3yrs letters final fg12-17.pdf

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

"(if later), more than three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that they had cause for complaint.

 

5. Whether and when a customer becomes aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that they had cause for complaint for the purpose of our time limit rules is a matter of fact that will depend on the individual circumstances of each case. A customer’s previous experience of the PPI policy and dealings with the firm about it may impact on the extent to which the customer may be aware (or ought reasonably to have been aware) that they had cause for complaint."

 

I am elderly, Autistic and have a degenerative disease, all of which impact upon what I do and how I think. I think the above quote would cover my situation.

 

I have read but not seen that The Ombudsman have been running a campaign about PPI, but I don't watch television, so have not seen any of this.

 

I was aware of PPI, but didn't believe that it applied to me until last year when I found a lot of vintage credit card statements, I asked for help from the forum on how to pursue this and was given very good advice which I much appreciate.

 

This year I have found the NATWEST bank statements, I don't know if I paid PPI, but the statements suggest that I did, I believe that it's worth pursuing, I only have the time to loose, not anything else.

 

Separately, I am unable to manage a mobile phone, I need a desktop PC, so am only able to see posts others have made if I come into the room to look.

 

I have tried to edit my signature to reflect this, but am unable to do so, can anyone help with this?

 

I know that phone users often expect a quick response which I am unable to give. :|

Link to post
Share on other sites

no you respond when you can no rush

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

  • 10 months later...

test

 

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

I have details taken from bank statements, of one bank loan taken out in 1983.

 

£500. 00 loan repaid over 24 months, the repayments and interest were deducted separately from my bank account. I added up the 24 repayments the total of which was £543, excluding setting up charges, please can anyone advise if this £43 is likely to be PPI, or could it be some other charge that was commonly applied to loans in the 80's?

 

Since that loan, it seems that I took out many similar loans over nearly 20 years, so if it is likely to be PPI, I need to  get to work scanning another 800 pages, if not, it's probably not worth pursuing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you would need to look at the agreement you signed to see if PPI is stated [life ins etc etc medicare]

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

you would need atleast the loans account number to even put in a speculative claim using their website ppi link I think?

 

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

All I have is Personal loan No.1 (1st payment)..£xxxx

                     Personal loan interest...                    £xxxx.

 

No account or any other numbers.

 

How would they justify the extra £43.00 paid overall?

 

One of the loans is for £2000.00 which I haven't yet added up, but I think that would be quite a bit more than £40.+

Edited by Justabout done
Link to post
Share on other sites

you have to PROVE PPI was levied not GUESS.

 

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

no harm in trying.

simply put what banking facilities you had with them

 

https://personal.natwest.com/personal/support-centre/how-to-complain/ppi-complaints.html

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

Thank you dx100uk,

I have found other information via Google.

 

"back in the late '80s early '90s, Natwest didn't generally disclose the loan account numbers to customers, because the loans were supposedly linked to your current account and as far as I'm aware you couldn't get a loan without having a current account. You didn't get any statements for your loan accounts. The only time you potentially got to see sight of the loan account number is if you made an overpayment and if they happened to give you a receipt or something with the loan account number written on it.

The other little wrinkle is that the PPI Premium was paid behind the scenes and only the base amount you were borrowing got paid into your current account. Sometime between 1991 and 1993, this changed, and they started depositing the total amount borrowed into your current account and then the PPI Premium was taken from your current account on more or less the same day."

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...