Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi   I assume this mattress was the Tenants own property?   So after moving out the Tenants provided an attachment showing a stained mattress and wanting full deposit back and threatening to claim against you for this.   1. Tenants failed to notify you of this stained mattress issue until the end of tenancy after they had vacated the property.   2. You have no evidence that this was the actual mattress used in that property nor evidence to back up there claim the staining caused this mattress damage.  (i.e. one of them could have had an accident and wet the bed or done this when they moved from the property).     3. Ask them that you wish the mattress independently inspected. (which you are fully entitled to do and if it proves this claim is false it will be added to the deposit claim by you the landlord for damages as well as the Garden if you need to get landscapers in to carry out the work that should have been carried out by Tenants as per Tenacy Agreement and raised  by yourself (Landlord) on a few occasions which Tenants failed to rectify even at end of tenancy.   4. Ask them to provide you with the contact details of there Contents Insurance Company (tenants whether Private or Social Housing should always take out and have Contents Insurance but is up to that tenant) bet they don't provide it Big question is the Deposit protected in a Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS) and those Tenants that have left were given a copy of the Prescribed Terms for that TDS? (Bear in mind you may need to tell TDS that you are in dispute with the Tenant about damages i.e. mattress and Garden)    
    • plenty of time to research and calm down. nothing much to do until the end of june.    
    • well ...... 1st you need to go back to post 1 and carefully read ALL this thread from the start again and pay attention to the advice and the undertones it explains about 'debt'.   2nd ...the truth is you owe no-one ANYTHING, the OC wrote off and sold the debt, and got most of it back against tax and business insurance schemes ...throw the morality card out the window...the OC did by selling the debt on for <10p=£1. and the DCa want the full balance ...id so many fools stopped paying powerless DCA's tomorrow, the whole industry would collapse overnight.   3rd the only reason this is still around your neck is because you failed to follow given advice...had you ..it would now be statute barred.      ^^^ very important research the M+S credit card debacle using our enhanced google searchbox on this page   as for the PAPLOC reply,   D.. desipte a previous CCA requests, the claimant has yet to supply any/all of the required paperwork.   i: delete [CC is attached to this reply form]"   
    • Hi again   Yes, it's been a lovely day weather wise.   Guess you've better things to do with weather like today than help with this problem, so thanks very much for your input, it's very much appreciated.   Late this afternoon I did receive a reply from the tenants, and they are asking me to go 50/50 with getting the garden sorted, not only that, as they have moved away they are expecting me to get the quotes.   Regarding you view on this issue, its so easy not to see the whole picture and my thoughts that the staining damp may be of their own doing didn't occur to me as I was so locked into the historical leak. Taking a closer look at the room in question today, I'm convinced that they are trying it on with the stained mattress- they did mail through a picture and then a receipt for supposedly the mattress. My wife and I then took both the pic and receipt to the bedding store where purchase was made to ask if the two married up, the picture does not show any emblems/manufactures logo or such to prove that this is the case, so we are none the wiser- our thoughts being that the stained mattress is from elsewhere.   A few days back I spoke to our letting agent regarding all of this, as was quite correctly mentioned there are two parts to this equation, namely the mattress and then the property.   Our agents mentioned to me that as an inventory was not carried out initially with the let, (hindsight) the pictures that were used to advertise the property could not be used as evidence to present to the TDS to be compared to the pictures now as there is no proof that the advertising pictures were in fact how the property was when the let started. I mentioned that all digital pictures have a means of finding when that pic was taken- Geo tag/Metadata- agent was quite surprised by this. The agents thoughts then went for a hide in a vacuum-   This is going off at a tangent here-many moons ago my wife studied computer science at a local University, one of her classmates who she is still in touch with is now a practising Solicitor. My wife suggested that maybe I give her a call, a bit rude I guess, but I did  phone and with the pleasantries out the way  I asked for her opinion of the best way to get this sorted. Her remit isn't landlord type stuff, however she will speak to a colleague on Monday and come back to me.   The property is due to be relet on the 21st, we will ensure that the new tenants move in to a home that is immaculate and welcoming, trouble is its getting a tadge close to get the garden issues sorted in time.   I know that all this will get closure in the end, but at the moment I've had more fun with a toothpick-   Again, many thanks.
    • The collection is currently stored at curator James Blower's home, but he has now found a space situated in an old bank premises where he hopes to exhibit them from this autumn or early next year. View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

NatWest Advantage Gold Package Account Fees - rejected as SB'd Help please **WON**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2169 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

no its from when you realise you can reclaim things .

regardless to whatever reason the OP wanted to close the account in 2009 plays no part.

