Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 1. who knows... 2. not the whole A/C vanishes from your file on the DN's 6th b'day ...already carefully explain this. 3.yes 4.already carefully explain this.
    • if i remember rightly, long ago in one of the first drafts of the old proposed gov't overhauls, there was a listing of recommended 'charges' that inc wrong reg = £20. some PPC's implemented such changes in advance. then later as it looked increasing likely the new code was never going to be implemented after it's 1st review and another set of codes was to be debated they all quietly revert back .......... dx
    • Potentially it may not even get sold on? Just the default left for 6 years then gone? but if it is sold on ill get a letter from the DCA which is the notice of assignment? Sorry what is the different between a default notice and a default cal marker? yes, i may try and work arrangements out with the OCs after the breathing space but I'll see my circumstances then thank you again for all your help and patience, I really appreciate it and apologies If i am too fast or repeating myself.
    • receiving a default NOTICE (forget simple default cal markers) does not mean it will get sold on... OC's very very rarely do court themselves.  if it does you would receive a Notice of Assignment from the debt buyer/DCA.  as for reduced payment if it remains with the OC and they issue a DN, no harm in trying but lets get all your ducks inline first. dx  
    • okay thanks do you know how long it will take for it to get to the DCA or could the OC try and issue a CCJ? even though it's unlikely also for example would the OC agree to a reduction and a small payment over a super lengthy period of time if agreed? Rather than go through chasing apologies again for all the questions, just trying to understand all the possible scenarios.  
  • 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

Sm03art V's Natwest £3000


sm03art
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6364 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 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi all again been awhile, Got my letter from the courts today, staying Corbetts are going to defend all of my claim!, hope ive done everything right!!!

 

Guess ill have to wait for the big white envelope to drop on the mat!

 

But they have till the 15th Sept now :evil: So suppose they will wait till then :-x and put it in at the last minute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive put my claim in to the courts!, but ive claimed debit interest...... Corbetts have not been in touch yet, only to say, they have acknowledge my cliam.... Do I:-

 

 

A; Have to start again?

 

B; Change particulars of the claim?

 

c; Sit and wait to see what Corbetts do?

 

I know the MODS are going to shout, but did read that interest was a debatable and claim it..... Please help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi there finally got my defence,

Now i know ive messed up, in claiming interest and the odd avantage gold subscritpion. But what do i do now....ive hit a brick wall, please help!

Defence

 

1. This defence is filed and served without prejudice to the defendants case that the particulars of claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the claimant to recover bank charges (and interest thereon) referred to in the particulars of claim or any other sum(s)

 

2. No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the claimants bank account.

 

3. In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are invalid pursuant to the Unfair contract terms act 1977 (UCTA 1977) and/or the Unfair contract terms in consumer regulations 1999 (the regulations) and/or section 15 supply of goods and service act 1982 (SGSA)

 

3.1 In relation to the case of the claimant that the contractual provisions are invalid pursuant to section 4 UCTA 1977 then it is the case of the Defendant that the section is not applicable as any contractual provision relating to charges does not relate to the defendants liability for negligence or breach of contract.

 

3.2 In relation to the case of the claimant that the contractual provisions are invalid pursuant to the regulations the defendant pleads as follows;

 

3.2.1 Schedule 2 to the Regulations is an Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair (emphasis supplied).

 

3.2.2 The regulations have no application because the charges amount to payment for services provided by the defendant and the adequacy (or otherwise) of consideration paid under a contract for services is not issue to be judged by reference to principles of fairness under the regulations.

 

 

3.3 In relation to the case the claimant that the charges are unreasonable within the meaning of SGSA section 15 the defendant pleads as follows;

 

3.3.1 The claimant is required to plead and prove the necessary factors (referred to in section 15 SGSA) concerning the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant which men that pursuant to SGSA section 15 there is an implied term that the claimant pay a reasonable charge for the service under the contract

 

3.3.2 Further the Claimant is required to plead and prove (a) that the bank charges which have been debited are unreasonable; (b) all facts and matters relied upon by the claimant in support of this case and © what charges would have been reasonable.

 

3.3.3 In the circumstances no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the defendant has acted in breach if SGSA section 15.

 

3.3.4 In the circumstances (save a appears below) the defendant is unable to pleaded to this allegation beyond denying that it has acted in breach of SGSA section 15 as alleged or at all. The defendant reserves its right to plead further to this allegation once (and if) the defects in the pleaded case referred to in paragraphs 3.3.1-3.3.3 above are addressed.

