Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Interesting situation with Natwest...


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4102 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

Hello all

 

I have a very interesting situation, I have an idea as to how I am going to deal with it but would be interested to hear others thoughts.

 

I have recieved from N/West a PPI offer of around £1400. I made the compaint as I found an old bank statement showing amounts being paid and refunded on redemption, no agreement so do not know the interest rate so cannot calculate as to whether this is a correct figure and the breakdown is simply:

 

PPI Refund xxxxx

 

Net Interest xxxxx

 

Additional gross int for delay xxxxx

 

Net Interest xxxxxxx

 

Total offer xxxxxxxx

 

No idea how they have reached that figure!!

 

 

Anyway the PPI letter states ' sign and return the delaration...on reciept we will arrange for payment to be made...subject to clearance of any arrears and indetedness you may have with the group...'

 

This is where my challenge lies as I believe that they have had more that enough to cover any liabilities I may legally owe and that I should receive the PPI refund in cold hard cash!

 

My history with them:

 

After my business (which was LTD) went under in 2004 I owed them just over 3k on a personal overdraft and around 5k in business overdraft.

 

I made agreement to pay them back monthly from March 05. About 6 months previous they had made the business overdraft into a personal loan. At the time I didn't question the banks actions as I knew no better (I signed a personal guarentee in 02). However (after understanding CCA, enforcability etc) In 09 I made a CCA request for the Credit Agreement for the loan, which I knew didn't exist because I never signed one! a year later they admitted to not having one.

 

I was making a monthly payment to the 'Bank' not individual payments to the two accounts (O/D, Loan)

 

I have SADR'd them (twice) re the current account to which the overdraft related and have discovered the following:

 

1. That in May 06 they agreed to suspend any interest. I am assuming that this refered to both accounts, it does not state otherwise. I was not aware of this. They stopped interest on the Loan but not the O/D to which approx £1900 was added in interest over the next 2 years.

 

2. In total since 05 they have recieved from me over £3.5k which has repaid more than the original O/D liability.

 

3. Nothing to back up the s74 Feb 1990 O/D determination amongst the documents or justify the amount of interest that they have added.

 

4. Bank Charges added to the account whilst in an overdraft over £2.2k

 

 

Also clarification would be helpful re the Business liability, and whether it could be statue barred.

 

They transfered it to a personal liability in 04 (no signed agreement ever existed) They paid the money into my personal account and then repaid the business O/D. I never acknowlaged it as a personal liability until 09 as I made payments to the 'bank' and it was obviously added to the O/D liability in 05.

 

As the Bank did not demand repayment in 04 as a business debt, as they do not have an agreement turning it into a personal loan and as it was over 7 years ago could that make it Statute Barred?

 

Anyones thoughts and opinions appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • 9 months later...

Hello again

 

An update on this situation and would be grateful for some advice as to what my next move should be.

 

Regarding the Current account overdraft I took the matter to the Ombudsman, basically with a complaint that Natwest claim an outstanding balance on the Account an I say their isnt, providing evidence. The Ombudsman has NOT upheld my complaint and just bangs on about 'Charges' being fair (Suprime Court determination etc) It would seem that the fact I have paid the bank MORE than owed since 2005 has been ignored.

 

Naturally I have rejected the decision.

 

My challenge now is that I am owed from them for mis sold PPI, I have that with the ombudsman also as I believe the figure offered is incorrect and that they are refusing to refund me directly (see above).

 

What action should I now take....Should I now wait for the Ombudsman regarding the PPI complaint? - I have all information held by NATWEST from 2 SADR's, and ALL statements should I take them to court to recover the PPI and have the account closed?

 

I have proof of ALL payments made to the bank since 2005 which shows more than the outstanding balance at that time...infact they refunded 5 years worth of interest last year so I am actually OWED money from them!...

The only defence that I can see is the outstanding balance on the Loan Account which they admit and I know they have no agreement for (because their isn't one) so is unenforcable.

 

Any thoughts much appreciated

 

dmb

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The PPI wording "subject to clearance of any arrears and indetedness you may have with the group" sounds like standard wording they probably put in all letters. You could ask them to clarify how they reached the PPI settlement figure (i.e. is it all the PPI you paid) and accept, and see if they pay the full amount. They could try to "set-off" amounts they think you owe under the other loan in which case you would need to take them to court for the rest of the PPI sum.

 

You could try taking Natwest to court now, but there is a costs risk of doing that. It might be better to wait and see if they try to set-off or not. If they do then you take them to court (if you are prepared to take the risks that come with that).

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...