 

 

I was simply pointing out that any 3yrs rule, if it did apply,

is only effective if the bank actually wrote to the OP regarding the said subject.

 

 

the bottom line here is the time limit runs from when the OP realised, through media publicity

that the packaged account fees 'could' be reclaimed.

 

 

well the earliest media evidence and that same information on many CMC sites

is what I posted above

and that's not outside of 6yrs.

 

 

you need to be careful upon how you interpret time limts

 

 

noticed that on several of your other posts too.

like chargeback, its when the OP became aware they 'could' do something.

 

 

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
no its from when you realise you can reclaim things .

 

I'm not disputing this. What do you mean no? I don't think you're reading my posts properly.

 

regardless to whatever reason the OP wanted to close the account in 2009 plays no part.

 

Well it does play a part if it means that chesterpug realised he/she would have grounds to complain.

 

The exact wording in FCA DISP (as I have already posted for you multiple times) is "three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint".

And Natwest's argument is that chesterpug did become aware during this meeting in March 2009 that there was cause for complaint. And even if chesterpug didn't realise at this time he/she reasonably ought to have been aware that he/she could complain.

 

 

I was simply pointing out that any 3yrs rule, if it did apply,

is only effective if the bank actually wrote to the OP regarding the said subject.

 

This is simply untrue and doesn't make any logical sense.

 

the bottom line here is the time limit runs from when the OP realised, through media publicity

that the packaged account fees 'could' be reclaimed.

 

well the earliest media evidence and that same information on many CMC sites

is what I posted above

 

Quite obviously chesterpug already realised back in March 2009.

 

In fact the FCA (as per Consultation Paper 10/6) take the opposite view on media publicity and becoming aware that you have grounds to complain. Look at this quote using PPI as an example:

"However, in our view, general media coverage of the PPI issue, including comments or publications by the FSA, would not be enough to have given a consumer the kind of specific ‘constructive knowledge’ (of a potential problem with, and potential financial loss from, the PPI policy sold to them) which is required to trigger the start of the three-year time limit within the DISP rules."

 

and that's not outside of 6yrs.

 

you need to be careful upon how you interpret time limts

 

Surely you mean 3 years. I think YOU need to be careful how you interpret the rules on time-barring.

 

noticed that on several of your other posts too.

like chargeback, its when the OP became aware they 'could' do something.

 

That's because you are mis-informed.

 

A chargeback has nothing to do with becoming aware they 'could' do something. Chargebacks are not complaints-related and they are covered by completely different rules to FCA DISP.

The different card associations have quite clear time limits which they publish in their relevant operating guides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

pray tell me

 

how can the OP reclaim these package account fees

 

 

the FOS didn't even publish they were reclaimable until jan 2014....

 

 

so the OP in the room in 2009 could see into the future.....???

 

 

dx

 

 

the

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
the FOS didn't even publish they were reclaimable until jan 2014....

 

That's an outright lie.

 

so the OP in the room in 2009 could see into the future.....???

 

You wouldn't need to see an article published by the FOS in order to realise that you had cause for complaint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, the OP wasnt made aware at this point that they had grounds to complain about a mis-sell.

 

They then realised that they could have been mis-sold the account and decided to raise the complaint.

 

They realised recently and they have 3 years from that point that they could now complain.

 

Its clear... There is no confusion here. Its clear as day to me. I had cause to complain to Lloyds recently about something from 7 years ago about the opening of my Lloyds Account. I had only realised 6 months ago and they upheld my complaint about the account I was "Forced" to have to bank with them.

 

The OP now needs to consider his next steps.

 

Ksmith82; I would suggest for now we stop all this and help the OP and not argue between each other.

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree, the OP wasnt made aware at this point that they had grounds to complain about a mis-sell.

