Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I posted a couple of years ago about our debt situation and have been trying to pay off our debt as best we can. It is a possibility I maybe made redundant in a few months time, so I am trying to find out everything I can about what happens in today’s world when you can’t pay. I keep finding conflicting advice on various sites so I wanted to post this quote to get thoughts. It claims basically that the dca will likely get enforceable documents these days and therefore it’s likely you will have to pay dca at some point during the 6 year process.    on here I read a lot of comments assuming the exact opposite of this. A lot of the threads on here state the beginning of the process but I never see conclusive stuff about what happened from start to finish to get insight into whether debts post 2015 have been enforced etc. I hear a lot here not to pay dca companies but most my debts are post 2015 debts I am all up to date on our debts but if I lose my job it is likely I’ll end up where I tried to avoid in the first place. Which is destroying our files and dealing with DCA. I’ll post it below so you can see what I mean.   It is likely that any debts incurred after 2007 will end up with all the documentation being provided and being enforceable. Therefore you should use the time while awaiting responses going through your Income & Expenditure and considering any possiblity of making a full and final settlement. It can take a number of months to reach the stage of a hearing date and exchange of witness statements and normally you would be able to settle or come to an arrangement to pay before the court hearing, once documents have been provided, although this isn’t guaranteed.
    • depends who said sols state their client is. IDRWW vis~IDR(worldWide) are a debt collector regulated & registered in the UK & USA    they are not solicitors. they use various 'for hire' - here use our letterhead paper tiger solicitors. its just a case of who's stupid enough to join their folly. IDR law used to be their fav but they lost do much money, they broke ties after almost being struck off and now do Will/Probate disputes only. IDR Legal are their sols wing. moriarty law Judge and priestly Taheel - a foreign DCA that use absolutely any trick in the book to extort money even pretending to be any of the above inc being the bank themselves in phone calls.           
  • 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

ragsta vs. natwest


ragsta
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6405 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

Hi, first response received im not sure if its different or not , down below

Cap. one Preliminary letter sent 29/09/06

First response rec'd - £134 bug off. 14/10/06

No response :LBA sent 13/10/06

mcol issued no. 6QZ79850: 02/11/06

Acknowledged 09/11/06

 

NatWest - Preliminary letter sent 18/10/06

First response received 24/10/06

LBA Sent 01/11/06

2nd Response rec'd. 11/11/06

mcol begin 16/11/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolute and total rubbish it is £5 for 6 years worth of statements. Regardless. Ask for the £100 refund immediately because that is a very liberal interpretation of the copy statements charge

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

hi, just received some statements from one of my natwest accounts. I cant find the address to send my preliminary letter to - The Stuart higley Borehamwood address. Anyone got it? thanx

Cap. one Preliminary letter sent 29/09/06

First response rec'd - £134 bug off. 14/10/06

No response :LBA sent 13/10/06

mcol issued no. 6QZ79850: 02/11/06

Acknowledged 09/11/06

 

NatWest - Preliminary letter sent 18/10/06

First response received 24/10/06

LBA Sent 01/11/06

2nd Response rec'd. 11/11/06

mcol begin 16/11/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

ragsta- can you confirm that you any card misuse charges becuase Student accounts are exempt from this charge. Local branch should be fine for the letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi, yes i have one card misuse action on one statement of £25.00, but later got refunded. Out of all other cheques (double figures) i only got two £30 fines for 2 cheques and for the rest no fines.

Hand in my preliminary request for fines to the local branch!? havn't read of anyone doing that.

 

thanks for askin.

 

on another note, the loan i got to cover the debt, £2750 exactly, im trying to work out interest. Of that amount £458.41 were illegal charges. Over the last 42 months ive bin payin £55.04 into the loan account and been charged interest every three months. I've just cleared the balance which was about £1050.

 

Should i just work out £458.41 x 7.9% apr (not sure on this- finding out) OR work it out monthly until 458.41 of the loan amount was paid off. Its a bit of a headscrew:confused:

 

thanks for reading

Cap. one Preliminary letter sent 29/09/06

First response rec'd - £134 bug off. 14/10/06

No response :LBA sent 13/10/06

mcol issued no. 6QZ79850: 02/11/06

Acknowledged 09/11/06

 

NatWest - Preliminary letter sent 18/10/06

First response received 24/10/06

LBA Sent 01/11/06

2nd Response rec'd. 11/11/06

mcol begin 16/11/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

From Stuart Higley

 

The letter goes, Thankyou/fair and reasonable/ office fair trading doesnt apply to current accounts/Not be refunding .....

