Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I see the poops are still trying to deflect from their own criminality and and abuses by whinging on about raynors buying her council house - now about election registration - anyone who owns a flat or house understands that you dont give up your and your childrens home just because of a new relationship and while we are on about that ..   lets start with When is jenrick being revisited for both lockdown abuses and self admitted (claims estate is his main home - not the property in his electorate or his london property) 'possible (lol) electoral registration abuses as he claimed he was at his estate 'main home' away from both London and his electoral 'home'  - much of which paid for by the taxpayer     Cabinet Minister Robert Jenrick 'breaks lockdown rules twice' by going to 'second home' - Mirror Online WWW.MIRROR.CO.UK Key Cabinet Minister Robert Jenrick drove 150 miles to his 'second home' after urging the nation to remain in their homes in a bid to...   ... perhaps follow with more self admitted lobbying while in a potion where they shouldn't “A few of us in parliament have lobbied the government – and with the help of the Treasury select committee, the chancellor has listened,” John Baron wrote.   Tory MP faces lobbying questions over Treasury committee role | Investing | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Co-owner of investment management firm called for ‘urgent’ post-Brexit changes to City rules at committee meetings     About time labour got in the game and started pressing for these self admitted/bragged Tory abuses were properly investigates.
    • No I didn't I got the dates mixed up.   
    • Sorry about that, TJ. The person who posted it specifically said it was free access. Here's another version of the FT article. https://archive.is/KYrPa
    • Isnt there some indication in there of at least intent to inform arbuthnot? IF he wasn't then it would seem to be Vennells decision to keep him 'uninformed .. Although seems to me if arbuthnot was unaware - he was either incompetent or should have very detailed records of denials. Seems vennells is constantly at the core of all the lying about all these issues though.
    • Paywalled/subscribe HB I'm unaware of the details on this HB but why is it a potential taxpayer burden? Hasn't a judge already ruled port has rights of access - so shouldn't costs be on the private company (South Tees Development Corporation) trying to change established access?     LIVE: High Court updates as CEO gives evidence in access rights row between STDC and PD Ports - Teesside Live WWW.GAZETTELIVE.CO.UK The face-off between the Teesport operator and Mayor Ben Houchen's South Tees Development Corporation continues in the High Court  
  • 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
      • 160 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

Natwest v Webbs Catering ****WON****


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6293 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 guys,

Got a response from my prelim letter, but got a weird reply stating:

 

Dear Mr Webb,

Thank you .......blah de blah

 

Please note the office of fair trading are NOT currently reviewing business accounts at this time and I regret I am unable to offer you a refund of charges.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

Shaun Scott

Senior Business Manager

 

Is this true or a fob off.???

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi guys,

Got a response from my prelim letter, but got a weird reply stating:

 

Dear Mr Webb,

Thank you .......blah de blah

 

Please note the office of fair trading are NOT currently reviewing business accounts at this time and I regret I am unable to offer you a refund of charges.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

Shaun Scott

Senior Business Manager

 

Is this true or a fob off.???

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

Got a response from my prelim letter, but got a weird reply stating:

 

Dear Mr Webb,

Thank you .......blah de blah

 

Please note the office of fair trading are NOT currently reviewing business accounts at this time and I regret I am unable to offer you a refund of charges.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

Shaun Scott

Senior Business Manager

 

Is this true or a fob off.???

 

its a fob off check out karnevils thread ref bis account:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but surely by sending a letter fibbing to the contrary will damage their case should it go to court or dont they think that?

 

i will never see the inside of a court. They will try to scare you be entering a defence, also saying you will lose do not worry stick to your guns and timetable. They will pay up in the end.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a good point Stopthethieves, I was going to use that in my LBA but you made a valid point, cheers. Anyone know if this is exactly true because a bank account is a bank account at the end of the day, may it be a business or private one the fees apply to all.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a good point Stopthethieves, I was going to use that in my LBA but you made a valid point, cheers. Anyone know if this is exactly true because a bank account is a bank account at the end of the day, may it be a business or private one the fees apply to all.

 

read Karnevils thread ref abbey buis account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Exactly the same process for claiming business account charges as personal account charges. Read the business version of the letter before action - and use this as a basic template for your prelim & claim with regards to which statutes to include and which to not include.

 

Hope that helps

 

Karne

x

 

p.s. Can't believe that message from NatWest - its appalling !

 

thanks Karne:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folk, back again with a short and sweet reply to my LBA:

Dear Mr Webb,

Thank you for your letter of 14th September, received today,

As explained in Shaun Scotts Letter of 14th September 2006 the bank is unable to offer a refund of charges.

 

If you wish to continue with legal action please hand any summons or associated legal papers into the local Natwest branch or post to the address above,

 

Yours Sincerely

 

Dylan Griffiths

Area Business Manager

 

What do you folk make of this? seems very cool and calm and we dont care sort of approach..... should i make my move with a follow up letter or just whack em with a claim form

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi All,

"Notice Of Issue" received which only took 48 hours, Natwest have until 23rd October to comply - Needless to say we probably have to wait until the eleventh hour for them to file the defence, but were heading in the right direction!!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keeping you informed, just to let you know they are... surprising as it may sound defending the claim, just delaying tactics as usual, why go to these lengths?. The solicitors must be having a field day with this as well as the courts in the mean time we have to suffer the wait, :confused:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Well im sat here munching on finger nails, trying to figure out when the 28 days are up (see signature) I worked out it was today but to give benifit of the doubt we'll go for 7th November. Cobbets usual form is to post in the 11th hour so the 28 days must be tomorrow. Ill keep you posted

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be a couple of days behind me, I filed my claim on 1st Oct and received defence Saturday, so yours should be tomorrow. They seem to be leaving everyones til the last minute!!

 

Keep me posted on your progress seeing as though we're at the same stage!! Good Luck!

IF MY COMMENTS HAVE HELPED PLEASE CLICK MY SCALES

 

Don't be like the banks - give a little back

 

 

:D NAT WEST - WON - £4282.36:D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...