Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • reading the order is quite difficult for me. this is a letter (names and addresses taken out) that i sent in which is what i assumed i needed too. court.odt
    • Thanks for the message jk2054   I have just been drafting what I want to say and I think its best to focus purely on the supremacy of contract. The reason being that I dont want the judge to start focusing on other parts of my witness statement when surely just the supremacy of contract section alone should be enough to get this dismissed.    The crux of my defense revolves around the principle of Supremacy of Contract. When I purchased my flat in December 2016, the contract explicitly included ownership of parking spot 112, as delineated in the lease documentation provided in Exhibit 1. This documentation unequivocally establishes my right to use and occupy this parking space. Furthermore, the subsequent exhibits, particularly Exhibit 3, clearly depict the marked boundaries of parking spot 112, corroborating my ownership as stated in the lease agreement. Additionally, the official register of title, presented in Exhibit 4, reinforces this ownership claim. Moreover, I draw the court's attention to relevant legal precedents, such as Pace v Mr N and Link Parking v Ms P, which demonstrate that parking companies cannot override a tenant's right to park on designated property. These cases serve as persuasive authorities supporting my argument regarding the Supremacy of Contract in residential parking disputes. It is my contention that the absence of any contractual obligation to display a permit for parking spot 112 absolves me of any liability in this matter. The claimant's failure to acknowledge my ownership rights in their witness statement further underscores the weakness of their case.
    • I agree with you LFI, a totally wrong decision, I may be wrong but IMO who was driving is irrelevant .... So what if he declared himself as the driver within 28 days? .... I may be wrong but it's my understanding that that just makes him liable for the charge as driver. The fact is, the driver, declared or not, only made the error of entering the wrong vehicle registration number .... The parking was paid for. I think it more likely the judge dismissed because he didn't appeal to the PPC and tell them about the error and confirm he paid giving the chance of rectifying the situation before it got to court. But we can only know if Dave962 clarifies. Pollux, is that a fish like Cod? 😁
    • and more .. As thames water pushes to further rip off captive customers, not get fined for it, and allow more dividends .. for little more than 'aspirations' to do better More detail comes out of the literally and figuratively sh** companies apparently shunting money out of the regulated business to profit/bonus/dividend generating unregulated side companies   "Accounts filed at Companies House show : (Kennets) accounts, filed more than 12 months after the end of Kennet’s financial year, showed that the company made a £1.15m pre-tax profit for the year to 31 March 2023, up from £374,000 a year earlier. Revenues rose to £1.6m in 2023 – up from £1m in "Kennet Properties paid out a £14.5m dividend in the year to 31 March 2023" "Kennet ?takes on? land no longer needed by Britain’s biggest water company before developing it and selling it on, typically for housing or commercial premises. It also received income for the use of sewer networks by third parties for fibre-optic cabling."   Thames Water could raise bills to £627 a year to help fix leaks | Thames Water | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Embattled water supplier promises to invest up to £3bn more over the next five years     Thames Water-linked firm paid £14m in dividends despite concerns over group | Thames Water | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Kennet Properties sells off Thames Water land, whose owner, Kemble Water, has warned it would not be able to pay a £190m loan  
    • I think it will make more sense if you read that the Judge meant the 28 day sentence was on the PCN not the sign. He lost because in the Judge's opinion the registered keeper has the option to declare who was driving on the day. Dave didn't do that so he takes the blame for not making the declaration. A totally wrong decision which can be challenged at a price. There is no guarantee that another Judge will want to say that the original judgement was majorly wrong so may not change it. On the other hand another Judge may say the decision was an absolute load of pollux and reverse the decision and add punitive additions on to TPS for bringing such a hopeless case to Court.  That's why we call it Judge Lottery. To be fair, Judges tend to get it right more often than not. Doesn't make things any easier for Dave.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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 Foundations Account / Overdraft CCJ


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2069 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,

 

About 13 years ago, we took out a Foundations Mortgage with Natwest (Thats an intrerest only cheque book type mortgage).