 

"having reviewed your accounts, I can find no instance where charges have been applied when the were not properly due. They have all been associated with a lack of covering funds in the account at the time items were presented for payment. Accordingly, the charges that have been applied to your accounts must stand."

 

Banks under no obligation to explain them. Then something about fiduciary not part of banker/ customer relationship, and disspointed about the legal action.

 

They responded quick tho, only sent the Preliminary letter off last wed.

So should i get ready to send my LBA off next Wednesday?

Cap. one Preliminary letter sent 29/09/06

First response rec'd - £134 bug off. 14/10/06

No response :LBA sent 13/10/06

mcol issued no. 6QZ79850: 02/11/06

Acknowledged 09/11/06

 

NatWest - Preliminary letter sent 18/10/06

First response received 24/10/06

LBA Sent 01/11/06

2nd Response rec'd. 11/11/06

mcol begin 16/11/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

bumppp

Cap. one Preliminary letter sent 29/09/06

First response rec'd - £134 bug off. 14/10/06

No response :LBA sent 13/10/06

mcol issued no. 6QZ79850: 02/11/06

Acknowledged 09/11/06

 

NatWest - Preliminary letter sent 18/10/06

First response received 24/10/06

LBA Sent 01/11/06

2nd Response rec'd. 11/11/06

mcol begin 16/11/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh sorry i forgot to write: is that a standard response that anyones seen ?

Cap. one Preliminary letter sent 29/09/06

First response rec'd - £134 bug off. 14/10/06

No response :LBA sent 13/10/06

mcol issued no. 6QZ79850: 02/11/06

Acknowledged 09/11/06

 

NatWest - Preliminary letter sent 18/10/06

First response received 24/10/06

LBA Sent 01/11/06

2nd Response rec'd. 11/11/06

mcol begin 16/11/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's exactly the same as the one we got today, and he is going to get one back in the post tomorrow giving Natwest 14 days before we take them to court for the money that they owe us!! I'll keep an eye on your thread cos' we are at an identical stage, good luck!! Eddy.

23-09-06: Data Protection S.A.R Sent

 

06-10-06: Statements Received

 

13-10-06: Pre-Lim Letter & Schedule for £2677 Sent

 

24-10-06: First Refusal Received From Stuart Higley

 

01-11-06: Second Refusal Received From Stuart Higley

 

15-11-06: MCOL Submitted

 

30-11-06: Acknowledgment of Service Received

 

21-12-06: Defence Received from Cobbetts

04-01-07: Offer of £1700 Received from Cobbetts

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks natweststaffmember

 

ah, nice to know that Eddy. Just finishing off my letter now. Good luck back at ya too.

Cap. one Preliminary letter sent 29/09/06

First response rec'd - £134 bug off. 14/10/06

No response :LBA sent 13/10/06

mcol issued no. 6QZ79850: 02/11/06

Acknowledged 09/11/06

 

NatWest - Preliminary letter sent 18/10/06

First response received 24/10/06

LBA Sent 01/11/06

2nd Response rec'd. 11/11/06

mcol begin 16/11/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi, does anyone have a particulars of claim for two accounts for mcol. Or if anyone can edit the one on the site:

 

  • The Claimant has an account 1234567 with the Defendant, opened May 2000 2. Since 01/02/03 the Defendant debited charges and interest in respect of purported breaches of contract. 3. Defendant is aware of all details as a list of charges has already been supplied. Another copy will be sent. 4. Claimant contends: (a) The charges exceed the Defendant's losses caused by the breaches; (b) The Term permitting the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and at Common Law. 5. Claimant claims: (a) return of the amounts debited of £XXXX; (b) Interest per S.69 County Courts Act 1984 of 8% - £xxx [enter interest total at date of claim] continuing at 8% until judgment or settlement at a daily rate of £0.xx; 6. Alternatively, if the charges are a fee for a service, then they must be reasonable under S.15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. 7. Costs allowed by the Court.

thanks

Cap. one Preliminary letter sent 29/09/06

First response rec'd - £134 bug off. 14/10/06

No response :LBA sent 13/10/06

mcol issued no. 6QZ79850: 02/11/06

Acknowledged 09/11/06

 

NatWest - Preliminary letter sent 18/10/06

First response received 24/10/06

LBA Sent 01/11/06

2nd Response rec'd. 11/11/06

mcol begin 16/11/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will probably be better off using an N1 as MCOL is very tight to get all the info in. As you have 2 accounts you need to be clear with your POC, as Cobbetts - NW solicitors always try and stall by saying the claims are not particularised anyway.

You can find the N1 info here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/681-4-particulars-claim-n1.html You need to fill it in print off 3 copies and send to your local court with fee.

 

Good Luck

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...