Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Regarding a driver, that HAS paid for parking but input an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number.   This is an easy mistake to make, especially if a driver has access to more than one vehicle. First of all, upon receiving an NTK/PCN it is important to check that the Notice fully complies with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 before deciding how to respond of course. The general advice is NOT to appeal to the Private Parking Company as, for example, you may identify yourself as driver and in certain circumstances that could harm your defence at a later stage. However, after following a recent thread on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in the case of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, which is covered by “de minimis” it may actually HARM your defence at a later stage if you have not appealed to the PPC at the first appeal stage and explained that you DID pay for parking and CAN provide proof of parking, it was just that an incorrect VRN was input in error. Now, we all know that the BPA Code of Practice are guidelines from one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans to follow, but my thoughts are that there could be problems in court if a judge decides that a motorist has not followed these guidelines and has not made an appeal at the first appeal stage, therefore attempting to resolve the situation before it reaches court. From BPA Code of Practice: Section 17:  Keying Errors B) Major Keying Errors Examples of a major keying error could include: • Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration • Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration • Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly) • Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant). It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal. Now, we know that the "modest charge" is unenforceable in law, however, it would be up to the individual if they wanted to pay and make the problem go away or in fact if they wanted to contest the issue in court. If the motorist DOES appeal to the PPC explaining the error and the PPC rejects the appeal and the appeal fails, the motorist can use that in his favour at court.   Defence: "I entered the wrong VRN by mistake Judge, I explained this and I also submitted proof of payment for the relevant parking period in my appeal but the PPC wouldn't accept that"   If the motorist DOES NOT appeal to the PPC in the first instance the judge may well use that as a reason to dismiss the case in the claimant's favour because they may decide that they had the opportunity to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage in the proceedings. It is my humble opinion that a motorist, having paid and having proof of payment but entering the wrong VRN, should make an appeal at the first appeal stage in order to prevent problems at a later stage. In this instance, I think there is nothing to be gained by concealing the identity of the driver, especially if at a later stage, perhaps in court, it is said: “I (the driver) entered the wrong VRN.” Whether you agree or not, it is up to the individual to decide …. but worth thinking about. Any feedback, especially if you can prove to the contrary, gratefully received.
    • Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.View the full article
    • The music streaming service reports record profits of over €1bn (£860m) after laying off 1500 staff.View the full article
    • deed?  you mean consent order you and her signed? concluding the case as long as you nor she break it's conditions signed upto? dx  
    • Well tbh that’s good news and something she can find out for herself.  She has no intention of peace.  I’m going to ask the thread stays open a little longer.   It seems she had not learned that I am just not the one!!!!  plus I have received new medical info from my vet today.   To remain within agreement, I need to generally ask for advice re:  If new medical information for the pup became apparent now - post agreement signing, that added proof a second genetic disease (tested for in those initial tests in the first case but relayed incorrectly to me then ), does it give me grounds for asking a court to unseal the deed so I can pursue this new info….. if she persists in being a pain ? If generally speaking, a first case was a cardiac issue that can be argued as both genetic and congenital until a genetic test is done and then a second absolute genetic only disease was then discovered, is that deemed a new case or grounds for unsealing? Make sense ?   This disease is only ever genetic!!!!   Rather more damning and indisputable proof of genetic disease breeding with no screening yk prevent.   The vet report showing this was uploaded in the original N1 pack.   Somehow rekeyed as normal when I was called with the results.   A vet visit today shows they were not normal and every symptom he has had reported in all reports uploaded from day one are related to the disease. 
  • 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

Nationwide - Response


stubbarama
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1876 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

I received my response letter from the Nationwide this morning, merely stating if I told them what charges I was on about they would look into it.

 

As I had used the template letter on Bank Action Group so I thought it was very clear and to the point, I rang them and despite not geting the person who originaly sent the letter, spoke to a young girl who was more than aware of the situation and fobbed me off with the " You have to ask the branch for them " as I pointed out to her my original letter was addressed to the branch and why should I have to do it again ? She became very anoid and cited that she was going over the same thing again and again, well if I dont get a suitable answer Im going too !!

