Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • 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.
  • 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 
        • 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

thedynamix VS. NatWest (AGAIN!)


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5431 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

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Right, i just submitted my n1, along with the fees. However, i was only given a receipt of payment and not for the actual claim submission. That ok? He said i should hear back in 3-10 days, but the process may take months.

 

Sound okay so far? How long do you guys reckon it should take?

 

Thanks ever so much, again!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will get your copy of the N1 back with a date of Issue on it stamped by the court

 

There is then 5 days from the date of issue to it being deemed served

 

The bank then has 14 days from service to acknowledge the claim once this is done they then have 28 days from service to submit their defence.

 

 

 

Hope that helps

 

 

saint

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just an update guys. received the "Notice of Issue" yesterday and over the top was a green slip, attached:

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i13/thedynamix/bankthing.jpg

 

What exactly does it mean? Do I have to do anything now? As in, take action, send something back? Or just wait?

 

Thanks guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not have to do anything for now.

 

Your scan is about entering judgement. You may need to enter judgement if they do not issue a defence, but they nearly always do.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks ^^.

 

Right, so today I got a letter from Cobbetts, acting on behalf of Natwest. The letter just reiterates what natwest have been telling me in their two reply letters, about the test case etc.

 

I attached general and edited screenshots of the front page and the last page of the letter that corresponds directly to me. The rest of the letter was a letter reply back to the courts urging them to stay the case.

 

Doesn't look good. They're playing serious hard ball, the (Edit) lol!

 

cobbts1.jpg

 

cobbetts2.jpg

 

Appreciate your replies guys.

 

Thanks!

Edited by maroondevo52
Removed unsuitable word
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks ^^.

 

Right, so today I got a letter from Cobbetts, acting on behalf of Natwest. The letter just reiterates what natwest have been telling me in their two reply letters, about the test case etc.

 

I attached general and edited screenshots of the front page and the last page of the letter that corresponds directly to me. The rest of the letter was a letter reply back to the courts urging them to stay the case.

 

Doesn't look good. They're playing serious hard ball, the (Edit) lol!

 

cobbts1.jpg

 

cobbetts2.jpg

 

Appreciate your replies guys.

 

Thanks!

BUMP.. Anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We put claims through to be first in line for payment, to claim interest and avoid limitation difficulties.

 

All claims are stayed pending the outcome of the test case.

 

You should get your court fee back.

 

The banks suck allright.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well that sucks! why does everyone recommend to put pur claims through then? waste of £30, jheeeez :(.

Not everyone reads the FSA Waiver theydynamix including the limitation argument within it. But hey, that's £30 you can still get back as well.

 

EDIT: I don't recommend putting claims through, for the record.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

darn it lol! So if I reclaim my £30, will they withdraw my case/claim, thus lose me my place in the waiting line, post test case?

Haven't you already gone through the bank first and had your claim acknowledged?

If you have paid £30 don't withdraw the complaint.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, I have already sent my initial request and LBA to the bank, so the claim IS acknowledged. Unfortunately, on both occasions, the bank used the test case as an excuse not to pay up.

 

Then I filed my N1 claim form at the CC.

 

So keep my claim in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My god man - ask more questions already!!

 

Your asking really simple stuff here that you could find answers too yourself if you had the initiative to put some time and effort into it. I can't help feeling that you are slightly abusing the kind nature of those who constantly reply to you and they in turn and not helping you by holding your hand so much.

 

sorry - had to say it - this was the most annoying thread I have ever read!

************************

 

DCA Theats: Jystmystry V's Wescot - I Win (link)

Default Removal: Jystmystry V's NatWest - In Progress (link)

General Debt - Jysmystry v's Optical Express (link)

 

You can run but you'll just die tired

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple stuff? I do not think anyone knows the answer to the last question (post 72).

 

I would say the olympics (2012) could well be over before the question of the fairness or otherwise of the charges is decided.

Edited by GuidoT
Typo

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Wow.. That long?

 

In the mean time, I just received 13 page "Defendant's Defence and Counterclaim" from Cobbetts through the post.

 

It basically justifies the charges..

 

Section 7.2.3 reads:

Accordingly, as a condition of any relief which the court may grant to the Claimant, the Claimant should be required to pay or allow to the defendant, as counter-restitution, an amount equal to the total of the payments which a reasonable customer would have pid to a reasonable bank for:

 

7.2.3.1: the supply of the Current Acc. package during the relevant period; and/or:

7.2.3.2: the unarranged borrowing services in respect of which the charges were levied.

 

Scary??

Link to post
Share on other sites

BAsically it says that if the court awards you money for the unfair charges you have been charged, the court should deduct a reasonable amount to cover the costs of the services you have received. They ought to know it doesn't woirk like that :rolleyes:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...