Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes that's right-Parking Eye are usually very good at getting their PCNs compliant with the Act. So both being out of time means that PE cannot transfer the liability for payment from the driver to the keeper. So only the driver is liable to pay the PCN not the keeper. I understand from you that at least one of the keepers was not driving at the time which puts them in the clear providing PE are not told who was actually driving on that day. However even if with the other car the keeper and the driver were the same person the driver can still successfully argue that they are not liable to pay. The arguments are that there  appears to be no entrance sign advising that the car park is now private. That no signs were there advising that this was a new car park as it was at that time. That the signs are prohibitory so even if PE do have a contract with the landowner, the contract cannot extend to the motorist as there is no  offer other than no parking for those without a permit. You cannot form a contract with motorists trying to park if you are not allowing them to park there because they do not have a permit.  In those circumstance [parking without a permit ] you may be considered to be trespassing but only the landowner can sue for that not PE. And its not worth the landowner suing because the cost of suing would probably not outweigh the fine for trespassing.   PS  I sent you a private message-not about your case.    
    • Please accept my apologies for the delayed update, but i have been trawling through emails for supporting evidence, you see we are in the consultation phase and there will be three meetings during the process. So as i have said  my role is at risk due to the scoring and mine being low. As explained i never received my report as my line manager left during December and i was on leave. So i was not afforded any meeting, i received no feedback at all, so how am i meant to know any areas to improve or to attain a higher grade. So with this in mind i gathered my supporting evidence, i found the email from my then line manager and the objectives that he set out and we agreed.   I then supplied 20 emails that  showed that not only did i reach the targets, i smashed them, highlighting areas that i had saved the company a considerable amount of money, idented issues  implemented process and solutions with ongoing support. All emails are verified and prove that i should have received the highest possible grade going by their criteria. I also included the email from HR when i challenged  the score and they replied with " the outgoing manager supplied thorough feedback to the incoming interim manager who should have provided this (this was never received, and report i received was blank with just a score. Highlighted was the email from HR stating " a two is not a concerning grade"  well clearly it is as less than a month later it is what was used to decide i was at risk. I have supplied this information to the line manager and the external HR rep that was on the call as i have 48 hours to supply this. Had i had a proper and fair review like everyone else had then i would have been able to provide this evidence when he issued the score, he could not argue with the sheer volume of evidence that i had. This proves what was said to me when i took this position, " there was some politics in me getting the role, their line manager had promised the role to one of his guys, they cant really do anything but watch your back" He should not have promised this anyway as two interviews were required in the process *which i sat) so i earned the right to the role. This was because the three of them knew there was a lot that would be uncovered and they wanted it covering, i started to see this after two weeks, had i not said anything then it would have looked as though i was incompetent or stupid. I did try to work with them on this to remedy but sadly they went the other rout instead.    
    • He'll be asking Truss for advice and help next ... or maybe go straight to a lettuce He already asked Swella How do you survive all those breaches of ministerial code etc She is rumored to have replied - dunno - if the positions were reversed, I'd have sacked me in without a seconds thought
    • Dear Stu. I have been very annoyed that they put this fee on my account right now, as you said the court might rule that i have to pay it further on. This sounds like a dodgy practice. Below is what the account manager sent to me when i asked her why this was getting added to my account right now. Is this legal what they are doing i.e. pre-empting the judges decision it seems. 'Thank you for the email.  The court fees have been added to your account as you have not vacated the property. If the court decide that the landlord is not able to recoup the costs, we would remove the charge from your account.  At present, the court costs have not been deducted from the payment you made towards the rent.'
    • Yay!! Plan to submit tomorrow. Thanks for all the support. I'm so out of my comfort zone. Will keep thread updated and continue reading. Just want them gone!   
  • 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

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 3637 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...