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 
      • 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

£25,400 penalty charges claimed by NatWest


askl
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5212 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

Is there any update on this claim?

Just been reading through and it's like the last page of a book is missing - I want to know the ending!!

 

Me too askl!!

I've been away from CAG for a while, but have just caught up with your case....you have done amazingly well! What happened after 28th Feb? Did they settle? This obviously has implications for my own case http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/business-claims-bank-charges/81525-gandolfi-natwest-9.html which is quite similar - I'm eager to get moving again and it would be great to hear from you and to find out what has happened.....

All very best

Gandolfi

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi askl

You're doing brilliantly so far! Keep going and good luck for 7th July!!

 

So, they allow the stay to be imposed because of the test case and then decide that actually it isn't relevant....? It seems to me that NatWest have constantly shown an inability or unwillingness to cooperate fully by providing the information you have requested that will enable you to support your case (same frustrations in my own case).

 

They are denying you the opportunity to fully particularise your defence and counterclaim by refusing to supply vital information that is pertinent to your case (i.e. a detailed breakdown of how their charges are calculated etc).

 

Have you requested T&Cs from them and have they supplied them?

 

Have you worked out your argument regarding Smith's judgement on penalties and how this may be relevant? Need to be able to anticipate their approach and have arguments ready to undermine it.

 

I wish I could offer some help. Your case is similar to mine, but I'm not quite as far ahead as you and I'm not at all qualified to make confident recommendations about the finer points. GaryH has been a great help to me with his advice here, so it might be worth letting him look over your case before the hearing if he isn't already aware.

 

Stay strong! All best,

Gandolfi

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Apologies for the delayed response....just read the updates.

 

Well done, askl :D

 

Sounds fantastic and you managed to tackle them in all directions. Looking forward to seeing what happens now.

 

I'd be interested to know your arguments against her use of the Penalties bit from the OFT. Please tell us more.

 

All best,

Gandolfi

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
I've compared the personal and business account terms and they appear to be identical in all material respects.

 

Hi AKSL

Thanks for posting the new info on your case. It looks like you've done a huge amount of work and I wish you all the best for the 15th. If you can get the Judge to recognise the fact that Natwest have failed to comply with previous requests and court orders for information that will allow you to fully particularise your defence, you will hopefully get their case struck out.

 

I'm very interested in your comparisons between the business and personal T&Cs - I still haven't been able to get copies of them despite numerous requests to Natwest. Do you have copies that I could see, or could you let me know how you got them? I'd really appreciate it. My case includes charges going back to 1995, so I need to pick out the contractual breaches that are connected to the charges from before they 'softened' their terms.

 

The relevance (or irrelevance) of the test case is difficult to manage within these arguments. I'm sure you have a grip on it, but it confuses me. On the one hand, Smith's lack of clarity allows us to argue for charges as penalties, but on the other hand, we (and now they) are saying that the test case was irrelevant to business accounts.

 

I'm following your thread with great interest and have everything crossed for you!

 

All best,

Gandolfi

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...