Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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 
        • Like
      • 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

Matilda v RBOS ***SETTLED IN FULL***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5330 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

  • 3 weeks later...
Have today applied for a default judgement against RBOS.

 

Looking forward to donating 5% and keeping the other 95%

 

Matilda

 

Hi Matilda, sounds like good news!

 

Are you applying for a default judgement after only 21days? Does that mean that they didn't even "acknowledge" your claim?

 

Thanks

24/04/06 - Capital One - £170.00 - Court Claim Acknowledged - Defendant intends to defend claim

18/05/06 - Full settlement received (£170.00) + another £20 for charges added after claim issued.

 

16/05/06 - RBS - Court Claim Submitted - Total £4900 (inc. Interest + Court Fee + Allocation Fee)

22/05/06 - Acknowledged by RBS

16/06/06 - RBS Defence Received

29/06/06 - Settlement offer from Cobbetts LPP £2,500

22/07/06 - Hearing date given as 27th October, York County Court

25/07/09 - Cheque received from Cobbets for £4800!! only £100 to go!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just been successful in a default judgement and now I have the opportunity to apply for a warrant of execution. What is a reasonable amount of time to give the Bank to pay up. I was thinking 7 days. Any advice?

 

Matilda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi matilda

 

Any more news on your case?

 

Have they paid up yet?

 

 

Stacy

NatWest - Settled in full 22/05/06

 

RBS- Prelim sent 9/05/06 £1,147

£500 offer 27/05/06, rejected 30/05/06

LBA sent 25/05/06 :razz:

MCOL 15/06/06

Defence received 20/07/06

Settled in full 01/09/06 wahey!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard nothing from RBoS since 17th May, when they said "I am sorry we have not yet resolved matters, I am not yet able to repond to you fully as I am still investigating the matter"

 

and so......

 

I have issued my 'warrant of execution' today, being seven days after my default judgement was served.

 

...I guess this should push things on a little!

 

I will update when I have some news.

 

Matilda

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have now recieved a letter from Cobbetts who are seeking to set aside the judgement, which I will not be challenging.

 

They have presented their standard defense and requested the usual CPR 18 information I am responding as follows:

 

"I am writing regarding your recent correspondence consisting of your defense and a request for further information in accordance with CPR part 18.

As you are no doubt aware CPR part 18 is not applicable to claims under the small claims track, and although not allocated as yet, in all probability it will be, therefore I will not be complying with your request.

I am willing to provide the requested information only if the court requests it.

I am, however, enclosing in good faith a breakdown of the penalty charges and the related account details which have been unlawfully levied against me. Please note that all this information has already been provided to your client.

I have today also sent the court a copy of this information.

I look forward to your reply."

 

 

 

Any comments?

 

 

 

Many Thanks

 

 

 

Matilda

Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds good, hopefully they'll settle soon!!! There doesn't seem to be many of us taking on RBS!

NatWest - Settled in full 22/05/06

 

RBS- Prelim sent 9/05/06 £1,147

£500 offer 27/05/06, rejected 30/05/06

LBA sent 25/05/06 :razz:

MCOL 15/06/06

Defence received 20/07/06

Settled in full 01/09/06 wahey!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have today received a ‘Notice of Hearing of application’ from the courts to take place on the 4th August.

 

This of course is not for my claim itself but rather an attempt to have the judgement set aside.

 

I will be seeking advise from the court directly as to whether I can just simply agree to this, and therefore speed up my claim.

 

As the hearing is now set…..does this mean it will definitely go ahead? ...Even if I agree to its result....or is this just for the judge to decide?

 

 

 

Do I have to attend?.....I may be on hoilday

 

 

Is their a possibility that the hearing will extend into hearing the claim case also? (….i’m sure I have read this in a thread somewhere!)

 

I would appreciate any comments…..as I have not read any other threads that describe this particular scenario.

 

I will update with the courts feedback.

 

Many Thanks

 

Matilda

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will have some very exciting news....of which I will speak very soon.

 

Before I can speak of it could someonr please confirm that the following statement is true.