 

3.3.5 It is the case of the defendant that contracts between the claimant and the defendant does not fall within SGSA section 15 because (a) the consideration for the service would be determined by contract between the claimant and defendant and (b) was not left to be determined in a manner agreed by contract or determined by the course of dealings between the claimant and defendant.

 

4. The claimant’s schedule of charges refers to fees interest and debit interest The claimant is not legally entitled to recover interest on his account in conjunction with 8% interest pursuant to section 69 county courts act 1982, as the claimant is effectively claiming double recovery interest from the defendant.

 

5. Save as hereinbefore appears the defendant joins issue with the claimant on his claim(s) and denies that it is liable to the claimant as alleged or at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there finally got my defence, from Cobbetts

Now i know ive messed up, in claiming interest and the odd avantage gold subscritpion. But what do i do know....ive hit a brick wall, please help!

Do i need to amend my Particulars of Claim or Just send them a new schedule charges......

 

Defence

1. This defence is filed and served without prejudice to the defendants case that the particulars of claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the claimant to recover bank charges (and interest thereon) referred to in the particulars of claim or any other sum(s)

 

2. No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the claimants bank account.

 

3. In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are invalid pursuant to the Unfair contract terms act 1977 (UCTA 1977) and/or the Unfair contract terms in consumer regulations 1999 (the regulations) and/or section 15 supply of goods and service act 1982 (SGSA)

 

3.1 In relation to the case of the claimant that the contractual provisions are invalid pursuant to section 4 UCTA 1977 then it is the case of the Defendant that the section is not applicable as any contractual provision relating to charges does not relate to the defendants liability for negligence or breach of contract.

 

3.2 In relation to the case of the claimant that the contractual provisions are invalid pursuant to the regulations the defendant pleads as follows;

 

3.2.1 Schedule 2 to the Regulations is an Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair (emphasis supplied).

 

3.2.2 The regulations have no application because the charges amount to payment for services provided by the defendant and the adequacy (or otherwise) of consideration paid under a contract for services is not issue to be judged by reference to principles of fairness under the regulations.

 

 

3.3 In relation to the case the claimant that the charges are unreasonable within the meaning of SGSA section 15 the defendant pleads as follows;

 

3.3.1 The claimant is required to plead and prove the necessary factors (referred to in section 15 SGSA) concerning the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant which men that pursuant to SGSA section 15 there is an implied term that the claimant pay a reasonable charge for the service under the contract

 

3.3.2 Further the Claimant is required to plead and prove (a) that the bank charges which have been debited are unreasonable; (b) all facts and matters relied upon by the claimant in support of this case and © what charges would have been reasonable.

 

3.3.3 In the circumstances no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the defendant has acted in breach if SGSA section 15.

 

3.3.4 In the circumstances (save a appears below) the defendant is unable to pleaded to this allegation beyond denying that it has acted in breach of SGSA section 15 as alleged or at all. The defendant reserves its right to plead further to this allegation once (and if) the defects in the pleaded case referred to in paragraphs 3.3.1-3.3.3 above are addressed.

 

3.3.5 It is the case of the defendant that contracts between the claimant and the defendant does not fall within SGSA section 15 because (a) the consideration for the service would be determined by contract between the claimant and defendant and (b) was not left to be determined in a manner agreed by contract or determined by the course of dealings between the claimant and defendant.

 

4. The claimant’s schedule of charges refers to fees interest and debit interest The claimant is not legally entitled to recover interest on his account in conjunction with 8% interest pursuant to section 69 county courts act 1982, as the claimant is effectively claiming double recovery interest from the defendant.

 

5. Save as hereinbefore appears the defendant joins issue with the claimant on his claim(s) and denies that it is liable to the claimant as alleged or at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there finally got my defence, from Cobbetts

Now i know ive messed up, in claiming interest and the odd avantage gold subscritpion. But what do i do know....ive hit a brick wall, please help!

 

Do i need to amend my Particulars of Claim or Just send them a new schedule charges......

 

Defence

 

1. This defence is filed and served without prejudice to the defendants case that the particulars of claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the claimant to recover bank charges (and interest thereon) referred to in the particulars of claim or any other sum(s)

 

2. No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the claimants bank account.

 

3. In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are invalid pursuant to the Unfair contract terms act 1977 (UCTA 1977) and/or the Unfair contract terms in consumer regulations 1999 (the regulations) and/or section 15 supply of goods and service act 1982 (SGSA)

 

3.1 In relation to the case of the claimant that the contractual provisions are invalid pursuant to section 4 UCTA 1977 then it is the case of the Defendant that the section is not applicable as any contractual provision relating to charges does not relate to the defendants liability for negligence or breach of contract.