 

I asked to speak to a supervisor/manager and was told they were all in a meeting, so I asked for her to get someone to call me when they were out. She put me on hold and then came back saying they were looking for my letter. Then came back saying that I had ask for a list of charges, not a list of statements. I was getting a bit hett up now and ponted out she was being a bit picky. but still she went on.

 

So finaly I said to get a manager to call me, when voila one appeared out of no where, and said she would call the branch for me, and get them to liaise with me. I told her that I wanted a list of charges and not a chat and she agreed.

 

Dont think this is going to be easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send in £10 with a letter to their head office saying the following:

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Please send me all of the information which I am entitled to under the Data Protection Act 1998. I require you to enclose copies of all bank statements.

 

Your faithfully

 

They have 40 days to comply (which they will, quite happily). After that add up all the charges and send them a letter threatening court within xxx days if the money isn't returned.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert, I already sent Daves template letter out of the libary. Therfore asking for the list of charges.

 

I pointed this out to her, but she didnt want to know. I ended up talking to a team leader who dealt with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, are they sending the info or not?

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a good illustration of why it's important to follow the Data Protection request route. They have an entire department set up to deal with DPA requests, and you'll find that it's an entirely straightforward process to get all your information out of them. Nationwide will dend you a hefty ring bound folder with absolutely everything in it, provided you ask for it is the proper way, through a formal data protection request.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they dont give me everything. :D

 

Could take a while to sort through 6 years worth of info.

 

I did a quick tally up on the likely charges and it seems to be approx 2100 (A few statements missing) and interst of £700.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Provided you document every charge, you shouldn't have too much trouble getting it all back

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received the statements this morning, With a letter stating that in Feb 2001 I got a refund of £25 and that it was the Nationwides policy to only refund on a first offense ( despite it not being the first ).

 

Should I send them back a letter asking for the total amount or go straight to the online claim ? if I do send them a letter can I ask for the 8% Apr ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to go to court, it's best to have your facts right. I suggest you get all your previous statements and add it all up. Then when you start your claim you can provide a detailed list of every charge. A little bit of patience and preparation at this stage is definitley worth while. Also, when you go back with your detailed list, you'll be sending a messager that you're dead serious.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should now total it all up and ask for it back first and let them know the basis on which they should return the money.

When you say 8% interest, what are you referring to?

 

If you are claimimg money which the banks have taken from you unlawfully, then you certainly have grounds for claiming interest.

 

However, if their charges had resulted in or were included in an overdraft, then they would have been charging yo interest on the value of the charges. This would be the interest which you should be claiming

I think that the 8% you are referring to is the County Court rate. But you only claim that when you have started your action.

 

Actually, I think that there is a good basis for saying that there is an implied term of mutuality or reciprocity in all bank contracts. If this would be the case then as the seizure of money by the bank amounts to unauthorised borrowing by them and that therefore they should pay you interest on the the sum at their own unauthorised borrowing rate. However, this gets us into contraversial waters and you might prefer simpoy to go in for a quick kill. :twisted:

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Nationwide have 4 days left to acknowledge the claim, and after speaking with Gary Clay they are more than likely to post it at the last minute.

 

Just wondering whether if they do acknowlege the claim, we can get some press coverage on the back of them backing down at the last minute against Gary ? see if they will actualy get it into court this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just about to send them a letter requesting the return of my £725. However you might be interested to know just got of the phone with a Sarah Watson of Nationwide, and she called the charges a FINE.

 

When I pointed out to her that she had just called it a fine, she become very flustered

Link to post
Share on other sites

So have you tried to apply for judgment?

Try it and see if the system lets you or whether you have to wait until tomorrow or Monday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yum yum!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont suppose you have a recording of the call do you ?

 

They probably will have. You can request under DPA

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Q. I am entering judgment by default but a message comes up stating you cannot enter judgment by default at this time, why does it say this?

 

A. This is because the defendant's time for filing a response has not yet passed. If their deadline fell on a weekend or bank holiday they are given the next working day to respond. It may also be because the defendant has filed an acknowledgement of service, which gives them an extra 14 days to respond.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1876 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...