 

"under the Limitation Act 1980, you cannot bring a claim more than 6 years after the date on which the cause of action accrued. You issued your claim on 18 May, and you are therefore only legally entitled to calim between the periods 18 May 2000 to 18 May 2006"

 

Can someone please tell me if they are being completely honest.

 

I am not disputing their quoting of the Act but rather I am questioning the definition of which the cause of action accrued.

 

Is this by court action date OR the date of my first letter requesting a refund of charges (a good month previous!)

 

This will make a difference of at least £100!

 

Many Thanks

 

Matilda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to note that part of the above is clearly not true!

 

"only legally entitled to claim between periods 18 May to 18 May 2006".....RUBBISH!!!

 

I am sure I have read elsewhere that interest is payable until the date the claim is resolved!

 

Can someone please confirm this as I will be claiming interest up until I receive payment.

 

Thanks

 

Matilda

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am considering a different approach to claim back pre-6 year charges. This is what I am considering to send in reply to an offer received which covers ALL my charges within a 6 year period.

"I disagree with your assertion that the Limitation Act 1980 precludes charges made against me prior to the 6 year period. Section 32 of the Act says that if there was concealment of something then the six years begins from the day that the concealment is discovered, or could reasonably be discovered.

Your client has concealed from me that their charges are much more than their actual costs and therefore the punitive nature of their charges. The client states that their charges are fair and reasonable and yet the OFT statement has made it clear that this is almost certainly not true. The issue of concealment goes further. If your client has a fiduciary duty towards me, this means that they are obliged not to mislead me and must protect my interests when making statements about its charges. It seems to me that by misleading me as to the fairness of its charges and also that its charges reflect actual losses, that it may be in breach of fiduciary duty."

 

I would really like to test this as it demonstrate that perhaps the policy of only restricting your claim to 6 years is not the best way.

 

Any comments/warnings?

 

 

 

Thank you to Bankfodder - as I have used his posts to help me

 

 

 

 

Matilda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jonni

 

I would be most grateful if you would provide me with your views on my situation.

 

In summary….

 

I have a Judgement against RBoS & I now have a hearing date of the 4th August for set aside.

 

Cobbetts have offered me £2670 of my £3250 claim, they have reduced it due to some being outside the 6 year period.

 

Interestingly they are stating that the claim period is from 18 May 2000 to 18 May 2006 – 18 May being the date I made my action – NOT the very first communication with RBOS. (this makes a difference of £100)

 

What would you do?

  • Accept payment (£2670) and proceed with another claim for the rest.
  • Decline the offer stating that I think the limitation Act section 32 applies (concealment).

Are you aware of any other successes with Cobbetts or not where beyond 6 years have been paid.

 

Many Thanks

Matilda

 

Hi Matilda

 

It is my view that the 6 years rule does not apply, since you could not have been reasonably expected to have known this money was reclaimable. The OFT investigation, whilst not concentrating on bank charges, is most likely to be seen as a point at which the issue of penalty charges became 'public knowledge'.

 

I think the other thing to bear in mind is the fact that a bank does not want to appear in court to explain it's charging system (i.e. actual cost) and so I think it very unlikely that they would really contest the case.

 

It's my opinion that they must try to appear to be defending, without actually defending, otherwise they would consider that they are opening the floodgates.

 

Again, in my opinion, should you proceed to court for the whole sum - which I think you should - and if the bank do indeed attend court, then even if the judge agrees with them about the charges over 6 years, your claim for the charges inside the period would still be valid and payable, and that a judge would not consider you to have acted unreasonably in bringing about the action.

 

I am aware of at least 1 other case where monies outside of 6 years have been repaid, although not with this company.

 

We recently amended our Data Protection Act request letter so that it does not mention charges for 6 years, simply charges in the banking history.

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonni2bad,

does the 6 year thing not only apply to their having to hold information under the DPA. If the Bank have given the statements going back that far (and I agree that they are just flannelling to try and minimise their costs - although one has to wonder what Cobbetts are charging the RBS, my Solicitor charges £120 +VAT an hour and she's in Lincoln), then surely you are within you rights to claim as you have documentary evidence? As the information has been provided by the Bank then surely it is admissible as evidence?

