Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your point 4 deals with that and puts them to strict proof .....but realistically they are not in a position to state that within their particulars they were not the creditor at the time of default but naturally assume the OC would have...so always worth challenging and if you get a DJ who knows his onions on the day may ask for further evidence from the OC internal accounts system. 
    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim. 1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 24/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • AMEX and TSB the 2 Creditors who you need to worry about the least, ever!  Just stop paying them and forget about it, ignore all their threat o gram letters.  Only if, and with these 2 it's a massive if, you end up with a claim form you need to respond, and there will be plenty of help here.
  • 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

Is NatWest prejudiced against Polish people?


NatWest and me
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6028 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

Hi to All, this is what happened to me in NatWest...

 

I asked NatWest to do a money transfer for me. Despite I have done hundreds of money transfers in the last several years, on this occassion it was denied. The person from NatWest didn't like my passport. She treated me like a criminal, like a sheep. She kept picking at my passport photo, bending the cover to lift the picture trying to see what's underneath it...All the other people who did my transfers before didn't find anything wrong with my passport.

 

I was told that I needed to bring a driving licence. I said that I lost my driving licence and would have to go to Poland to get a new one issued. I was given no choice but to go abroad to bring it.

 

I was forced to take a break from work and went abroad to have my driving licence re-issued. I then flew back into the UK with my passport and driving licence. Passport control didn't see anything wrong with my passport at all.

 

I went back to NatWest and was made to wait for 2 hours. Finally I was seen by the same person as last time and she told me that she didn't want a Polish driving licence. She wanted a British one.

 

The bank manager didn't help me as this person had already spoken to him before about me and so he also treated me not like a person, not like a customer but like cattle.

 

I went to a different branch to have my transfer done. Unfortunately the person from the previous branch had by then put some diminitive comments about my passport/me on the internal NatWest database so now the person who dealt with it had to call the other women for an explanation. As he was on the the phone with her she got him to bend the cover of my passport and pick at the photograph. After around half an hour of that he came back with my passport in one hand and my passport photo in the other. There was not even one "sorry".

 

When I asked him in shock why he did that he said that "This would not happen to a British Passport". I was distressed. I said that if he shows me his I could demonstrate that this can happen to any passport.

 

Despite I know that both British and Polish passports are good (and v. likely the same) quality, what happened made me sad about being Polish, and wishing I had a British passport and not Polish passport. Only later once the shock is over you realise that you were simply discriminated against, you were made to feel this way. I had never been made to feel this way before for the whole 15-16 years of living in this country.

 

I have written to customer services and having received an unsatisfactory answer (everything that had happened was denied) I wrote to the RBS CEO.

 

I wrote to Sir Goodwin since when I called the NatWest call centre they told me that they didn't have a CEO in NatWest and the RBS CEO is the only CEO.

 

I received a reply from Gordon Pell, NatWest Retail Markets CEO, who also wrote that the NatWest people in question denied everything.

 

I walked into a NatWest branch and had my passport defaced. Now I am told by the NatWest Retail Markets CEO that I have no evidence and no one has seen anything. It was of course all recorded on CCTV but the way it's going I can see how the evidence is going to disappear. The CEO have already written to me that they are under no obligation to issue the CCTV footage.

 

If you are planning to walk into a NatWest branch, think about it twice...

 

This USED TO be an ethical organisation. Sadly no more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want an honest answer its,

no i doubt it very much.

I believe your thread is more discriminative than NatWest have been, and quite contradictory to your own happy 15 year relationship with the bank.

I understand you have had a bad experience, but i hope you can move on soon.

Good luck.

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.

 

NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, you don't have a leg to stand on, other than starting up a criminal case against them for damage to official documents. Again, there is no direct evidence. I would let your embassy know, and perhaps they'll issue a warning. This is the kind of thing that happens when you let your passport go out of your hand - out of sight is even worse! I often shouted at bank staff in China and stopped them taking my passport away. Always hold onto your passport firmly; apparently, even the British can't be trusted with this kind of document.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi natwest and me natwest has a funny habit to mock foreign customer trust me i have been insulted more than once about nationality even though apparently i have no right what so ever but of course i have only one right to pay up whenever they feel like it so iwithdraw my bank account with them , and that afte 10 yeares with them . what an awful awful customer services i have no trust in them whatsoever .....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...