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 & APEX - CCA Request Ignored - I want my £1 back! ** Resolved **


wndzr
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3599 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

Morning all,

 

I sent off a CCA Request to NatWest around mid-March that was signed for at their Birmingham office on 17/03/2014

- that request included the £1 statutory fee in the form of a postal order.

I have kept the tracking number for this item and have the surname of the signatory.

 

I have since received notification that my debt has been passed on to a company called APEX,

who were actually surprisingly helpful when I rang them.

 

They've advised me to get back in touch with NatWest and in the mean time they will ensure they don't bombard me with calls and letters.

 

When ringing the NatWest call centre, they seemed baffled at my request and insisted on treating me like a standard collections customer

who just doesn't want to pay.

 

Even after explaining that I have submitted a CCA request, they continued to say I need to contact APEX.

 

Note,

I did not send a follow up letter because I wrongly assumed that my initial letter regarding the debt had led them to drop the matter

as I had received no further contact since last week when I received the APEX notification.

 

Just wondering the best way to go about this now, as I am keen to ensure there are no adverse credit score implications.

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not ever be ringing a DCA

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stay OFF the phone, the phone drones can't divert from the script in front of them.

 

What did you send the CCA for? A loan, credit card? When was the agreement taken out?

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The phone will promptly be destroyed... Never again!

 

This was for a Staff Travel Loan that was approved and signed off by my manager at the time (whilst working for NatWest).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it will be compliant and pretty fruitless requesting it IMO.

 

And what was it for?

A loan creditcard?

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree

 

If it is purly so you have a copy for your own records then there is merit to getting a copy in case of future misdemeanors

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right to verify that anyone has the legal right to claim money and that the amount they claim is correct is beyond doubt.

 

The fact that they have not bean able to produce verification of their legal right to claim the money means you are not legally obliged to pay it.

 

Assuming that your staff loan was covered by the CCA 1974? If not a CCA request is meaningless and explains Natwest's lack of response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

NatWest have finally responded saying the debt is not governed by the CCA - as I already knew - and they have agreed to write it off and pay compensation for my wasted time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It hasn't been specifically mentioned, but I will be asking for it. They have currently offered £30 which I will be laughing at and sending back to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...