Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi All   After a bit of advice to see where I stand. Bought a car in Sept 2022 on pcp. Been told it had a big inspection and was good to go. Had many issues with it throughout the year including trims coming off the car and sunroof not closing.   While getting the sunroof repaired at month 12, in Sept 2023, the bodyshop guy said your cars been in a bad accident. Garage said it hasn't but offered to take the car back at half of what I paid for it as long as I buy a replacement from them before inspecting it (probably damage control) (car was £78k, said they'd offer £40k "trade in value" as if doing me a favour).   Ended up getting a forensic inspection done for £2400 in Dec 2023, confirmed car was in a bad smash (write off level but unrecorded on hpi) and potentially unsafe to drive - front end is slightly bent towards 1 side, what looks like a hairline crack on the chasis, overspray, bonner with patches of filler all over it, damaged rubbers etc   Raised complaint to finance company and few weeks ago to FOS... just wondering what people's experiences have been like going through the FOS, main thing that concerns me is that it was 12-13 months after I bought the car that I realised what caused these issues and raised the issue to the garage/ finance co but the damage/ misaligned panels are actually visible in the advert photos which I saved thankfully.    Dealership has had my car for 4 weeks to let a few bodyshops look at it (without giving me a courtesy car!!!) Not giving me any updates either because I went to the FOS about it and didnt want to speak to them over the phone anymore as opposed to emails. Note: hanging trim was reported within 3 months but due to part delays it didn't come until like July 2023, within 2 months the piece came off again, claimed under repairers warranty for another replacement 6 weeks ago and within 2 weeks this time the trim is coming off AGAIN (assuming it won't stay on due to the car being actually bent out of shape slightly)   Any idea if I have a good case or if there's anything else I can do?   Thanks
    • After the dealer failed to refund the money I checked the sort code and account number to reveal which bank received the money. It turned out to be HSBC BUSINESS DIRECT ONLINE. I called them and they confirmed the account name wasn’t Langley Cars though obviously didn’t tell me the correct account name. My bank contacted HSBC after I reported this to be fraud and they did in fact do a charge back but reversed the decision when the dealer sent a copy of the receipt he gave me for the deposit where it said it was non-refundable. I said that doesn’t mean anything when the car should never have been put on the forecourt when it was a death trap, and not fit for purpose.   The MOT revealed only a few of the faults which he agreed to correct in a week as I needed the car to travel out of London for work. He didn’t meet that deadline either because there were other more serious problems as identified by my independent car check. The same mechanic informed the dealer of these faults. The car wasn’t fixed by the agreed date due to the extensive repairs needed. So he was in breach of our contract on many levels.    I requested the bank find out the correct name of the account and they said the only information they had was like you said was the account number and sort code. I challenged the bank stating that whenever I create a new payee if the name doesn’t match the registered account name, it declines the creation of the proposed payee. So what happened in this instance?    I checked company’s house using the address from where the dealership is located and there was neither the two names, one was aa advertised in AUTOTRADER and the other on the courtyards entrance. I thought as I had made payment to the dealers ‘Trading as’ name that it would more than likely be enforceable than any other. Indeed the Bailiff was the one to call me and say that a variation of the warrant of control needed to be done before he could go and enforce the order. I cross-checked the address on Companies House website and got 3 different business names. Only one appears to be car related.  I am unsure as to what I can do within the variation of the warrant which the bailiff felt was appropriate. I will speak to him again Monday. 
    • Their PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. iit was not posted until 13 days after the event for one thing meaning it would be deemed to arrive on the 15th day instead of the 14th day. Now though we cannot expect that your PCN also missed the deadline there were still two other things wrong with the wording of the PCN that if your PCN has the same wording as your friends means that your PCN would not be compliant either. Their PCN does not specify the period of parking as required n the Act. It does show the ANPR arrival and departure dates but as those times include driving from the entrance to finding a parking place then later driving from the parking place to the exit cannot be described as a parking period. I suspect that the " Important Note" on your form will also not comply though I cannot be sure until we see your actual PCN.The reason I can't confirm that is because they sent out the PCN too late they have said that they are pursuing your friend on the assumption that they were the driver as well as the keeper-something that Courts do not accept. But it does look as if your PCN is not compliant which means that the keeper cannot be held liable to pay the charge. Only the driver can be made to pay it. If you have not appealed and revealed who was driving, there is no way that  Excel know who was driving.  So just to be sure please send them an SAR . On another topic do you have any proof that you did not stay there for so long just to really spoil Excel's day.
    • As your first PCN was a Notice to Driver which would have been followed by a Notice to keeper over a month later [even though it may only state Parking Charge notice] it is even more necessary to send PE an SAR. If either document fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act  2012 Schedule 4 then both you and your father are in the clear. So you do not need to worry about is any paperwork from unregulated debt collectors and fifth rate solicitors. The only thing to look out for is a Letter of Claim and all you have to do is respond with a snotty letter back to them .  
  • 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 DPA Breach


