If people are so worried about judges and have a lack of faith in the judicial process then why are we even here guys? We are here as there has never been a precedent set. Stay on track, TB is claiming something different to our normal claims. I for one never thought I had a leg to stand on before falling into CAG. Now am here oh my god what a wealth of information in all subjects. I had it pointed out to me yesterday that I have been with CAG three months now, how time flies eh! Maybe that's why my mrs isnt speaking to me lol it's so bloody addictive. So far I have had two DCA removed from my life due to info here. Sill ongoing with bank charges but ho hum that will be a winner. I also have a biggy that am awaiting return of sar on. One member on here knows how much it could be worth and lemme tell you it would BJ any previous claim on CAG. CAG is amazing but we aren't right all the time. Our opinions are just that, opinions. Keep on track guys and don't confuse TB's claim with our normal ones as we are not seeking exemplary damages, but if TB wins and I hope he does then thanks Tom for opening the floodgates.

why would you want to pay for a second form of coverage that is equivalent to the coverage given by Renault via the AA? Maybe it's just me but I don't like the idea of being duped into paying for something I already have FOC!

no worries chips, please keep us informed of any developments.

Have I Lol, this is becoming an addiction! Crossed wires on this one I think. I thought the reference to private was relating to the registered keeper and thus the confusion with ltd company etc.

one question on the 750 in scotland. Is this the total amount ex interest and costs, ie if I claim upto 750 ex costs and int is this ok or is the 750 the total amount inc int and costs??

cheers for that mtman, time for me to get typing again

My understanding is below in red. It would be upto the Ltd company to find out who was driving the vehicle at the time of the offence and make them pay the ticket.

The ltd company is a legal entity in it's own right and is therefore liable for parking offences concerning their vehicles. The ticket is issued against a vehicle, the reg keeper of the vehicle is your company. If it was a leased vehicle it would be issued againt the leasing company who would inturn, issue the parking ticket to you along with admin costs. Hope this clears this one up for you esio.

you are a very very very naughty boy setmefree lol

I prefer carling! Am just doing the digging for the templates for a non compliance claim. Going from the figs they have supplied me my claim will still be in the small claims court their figs show 478 ex interest and costs. I want to also claim for the work I have done on this since march.

maybe I should be on drugs then, just medicinal ofcourse to help me to digest your post. I can't wait for the 3 d posts, have my wee glasses at the ready!

naaaa m8 it was just all the colours and fonts in your previous post

why is anyone using a solicitor, when all the information is here?

mtm are u on drugs?

Go for it delboy, standard approach sar and cca. Then hit em.

24/04/2007 Data Protection Team, Nationwide Building Society Kings Park road, Moulton Park Northampton NN3 6NW Letter Before Action Dear Sirs Acct No: THIS IS NOT A STANDARD LETTER SO PLEASE READ IT ALL! Due to recent media coverage on bank charges and the recent OFT announcement I am now aware that you, Nationwide Building Society have been charging me, charges, that are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 (e) of the said regulations gives a non-complete list of terms, which may be regarded as unfair, such as a term that requires me as a consumer who fails in his obligation, to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation. I believe that your charges are disproportionately high. Therefore, they are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999. In addition, I believe that your charges are a Penalty. Penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor co Ltd [1915] AC 79.along with Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963 It was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses. It is clear that your charges do not reflect any actual and or real loss. I wrote to you on 19/03/07 regarding a DPA request and I sent you a reminder letter dated 23/04/07 you finally responded on 04/05/07, I enclosed the maximum standard payment and you cashed this cheque. However you failed to provide me with the relevant information requested as you only provided information going back to 15/05/04. As you are fully aware I wrote asking for a full DPA Request going back at least 5 years or for full term I have had my account with yourselves and you failed to provide this information. You have been evasive in the extreme, in your letter you sent you stated “Should you require a copy of your statements or any other information relating to this, or any other accounts you hold please let me know”. As you well know from my letter dated 19/03/07 this had already been requested and you have evaded supplying me with the relevant information. You have also evaded supplying me with details of any manual intervention on my account which was also requested in the same letter I sent to you on 19/03/07. You have been obstructive in dealing with my DPA request even though you have taken full payment for this. This amounts to evasion. I wonder what a District Judge would make of the fact that you have been so evasive; I believe disclosure would be ordered. You enclosed a standard letter stating manual intervention may have been required on my account and you again failed to provide me of the details of this as requested. The information relating to charges made against me by your building society do not match those on the previous 17 months statements that I have in my possession. Therefore the information you have provided is incorrect, evasive, obstructive and mis-leading. I have made one formal complaint to the Information Commissioners Office regarding your breach of the Data protection Act 1998 regarding your failure to comply with this act by responding within 40 days, which you failed to do and I have documentary proof of this. I will also be making a further complaint informing the ICO of your provision of incorrect information which is again a further breach of the DPA 1998. I believe you are obstructing any claim I may make against Nationwide Building Society. Your charges appear to be nothing more than a profit-making scheme. Therefore, I require you to refund my entire bank charges for the past 5 years. Along with evidence that you have refunded all the charges. I hereby give you 14 days notice to refund the charges back on to my account. Please believe me that I shall pursue this matter as I do not believe anyone should be misled, provided with incorrect information nor face penalty charges. I formally invite you to defend the action I SHALL bring against Nationwide Building Society, to disclose the true cost of your costs incurred in dealing with my account. I will also not be willing to submit to the normal legal tactics of Nationwide Building Society in offering settlement at the eleventh hour nor should you credit my account with the amount I shall be claiming. This will be rejected completely as I firmly believe I have been penalised by your company who act in a fiduciary role. My trust has gone completely due to the manner in which you have managed my account, evaded DPA request and imposed unlawful charges against me, which has caused undue hardship. You believe you are above the law and I do not believe anyone is, where they to be a PLC, Ltd Company, Sole Trader nor individual. I truly want this matter to go to court as I have the right to know why I have been penalised in charges by Nationwide Building Society. This is a personal action and I am acting on behalf of myself and no other person nor group. I make a direct allegation that Nationwide Building Society has inflicted penalty charges against myself. I look forward to your response within 14 days, if you fail to respond I will start legal proceedings against Nationwide Building Society. Yours Sincerely calvi36