 

3.2 In relation to the case of the claimant that the contractual provisions are invalid pursuant to the regulations the defendant pleads as follows;

 

3.2.1 Schedule 2 to the Regulations is an Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair (emphasis supplied).

 

3.2.2 The regulations have no application because the charges amount to payment for services provided by the defendant and the adequacy (or otherwise) of consideration paid under a contract for services is not issue to be judged by reference to principles of fairness under the regulations.

 

 

3.3 In relation to the case the claimant that the charges are unreasonable within the meaning of SGSA section 15 the defendant pleads as follows;

 

3.3.1 The claimant is required to plead and prove the necessary factors (referred to in section 15 SGSA) concerning the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant which men that pursuant to SGSA section 15 there is an implied term that the claimant pay a reasonable charge for the service under the contract

 

3.3.2 Further the Claimant is required to plead and prove (a) that the bank charges which have been debited are unreasonable; (b) all facts and matters relied upon by the claimant in support of this case and © what charges would have been reasonable.

 

3.3.3 In the circumstances no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the defendant has acted in breach if SGSA section 15.

 

3.3.4 In the circumstances (save a appears below) the defendant is unable to pleaded to this allegation beyond denying that it has acted in breach of SGSA section 15 as alleged or at all. The defendant reserves its right to plead further to this allegation once (and if) the defects in the pleaded case referred to in paragraphs 3.3.1-3.3.3 above are addressed.

 

3.3.5 It is the case of the defendant that contracts between the claimant and the defendant does not fall within SGSA section 15 because (a) the consideration for the service would be determined by contract between the claimant and defendant and (b) was not left to be determined in a manner agreed by contract or determined by the course of dealings between the claimant and defendant.

 

4. The claimant’s schedule of charges refers to fees interest and debit interest The claimant is not legally entitled to recover interest on his account in conjunction with 8% interest pursuant to section 69 county courts act 1982, as the claimant is effectively claiming double recovery interest from the defendant.

 

5. Save as hereinbefore appears the defendant joins issue with the claimant on his claim(s) and denies that it is liable to the claimant as alleged or at all.

 

hi dont panic , check out the RBS forum including bigcols thread and westable

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been back to court today, with my N244 and amended N1 all with the new amounts. They said i should get them back in the next 3-4 days.

 

Also they said that the AQ allocation Questionare was sent on friday.....umm still havent received it? It has to be in on the 2nd Oct.

 

Never mind ill keep an eye on that one.

 

Again a really big thanks you! to Karnevil and her friend blue.!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Allocation Questionaire received today and filled in correctly (hopefully). Be off to Chester CC on Monday to hand it in. Hopefully ill receive my amended N1 form back from the courts after filling in my N244. Then ill send that to Cobbetts. Oh hopefully there be light at the end of the tunnel!!!!!!!!

 

Thanks again to this wonderful site and especially Karnevil. 8)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well surprise surprise. That one looks identical to the defence Mrs Roadrally received from Cobbetts aside from the interest paragraph. Don't Panic, the worst you might have to do is amend your claim, Read the FAQ's and go buy a copy of the small claims guide book (Buy it from this site - the profits help to fund the hosting costs) believe me it's worth every penny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

received my amended N1 claim back from the courts today, nicely stamped, but ive only received one of the three i put into the courts, i guess they keep one, but i thought i was meant to send the amended claim to NatWest, have the courts sent it off to NatWest for me?

 

there is a sheet stapled to the amended n1 it tells me the judge, and beneath that it says IN ORDER THAT: The claimants be granted leave to amend the claim.

 

Whats going on!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi all, just to keep you posted, got a letter of cobbetts the other day, basically saying that i would lose in court etc, and then in the middle of the letter they offer me a goodwill gesture of £1,150, sent them a letter turning this down,

 

deadline for the settlement was the 12th oct 2006....

 

so fingers crossed now!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hadnt heard a thing, so thought i would call the courts, Cobbetts hadnt even filed there AQ,

What happens now then, they should of filed it on the 2nd Oct 2006

 

Any reply will be helpful

 

File for judgement in default ASAP.

 

If they hand in their AQ before you hand in an Application for judgement in default the court won't grant your application.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...