Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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

NatWest - No Credit Agreement, so Natwests takes my Money from my current account without my consent!!!


tem19
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5573 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

Yes Sosumi it's with a totally different bank. I transferred all of my money into the new bank account from the accounts I had with NatWest and asked NatWest to cancel my overdraft on 23rd December, which they confirmed they would do. Instead of doing that, they took £1100 out of my £1500 overdraft that they were supposed to have cancelled. They can only get at the overdraft money. All other monies they cannot get at and all payments/direct debits into or from the natwest account have been cancelled. I closed my savings accounts, which had nothing in them. They keep on setting up standing orders without my consent to take monies from the current account and they will keep on doing so until the overdraft is spent. From my experian report what they have done is only entered my current account on there so I reckon that once they have exhausted the possibilities of taking from my overdraft they will simply put a default on my credit file, which is what I want to avoid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

That's a relief! :)

Wish I could help you more, but we're struggling to pay off our current account overdraft with them and it's been hard slog all the way. We both have defaults on our credit files that were put there as a result of a complaint - the complaint being that though we were making monthly payments, they had closed the account and were very quietly adding interest to it.

I can only echo what 2grumpy's said.

We will not be intimidated.

'The pen is mightier than the sword'.

Petition to Outlaw Debt Sale and Purchase

- can't read/post much as eye strain's v.bad.

VIVA CAG!!! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some latest news! NatWest have now found a copy of my CCA agreement from 2002 and have posted it to me (and of course are demanding payment). It has my signature on it and a signature on behalf of the bank. It looks like a genuine enough copy, the only concern I have is that it doesn't seem to have the number of monthly repayments on it, just the total amount i am to pay. Another thing is that it seems that the bank did not comply with its own terms, the terms gave me a years payment holiday but the bank representatives actually gave me three years holiday, there are some other things on the terms that I'm really not sure about or were not complied with but I do think that it's a true copy. So i guess that leaves them free to do whatever they want!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tem,

 

Can you post the doc't here so it can be checked over.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing Slick, I don't know whether you or any legal heads around the forums know the answer to this but even if this agreement is indeed properly executed, Natwest modified the terms (e.g. the payment holiday became 3 yrs instead of the 1 yr on the agreement, I have always paid on 24th of each month rather than 16th as stated on the agreement, I have only ever paid £271.53 per month rather than the £297 from 2003 to 2006 as stated on the agreement) so therefore should there not have been an executed modified agreement in accordance with the 1983 Regs? If that is the case does that again make the agreement unenforceable? I wondered why they complied so suddenly with my CCA request after 5 months of waiting but they have still defaulted on my SAR. Could this be the reason?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tem,

 

The priority should be to post the Agree't doc't so it can be checked.

 

I'm out of my depth here but I think if the Agree't is enforceable that'll be an end to it, regardless of the payment holiday or the date of pay't each month.

 

If a judge was to consider the issue of enforceability I don't these details would come into the equation.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've flagged this up to be checked over for you.

 

:)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I hope so. The one thing I could spot is that it doesn't set out the number of repayments in accordance with the 1983 regs but then maybe it doesn't have to, may be an either/or type of provision, so maybe the legal eagles could clarify on that. Thanks for your help Cerberusalert.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I hope so. The one thing I could spot is that it doesn't set out the number of repayments in accordance with the 1983 regs but then maybe it doesn't have to, may be an either/or type of provision, so maybe the legal eagles could clarify on that. Thanks for your help Cerberusalert.

Link to post
Share on other sites

THe agreement is a bit odd in that it doesn't give the number of repayments. However, this situation is allowed under paragraph 9 of schedule 1 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983.

 

That being the case, schedule 6 then says that the interest rate becomes a prescribed term (which it isn't normally for a fixed sum loan). The agreement will therefore be enforceable if they have got the interest rate right (ie within the tolerance allowed in schedule 7)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting, thanks for your thoughts Steven4064. Another question which I ran past Slick, is are NatWest allowed to modify the agreement under the 1983 regulations. NatWest modified the terms (e.g. the payment holiday became 3 yrs instead of the 1 yr on the agreement, I have always paid on 24th of each month rather than 16th as stated on the agreement, I have only ever paid £271.53 per month rather than the £297 from 2003 to 2006 as stated on the agreement). Looking at their conditions I think they may have covered themselves anyway, but I just wondered whether the Regs allowed them to do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just that, given that they haven't mentioned the number of repayments, and the 3 yr holiday they gave increases the total amount due, does that modify the agreement and if so does the regs allow them to do so without producing a separate/additional doc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

From 2003-2006 it was £297 per quarter not per month.

 

THis is what I think happened:

 

16/08/02 to 15/07/03 - no payments but interest accrued

16/08/03 to 15/07/06 - interest payments of £297/quarter (approx £99/.06/month)

16/08/06 to whenever - payments of £271.53 (estimate 73 payments)

 

Putting this in DualCalc I get TCC of £8388.21 (ie 30p out) and an APR of 7.5% (which corresponds to their rate of interest but not their APR although it is within tolerance on APR)

 

THe 73 payments would make your last payment in September 2012 - is that about right?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah Steven4064, the payments between 2003-2006 were supposed to be quarterly! I didn't even spot that! It all makes a lot more sense. 73 payments would be until Sept 2012, yes! Thanks so much for working that out, Steven4064 my maths is terrible! The only query is that around the time or very shortly after I'm supposed to have signed this agreement, they said they would give me a 3 yr payment holiday for some reason (I must admit I wasn't complaining at the time as I was still a student), so I never in fact paid anything at all in respect of this loan until December 2005, not even quarterly. My first payment was made then, so I guess it would vary the final payment date slightly. since then I paid £271.53 monthly right up to September 08, the date they told me they couldn't comply with my CCA request. Well I guess this may be the end of the line, but this forum has been an absolute Godsend, wow!:D:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...