Maki
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2110 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

11 years ago I was taken seriously ill and due to the illness I lost my job and ended up in a financial mess resulting in my house being repossessed.

 

Thankfully my health has stabalised and I'm now starting to get to grips with my financial mess.

 

Having checked my credit reports I noticed Natwest were reporting missed payments each month on two mortgages and a loan and hadn't recorded any of the defaults or CCJ's.

 

I lodged a complaint with Natwest which they upheld due to inaccurate reporting of my credit file when one mortgage and loan had been paid off with a full a final settlement and the other mortgage had resulted in a repossession.

 

To compensate me for inaccurate reporting over the past 8 years they've sent a cheque for £125 which I don't believe is adequate.

 

However,

whats more worrying is that they have now listed the mortgage shortfall as an outstanding mortgage even though the property was repossessed over 7 years ago.

 

While I don't dispute the amount is outstanding I didn't think they could report the outstanding balance once the account had been defaulted and subsequently repossessed.

 

Am I correct or are Natwest allowed to register the mortgage shortfall in this way on my credit file ?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

have you made any contact or made any payments in that time.

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?387506-Mortgage-shortfalls-Lender-should-not-pursue-under-CML-policy

 

if it was defaulted more than 6yrs ago

and you can prove it

the sum should not be showing

 

the other defaults and CCJ's are not showing as they've reached their 6th birthday

why not this one?

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

Thanks for the reply.

 

The other loans and CCJ's aren't showing anymore as they were past the 6 year mark which I pointed out to the bank so they updated their records with the correct default dates etc and had the records removed from my credit file.

 

The house was repossessed over 7 years ago (I have all the paperwork) and Natwest have only just added the shortfall to my credit file in the last week when they were sorting out the mess they had made on my credit file.

 

My point was that once the mortgage had been defaulted I didn't think they could report the shortfall as a new debt as its the same defaulted account or am I wrong ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

well eitherway it should not be showing as it was defaulted more than 6yrs ago.

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

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

Its only a voluntary agreement between SOME lenders.it is not binding in legislation.

12 years for shortfalls

6 years for interest

 

If you owe mortgage capital

 

Mortgage capital is the money you originally borrowed.

 

For this part of a mortgage shortfall debt,

the lender has 12 years to use court action to make you pay.

This is under section 20 (1) of the Limitation Act.

 

If you owe interest

 

Mortgage interest is the interest you were charged to borrow the money.

 

Your lender may also charge interest after your home is sold.

 

For this part of a mortgage shortfall debt,

the lender has six years to use court action to make you pay.

This is under section 20 (5) of the Limitation Act.

 

And tho is on the financial ombudsmans website.

 

case study 2

 

Mrs J’s house was repossessed and sold, leaving a £40,000 shortfall.

She agreed a repayment plan

- but after a year, she stopped making payments.

 

When the lender contacted her 11 years later, they asked her to repay the remaining shortfall debt.

 

Mrs J said it was unfair to be asked for the money after so long.

But the reason the lender hadn’t contacted her was because she’d moved house, and hadn’t told them her new address.

 

The lender got in touch as soon as they traced her

- and we thought it was reasonable for them to ask her to repay the shortfall

 

Link http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/mortgages-shortfall-case-studies.html#d

Link to post
Share on other sites

but regardless

any debt only shows for 6yrs from a default

 

the matter of the limitations act or the agreement terms have no bearing whatsoever on CRA time limits for it showing or not.