Big Col:p

RBS LBA 20/06/06. WON - 21/10/06

MBNA(1)-Start-20/06/06, Claim-£250, 15/8 - Winner!!

MBNA Virgin(2)-Start-20/06/06, Claim £100, 15/8 - Winner!!

BoS MCard Data Protection Act Sent 20/06/06 - WON 16/10/06

Green On!

If the post/advice helps, pse click on the scales!! :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck Matilda, Hopefully you'll get a nice big cheque soon!

NatWest - Settled in full 22/05/06

 

RBS- Prelim sent 9/05/06 £1,147

£500 offer 27/05/06, rejected 30/05/06

LBA sent 25/05/06 :razz:

MCOL 15/06/06

Defence received 20/07/06

Settled in full 01/09/06 wahey!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

....does the 6 year thing not only apply to their having to hold information under the Data Protection Act?....

 

Companies should hold information for 6 years, but in reality the banks will more than likely hold far more than this. If it were the case that the bank only had information going back 6 years, then we could not really push the issue.

 

However, it was important that we didn't specify 6 years in our requests, just in case they send more.

 

I have seen cases where people have been estimating charges beyond this period. I'm of the belief that if this kind of case went to court and the bank defended it, then there would be scope to persuade a Judge.

 

I suppose we might never actually see that though...

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Interesting Development!

 

Letter received from Cobbetts today: (It was NOT marked without prejudice)

 

"We refer to the application hearing on the 4th August.

 

You will appreciate that we based in Manchester. The hearing is listed to take place in Bow and would require the banks legal representative to travel from Manchester. In the circumstances, and in order to keep the costs to a minimum, we should be grateful if you would consent to the legal representative attending the hearing by telephone.

 

Please note that if we are successful at the hearing, we will seek to recover our legal costs from you, and that such costs will be greatly increased if we are required in attend the hearing in person"

 

I think the way I will proceed is by allowing a telephone hearing, but make it clear that it is I who will be claiming costs!...

 

Or maybe I should Not accept their request?....Clearly they are trying to bully into this with the threat “seek to recover our legal costs”….

 

I have the judgment already, they are the ones applying for a set aside!

 

What is the feeling about my actual attendance ….is it required?

 

 

Any thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why they shouldn't travel its them who want the set aside! The letters obviously meant to intimidate you into agreeing to the telephone hearing! Perhaps if you ring the court they will advise on your need to be there?

NatWest - Settled in full 22/05/06

 

RBS- Prelim sent 9/05/06 £1,147

£500 offer 27/05/06, rejected 30/05/06

LBA sent 25/05/06 :razz:

MCOL 15/06/06

Defence received 20/07/06

Settled in full 01/09/06 wahey!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest BlueRuby
Interesting Development!

 

Please note that if we are successful at the hearing, we will seek to recover our legal costs from you, and that such costs will be greatly increased if we are required in attend the hearing in person"

 

I thought they couldn't claim legal costs in the Small Claims Court? And of course they're not going to go as far as court, are they? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okey dokey.

 

You only need to attend this hearing if you think it should be challenged. Others have tried, but it is in the interest of fairness that the judge will probably allow them to do so.

 

The fact that they did not respond it time to your claim has caused this set-aside hearing, so even if you were to attend, and ask them to attend in person, there is very little chance (if any) of a judge awarding costs for travel. It might be worth a visit if you just want to get a feel for court action, but unless you really are keen to challenge it, I would probably not bother.

 

Costs for travel would not, in any case, be awarded at this hearing. They would have to follow up with a defence, and win, and then claim for it at a full hearing. You know where that one is going.

 

You are under no obligation to allow them to deal with this by phone - only you can decide. I agree that their letter is somewhat bullying and perhaps misleading to a degree. Maybe that might alter your view.

 

Best of luck with those decisions!

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5330 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...