 

6 Years ago, when my business got into difficulties, I got behind on monthly interest payments, and (because my eye was not on that particular ball), went into default on the mortgage.

 

Since then, our payment history has been eratic due to customers not paying us. Natwest has on two occassions applied to the courts for repossession, and on each occassion I have managed to clear the arrears completely before the hearing. upon which Natwest applied for and was granted a stay with 'indefinite leave to restore'.

 

My questions for you caggers are:

 

a) Six years on, the mortgage remains 'In Default', there is nothing in the mortgage agreement that covers coming 'Out of Default', if i'm making my regular payments now, will NatWest EVER be forced to accept the mortgage is nolonger in default? Is there law that covers this?

 

b) 'Indefinate leave to restore' seems harsh (on the courts part) is there anything I can do about that?

 

c) During the 6 years, though we have never been to court (2 stayed hearings), Natwest I estimate have tagged on about £4000 of legal fees without detail or justification. I've asked them to provide that detail verbally, they have failed to do so. I'm going to ask them in writing, and if they still fail, demand they remove them altogether (under banking code of conduct), does anyone have experience of fighting these kind of charges?

 

Many thanks in advance for your help...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, in a similar vein to my recent post on my Foundations Mortgage, about 6 years ago when my business got into difficulty, Natwest took out a CCJ against my wife on our joint 'Advantage Premier' account overdraft of about £9000.00. Shortly after they managed to get a charge for the CCJ against our house. Since then we get the occassional template letter from shoosmiths asking we start making payments, but have largely ignored.

 

However, whilst revisiting all our financial affars recently we decided to look at what kind of bank charges we had incurred on that account that could be challenged, and just going back six years before the default, we have a total of over £12,000!!

 

Now I understand that as a 'Claimant' bank charges are not easy to get back. BUT in this case I would like to use the charges as a DEFENSE and see if we can get the CCJ and Charging Order set aside, since the potentially unlawfull charges exceed the amount of the CCJ.

 

It's been just over 6 years since the CCJ (It's now dropped off CRA's), so it's really the charging order i'm targeting. Do you Caggers have an opinion on my likelyhood of success? or alternate paths to getting the charge on house set aside?

 

Many thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bank charges unless you have a Hardship *(good one) would very hard to challenge after the Supreme court case couple of years ago, so at this point I would suggest you do not spend any monies yet as you would loose the money, but investigate and try to find any loop holes, I have been fighting HSBC since 2008 on that front and I have a Hardship case due to a major health incident and my hours was greatly reduced by employer, I still am fighting the issue , FOS well enough said about them the better they listen to lies by the Bank.

 

Sure others will also respond so see if anything else is raised.

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input, but (and perhaps i've misunderstood this) I thought the supreme court ruling was that the charges were unlawful, which made it impossible for the bank to enforce action based on them, but didn't help people claim them back.

 

In my case i'm not trying to claim them back but to use them as a belated defence to the CCJ to obtain a set aside. Am I missing something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supreme Court decision

On 25 November 2009 the Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords) handed down its judgment in the bank charges test case. The banks had appealed a Court of Appeal decision (made on

26 February 2009 – see below) that their unauthorised overdraft charging terms were subject to the test of fairness in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (the Regulations).

 

What did the judgment say?

The Supreme Court has decided that the banks’ unauthorised overdraft charging terms are not fully assessable for fairness under the Regulations. This means that terms cannot be assessed on whether the banks are giving fair value for money.

 

What happens next?

The Supreme Court judgment effectively draws the test case process to an end. We now expect firms to deal with consumers’ complaints in line with the FSA’s complaint handling rules.

 

Will banks and building societies still charge customers unauthorised overdraft charges?

We expect so. However, the OFT has indicated that progress is being made to make personal current accounts work better for consumers and it will be monitoring developments over the next two years. More information is available on the OFT’s website.

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

Morning,

 

I have come across your message regarding Natwest Foundations. My mother is also on this product and wondered if you have had managed to have any luck since your post here in 2013?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...