 

the shortfall should not be showing -it is not a sep debt.

 

if NatWest have not asked for the shortfall to be repaid in writing to date, pers i'd be keeping quite...

till 12yrs expires then kick up another stink.

 

 

 

if/if not its payable is another matter, but as NatWest were one of the signatories of the CML agreement again I think not.

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

Thanks for the replies.

 

The shortfall is due and I've been in communication with Natwest more or less constantly about the debt and am making every effort to pay it.

 

My concern was that they seemed to have once again screwed my credit file by reporting the shortfall as a new debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So add a note of correction/explanation to all CRAfiles containing this debt. It will have no effect other than to inform future searchers.

IMO no repo shortfall (outstanding loan-sale price) can occur before sale of repossessed Property, which may take several months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

complain again

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

I’ve spoken to Infomation Commissioners Office and they’ve confirmed under the Data Protection Act the debt shouldn’t have been Re registered

I’m going to issue another complaint

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

I've had an ongoing battle with Natwest since September last year when I discovered they'd been reporting missed payments on various loan and mortgage accounts that had been settled 9 years previously. (I only discovered when I was rejected for a property based on credit checks).

 

After Natwest refused to correct the errors for various reasons I took my case to the Financial Ombudsman who ruled in my favour after Natwest admitted they'd misplaced a lot of my records and made errors on my accounts.

 

The ombudsman ordered Natwest to correct the mistakes on my credit file and recommended compensation of £300 which I rejected.

 

I then took the case to the Information Commissioners Office who also found Natwest was in breach of the DPA under the first and fourth principals of the Act (Fairness and Accuracy) but decided not to issue any fines as Natwest have assured them it was a series of errors etc.

 

I'm now looking to obtain some compensation from Natwest for the 9 years of incorrect reporting, the loss of the property and more importantly the stress I've had from Sept last year to June this year trying to get them to sort the mess out when they refused.

 

I've spoken to a couple of solicitors who have said that while I seem to have a strong case they would want around £3,000 to prepare a court case and Natwest would probably settle out of court so I would end up paying the solicitors fees out of any compensation.

 

My question is, is it possible to claim for compensation without a solicitor, if so how, and how much do I ask for. (I'm not even expecting £3,000 in total !)

 

Any advice you can give is much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. You absolutely don't need a solicitor. You can do this yourself – especially as the FOS has upheld your complaint and so has the ICO.

 

I suggest that you begin by sending NatWest an SAR and also one to the FOS.

 

Although you already have the decisions from the FOS and the ICO, this extra preparation and extra information gathering will put you in a much better position.

 

Also, start reading about the steps on how to bring a small claim in the County Court.

 

Finally please can you start to tell us the entire story in a bullet pointed chronology so that we understand exactly what you've been through. Also could you let out what losses or expenses you been put to as a result of this.

 

Incidentally, the advice that you have been given by a solicitor who said that you will have to pay their fees out of the money which is finally negotiated from the bank is a load of rubbish. Any solicitor worth their salt would make sure that the deal included the cost of making the complaint against the bank.

 

The trouble with most solicitors is that they are limp wristed, they want to push paper around, and they don't really have the experience or the aggression. You on the other hand of anger, grudge and you are motivated to do the job properly. So are we

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BankFodder, I certainly have the anger and the time to take this as far as I can !

 

I'll put everything together in a chronological order in a separate message as soon as I've typed it all up.

 

I request the SAR from Natwest last week (after explaining to the complaints handler that I didn't need to submit the request on writing or to a particular department and suggested she obtained some training on the matter!)

 

I got the impression the solicitors I've spoken to just didn't want to take on Natwest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, as you've been here since 2010, I obviously don't need to remind you to read our customer services guide and implement the advice there before you make phone calls. You will already have done that won't you?

 

I think you could also post up in PDF format the decision of the ombudsman and also the decision of the ICO please

Link to post
Share on other sites

Old and new thread megred for full history

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...