Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Same as Barclays one I have just updated on. PRA group have written back and told me they intend to proceed with claim, have also sent another stack of documents, similar to last time round. I did fill in an online income breakdown etc on their website  offering to pay them x amount of money back each month,  a couple of weeks back, they haven't acknowledged that ?  
    • Hello, I wasn't able to update the defence, so they got the daft one.  Pra Group have responded dated 25th April saying they intend to proceed with claim. I have also received a stack of documents, similar to last time - print outs of old statements, but this time around they have send me a copy of the Barclay Card Conditions. Unsigned and dated. The address is an old address.  A consumer credit agreement with current address. Pages of it and no signature. I have uploaded onto a PDF what I have. The CCA agreement looks like a generic print out, I5 pages + long, I've included the 1st page that had my details on (redacted) don't know if its necessary to upload all of it.  Barclays 26042024.pdf
    • I suggested consideration of bankruptcy some years ago. It was not well received.
    • That is a superb WS. However, I have a few tweaks to suggest. In (2) "indicating" not "indication". I think to be consistent with your numbering, in (6) the Beavis case should be EXHIBIT 2. Do you really need to include over 100 pages of Beavis?  I think that would be likely to annoy the judge.  Just try and find the bit where they decide it was not a penalty due to having an interest in limiting the time that vehicles can stay. I'll have a look myself for this bit later as it's highly likely to be in WSs from PPCs who think that that paragraph means all their charges are valid always on every occasion. After your current (7) add this.  It's always useful to refer to a judgment when making a legal point - 8.  In the case PCM vs Bull, Claim No. B4GF26K6, where the Defendant was issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “No parking at any time”, District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that: “the notice was prohibitive and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”.   In (14) if my maths are right the CPR request should be "EXHIBIT 3".  it is missing from your list of exhibits. In (16) the two figures should be £100 and £170.  They are entitled to increase fro,m £60 to £100, they are not entitled to increase to £170.  To make it clear for the judge I would write - 16. The Claimant has artificially inflated their claim for a £100 invoice to £170. This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims. 17. The Claimant has also invented a second fictitious charge, for legal representative's costs, when they have no legal representative. You also need ot number your exhibits. The rest is excellent - well done.
  • 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 suing for £6576.10


Sneax
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5455 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

You should calculate your charges - and now for a bit of a slapped wrist, you should have had this well under way by now.

The purpose of your defence was to allow you to get things ready. You seem to be letting the time pass you by. Your charges shuold have been done by now but you had to be reminded to do it today when you didn't seem to know the next step.

You don't seem to be reading around very much and you seem to be asking questions every step of the way instead of being proactive and taking control of your situation. You have been dealing with this long enough now to have had time enough to inform yourself so that you were no longer asking these pretty basic questions.

This forum really assumes that the people who come here are prepared to put in at least equivalent effort to understand how to deal with their problems.

 

In order to resist the lifting of the stay, you will have to be able to show that the sum claimed is comprised vey substantially of charges and related interest.

I think that you should get a move on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Here is some useful info.

 

When asking for your personal data tell them that your SAR includes anything which they keep in their archive system as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I have pulled my finger out and spent all day (don't tell my boss) working through the statements supplied by NW (earliest is March 2001) and have clocked up £9700 in charges which exceeds the amount claimed on each of the accounts in question.

 

I have been reading through these forums for a very long time and apologise if I appear lazy and incompetent - I was just after reassurance that what I thought I should do was in fact correct. I do admit that I should have calculated the charges sooner and did need the lecture to make me find time.

 

I now need to sleep and will catch up with you guys later. Thanks for the motivational talk - I needed it! :-)

Edited by Sneax
Spelling mistakes 'cos it was late and I was tired!
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been away for the last few days hense no posts. I have today written to Natwest asking for full disclosure including archived data, the Router Account (read that somewhere) and copies of all credit/loan agreements. This has been faxed to Regulatory Risk and Irwin Mitchell and a copy sent in the post giving them a further 7 days to comply.

 

I need to respond to the letter from IM with my proposals to clear the debts and the state of play is this..