I have a parachute account mtman. As for taking them only for non compliance, I would rather take them for bank charges and non compliance at the same time. I now have documented proof from them that the original info was wrong, I challenged it as it differed vastly from what my statements said. In the latest letter from them, a bog standard letter they have completely failed to address the information that I requested. I will find my letter and post it here.

Try this one, see what you think chips. It is important to state a timescale, yours no theirs, failing to state a timescale gives them an open date to respond to. This is your timescale, you state the deadlines and you stick to them. Lex are mebers of the BVRLA and should abide by their code of practise.

I have finally been sent my second list of charges. As I suspected they are hugely different to the first set they sent me, 60% higher. I will have to make a further complaint to Information Commissioners Office as this information is still incomplete as they have only gone back to 2004. I will issue lba for the amount they provided second time round. I will be asking the judge to award damages at his/her discretion for breach of Data Protection Act. Oh I forgot to add my internet banking has been disconnected twice and i have had to reapply to have it connected twice. They state that i must be entering passcodes incorrectly. Pmmmpppphhhh amazing how they have always worked fine.

Hi Chips. Go for it, you should not have been sold the RAC cover as an extra as you were already covered. Most cars come with 2 or 3 years breakdown cover anyway, provided by the manufacturer. Also as it was a leased vehicle the cover is already built into the monthly rental. The lex quoting system does allow this to be removed to reduce monthly payments. It is just another way of upping the rental for something that is not required. What make and model was it btw?

Lueeze, welcome to the real world of dodgy car companies, **** finance companies, false lawyers, false bailiffs. It's a nightmare that has to be regulated, do mp's listen, aye to the sound of their own voices!

I have also found out that the average sale price of properties in the area were 395k in 2003/2004 and at the time of sale it was 295k

Just a quick update, still no response but then again i did not expect one as they will look into this quite deeply.

Include both in the same letter, include a postal order for a quid. The rest of it let them dig and dig until they find what you are asking for. Until the cca is sent and you are happy that this is the agreement that you signed do not pay them a penny. At the end of the day you do not know who this company are, they could be attempting to gain monies unlawfully. It's like i said in one of my previous posts on this thread: Forgot to say, you owe me money, if I don't get it I will send bailiffs (heavies) round to your granny's house, take all her stuff and her prize moggy, might even threaten the old dear and kidnap her. This will happen between 3am and 6am am not telling you when though. I won't even bother going to court for an order, I'll just lie and tell you I have done it. But thanks for sending me all your bank details which I am now using to have your statements redirected to your new address (MINE) and a new cashcard so I can empty what you have in your account! You can't beat a bit of sarcasm, hope you get the message in this! What I am saying is that anyone could call you or write to you and say you owe us, my attitude is oh do I ffffing really, prove it. This is how I deal with demands for money. I know that you must have been very distressed by the phone calls H, don't call them again. Write Helen, if they do not respond then ho hum smile a lot as you have them where you need them, it's called the sharp end. I gotta go now, chicken is almost ready and yes am the one doing the cooking. If you need help with the letter pm me.

I disagree CRFX, the judge will look at all the arguments placed in front of him and all precedents. It is very, very important to remember that what TB is doing is attempting to claim exemplary damages and that this is not a standard reclaim of bank charges. The crux of this is that the banks offered far more than the original claim in settlement and this was rejected as TB did not accept them putting money into his account without his knowledge. TB rejects this as more or less unlawful settlement without negotiation and I would totally agree with him. This case will actually have very little relevance unless TB wins the claim for exemplary damages. If he does then the floodgates open. If he does not and the banks have STILL failed to disclose their actual costs then as far as I am concerned it is BUSINESS AS USUAL in reclaiming unlawful charges. Sorry if i am teaching you to suck eggs CRFX, this is just my standpoint and opinion.