 

I must admit I still disagree with you. He was made aware he had cause for a complaint because he now realised the account was unsuitable.

 

They then realised that they could have been mis-sold the account and decided to raise the complaint.

 

They realised recently and they have 3 years from that point that they could now complain.

 

Its clear... There is no confusion here. Its clear as day to me. I had cause to complain to Lloyds recently about something from 7 years ago about the opening of my Lloyds Account. I had only realised 6 months ago and they upheld my complaint about the account I was "Forced" to have to bank with them.

 

The OP now needs to consider his next steps.

 

Ksmith82; I would suggest for now we stop all this and help the OP and not argue between each other.

 

I definitely agree with you on the last sentence though!

 

It sounds like Natwest may have issued their final response for the complaint, in which case the next step would be the FOS. And the OP would have to counter Natwest's assertion that they should have been aware they had cause for complaint at this meeting in March 2009. So it would be good to explain exactly why you didn't think/know to make a complaint within 3 years of this meeting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I must admit I still disagree with you. He was made aware he had cause for a complaint because he now realised the account was unsuitable.

 

Can see what your getting at, however the point at the meeting was financial hardship, not about whether he was mis-sold the account.

 

If it has only tallied up for him now, the he has ground to complain.

 

Id take it to the FOS and potentially look at the courts.

Could be interesting.

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

your klandestine activities have been rumbled.

 

 

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

Dear All thank you for your input.

 

 

Special thanks to dx and fkofilee for your advice. your understanding and interpretation of my case is spot on. To update you, I received an email on Wednesday afternoon from the executive response team which is as follows:

Thank you for your e-mail of 9 June 2015, in which you detail that you remain unhappy with the outcome of your complaint. in light of your comments I will revisit your complaint and I hope to be in a position to respond within the next five business days.

Yours sincerely

Executive Office

Would you respond with any further comments or wait to see what they say?

Much appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going through a similar situation helping someone with a Adv Gold account that goes back several years.

 

 

Have just received their get lost letter stating that we're out of time (6 years from account open or, if later,

3 years from when we should have realised we had cause to complain).

 

 

In our case they are stating the 3 years commenced from when the bank sent a "review letter" in July 2009

and therefore should have had sufficient knowledge to raise concerns about the account back then, or by July 2012 at the latest.

 

Struggling to locate this so called "review letter" but is it just the standard bumf they send out whenever there is any changes to the benefits

and/or payment increases?

 

 

If so I don't see how they can hide behind the time clock as this account was forced on the condition it had to be taken in order to obtain the overdraft facility

- the benefits of the account all totally useless but needed to be taken to secure the o/d.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the 3yrs ONLY runs from if they send a letter complaint with the CCL stuff I posted earlier.

 

 

and for a date of 2009

 

 

it cant be a CCL letter as that did not come in until after that date.

 

 

its a common dodge many creditors are now using to 'buff off' PPI reclaimants.

 

 

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

Panther... Wheres my hammer!?!? Its time to go Skullcracking!!!

 

Well, I disagree with their letter, I think that it is still a valid complaint you have, you might need to push toward the FOS>

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In our case they are stating the 3 years commenced from when the bank sent a "review letter" in July 2009 and therefore should have had sufficient knowledge to raise concerns about the account back then, or by July 2012 at the latest.

 

And they can prove it was sent and that you received it ?

 

What a load of cods...get claiming....

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol:

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

Oh don't you worry, this isn't over by a long shot. Thanks for posting about the CCL letters, I'll look into that. Have also come across this which contains some good info which will come in handy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update for you:

 

I received a letter from NatWest today and they have overturned their initial rejection of my complaint and are now upholding it.

 

I have received a full refund of all charges + interest (£1497.03) so a great result!

 

Thank you for your help and advice (especially Dx and Fkofilee)

 

Best wishes

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey great result!!

 

dx

 

 

 

The Consumer Action Group needs help to cover its expenses.

You could help by making a money contribution to http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/paypal.php?go=donate

or by downloading our toolbar and using it to search the web instead of your normal search engine:- http://consumeractiongroup.co.uk/cag_plugin.php

Please help.

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
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...