 

Total claimed = £6866

 

Total Charges on statements received £9629

Interest @ 8% = £2608

 

I have not had a chance to finish calculating the interest on charges and am getting in a mess with the spreadsheet.

 

I intend to respond to IW asking for the claim to be dropped, the outstanding amount to be cleared and a further £4000 to be paid to me in full and final settlement - does that sound fair?

 

One further bit of info - I spotted the repayment of one loan with a new loan which had a PLP of £968 for the new loan and a refund of £223 for the old loan. Thie new loan was taken out in Nov 2001 and finished in June 2004. I intend to leave this out of this claim and deal with it separately but would appreciate any comments.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again I can't quite remember the train of events.

I think that you are being sued by IW who have recently threatened to have the stay lifted.

You have put in a holding defence.

 

Don't forget that IM may be watching this thread. There is enough details here for them to identify the case.

Don't worry about this. It doesn't matter. They can't do anything. They have lost control of the case.

 

It is up to you how you want to play it.

If you think that you think that you have good negotiating skills and that you are able to overcome blind greed and stupidity, then do as you suggest.

My way would be to ignore IW for the moment.

 

Let them lift the stay if they want and then go in with an amended defence and watch them do an about turn as they ask for the stay again.

Of course, if they are watching this thread then they will realise that the game is up. They will leave the stay in place.

However you need to be vigilant to make sure that the stay is not lifted somehow and you are not informed and that they get a judgment is given against you and move to enforcement.

These things do happen sometimes and it causes a lot of problems.

 

I would then go on immediately to bring a claim against the bank for the entire amount of charges. Just do your entire calculation, serve a 7 day LBA and then send them the Good News.

It will be stayed, of course but you will be in the queue and the bank's debt to you will be earning money at 8%.

 

If the stay on the IM case is lifted then I would put in an amended defence on the basis of charges and also that the subject matter of IW's claim is now the subject of separate litigation against the bank.

 

What is funny is the bank will be too pre-occupied and insufficiently pro-active to inform IW that the debt they sold them is now a dead-duck. IM will only find out by accident somewhere along the line but at the moment I don't see any point in informing IM. That is not your job.

 

You ask about including a loan which you took out to repay a loan which you took out to cover charges.

 

You should include absolutuely everything in this claim. Get it all in now. Get it earning interest and get in the queue.

 

Although it is complicated, make sure you account for every scrap of interest which was taken off you in respect of charges. It is all yours. Make sure that you calim back the enitire loan with all of the interest which you paid on it.

It is disgusting, isn't it, that they took your money, then they told you that you were indebt to them and then they made you take out a loan so that you could repay an illusory debt when in fact it was the bank which were in debt to you all along.

 

Just reflect on the stress whcih they have caused you. the extra work which you have had to do to get the money to pay them. the things which you have given up because you thought you didn't have the money.

 

Get back every penny which they have taken. Nothing is too small.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought I'd add, I seem to be a few steps ahead of you in exactly the same thing with NW and Irwin Mitchell, however we have gone about it in completely different ways (hopefully non better than the other just hope we both win!)

 

All I will say (as Bankfodder quite rightly says they will monitor this site) is that Irwin Mitchell are quite lax in complying to court deadlines and NW are lax in keeping important data - if one of the site team wishes to PM me for more detail that's fine but I'm awaiting the result of the court at the moment and don't want to jeopardise anything (saying that hopefully will have more detail for you anyway in the next couple of days)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BF & JB for your thoughts. I have decided to follow your advice BF and ignore IM for the time being whilst doing my sums and putting in an LBA for absolutely everything.

 

I am still awaiting full disclosure from the bank as I know there are more loans to pay off OD in there somewhere.

 

BF you mentioned I should calc back to 1995 and not 2001 - I have been doing loads of reading up but can't find any reference to this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take it from me, go back to 1995.

get your claim in now and amend later when you get more info.

In your claim put that the defendant has been ser4ved with an SAR under the DPA, they are in breach as they have not satisfied it within the statutory period and you reserve the right to amend your claim once they have complied with the SAR.

 

When you get the AQ, you include a request that they are ordered to comply with the SAR dated XXXX

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...