Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • 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

Mr Penguin V NAtionide


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5257 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 there,

 

I've just submitted my prelim letter and had a response already...but they advise that they won't refund the charges and that if I'm not happy with their response to 'take the complaint to the next step' via the ombudsmun etc...

 

Should I ignore this letter/response and wait until the deadline given in the prelim letter then sent the LBA letter as planned (should I acknowledge their letter?)

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If just had an offer for settlement from HSBC for another claim I have running, which had taken about 8 weeks to get that far - I was wondering how long it takes on average or how far you have to push nationwide to get an offer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi mrpenguin, from reading recent threads, once MCOL has been issued they are generally paying out within a couple of weeks. If they have offered settlement but not the full amount you can tell them you will accept this a partial settlement but you will continue with your claim for the rest of you rmoney.

  • Haha 1

Nationwide

13/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

01/11/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

11/11/06 - Standard response to prelim

14/11/06 - LBA sent

17/11/06 - Standard response to LBA

04/12/06 - MCOL Issued

06/12/06 - MCOL Acknowledged

07/12/06 - Paid (almost in full)

 

HSBC

14/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

25/10/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

23/11/06 - LBA sent

31/01/07 - MCOL Issued (finally!!)

07/02/07 - MCOL Acknowledged

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

My LBA deadline for Nationwide expires this Wednesday (x2 days away) - this morning I received a letter form Nationwide advising that they are refering my case to their 'Member Service Department' to review. Should I await for this response or go ahead and submit the MCOL once the deadline arrives?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Submit MCOL once the deadline arrives. You gave them 14 days to give you a satifactory response, it's their fault if they let the deadline come and go.

  • Haha 1

Nationwide

13/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

01/11/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

11/11/06 - Standard response to prelim

14/11/06 - LBA sent

17/11/06 - Standard response to LBA

04/12/06 - MCOL Issued

06/12/06 - MCOL Acknowledged

07/12/06 - Paid (almost in full)

 

HSBC

14/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

25/10/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

23/11/06 - LBA sent

31/01/07 - MCOL Issued (finally!!)

07/02/07 - MCOL Acknowledged

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've recently had a further x2 letter from Nationwide advising that they've looked further into my 'concerns over charges' and advise they aren't going to change their stance i.e. no refund. The deadline set in the LBA letter has now passed so I'm just about to submit my MCOL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Really weird thing happened.... A load of unexplained credits appearded on my account then a letter dropped on the mat advising that only the last x6 years worth of refunds have been applied, with their calculated (no sums included) interest and costs (£120 for the MCOL).

 

In the letter is is telling me what they have done, not making an offer. Am I entitled to all I have requested, even charges over x6 years or should I just accept this and cancel the MCOL? :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that bottumburp, just drafted and posted my partial acceptance on the basis that they pay the rest! The funny thing about the letter they sent is that it doesn't include anything about an offer or that they consider the claim settled etc... Nor does it instruct me to stop my claim with the court - so I'm guessing they're either incompetent (highly probable) or they a bunch of chancers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Letter arrived today from Nationwide advising that they now consider my action a sign of non-conformance to their flex account rules and therefore have given me notice that they are closing the account!

 

I knew that it was a possibility but thought it wouldn't come to this, as HSBC have not reacted it the same way and paid in full. I'm assuming the answer is no but.. Is there anything I can do as I'm failing to adhere to the terms of the agreement but merely challanging the amount they charge under it?

Any help or suggestions appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

...i take it then no one can help or has any ideas?

 

I have sent of the AQ questionniare with cheque for £100 and will wait and see what happens next. I sent a copy to the Nationwide and also included a statment that advised they have paid me the following:

1) Costs to date (for MCOL)

2) Interest requested on full amount

3) Part of fully requested amount

...so if they don't want to refund me the whole amount requested, why did they pay me all of the interest as requested but not the charges - even if they are over x6 years old? I have in turn requested them to provide me with a breakdown of the caluclations they used to apply my refund to date as it doesnt add up at all!

 

I'd requested this before submitting the AQ but no repsonse. Should I expect one now or will this end up going to court?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Please help - something's gone wrong...!

For this case, I've followed exactly the same steps I did for my HSBC claim (which was paid in full) and I used the same templates for interest charges, letters and the MCOL etc.

The problem where this case seems to have fallen over is at the stage of submitting the AQ.

The Nationwide made a part payment of the amount claimed for following the submission of the MCOL. I advised them that unless they paid the remainder, I would proceed with my claim. They did not pay the remainder. I submitted the AQ as per instructions and used the templates on this site; however, I received the following letter from the local county court which I have typed out below verbatim:

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1) The claim be stayed as it makes no serious attempt to comply with CPR 16.4(1) by setting out a concise statement of the fact. (Stylised particulars do not constitute compliance.)

The claimant must amend or substitute its particulars of claim setting out the Claimant’s case in plain English by 4:00pm 1st March 2007 and in default, the claim will be struck out with no further notice.

If the above order is complied with the Defendant has permission to file and serve an amended defence in accordance with CPR 16.5 setting out its case in plain English.

2) This order was made without a hearing. Any party affected by it may apply within 7 days of service for it to be set aside, varied or stayed.

Any help or suggestions greatly appreciated…

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a look at these threads... some ideas

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-cahoot-successes/9990-lula-abbey-12.html?highlight=Stylised+particulars#post290918

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/62858-genreal-form-judgment-order.html?highlight=Stylised+particulars#post532367

Help Needed Rfq!! Panicking Now!!

 

look at these posts especially

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/post-535431.html

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/post-492543.html

this is a copy of CPR 16.4 (1)

 

16.4 (1)Particulars of claim must include –

(a)a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies;

(b)if the claimant is seeking interest, a statement to that effect and the details set out in paragraph (2);

©if the claimant is seeking aggravated damages (GL) or exemplary damages (GL) , a statement to that effect and his grounds for claiming them;

(d)if the claimant is seeking provisional damages, a statement to that effect and his grounds for claiming them; and

(e)such other matters as may be set out in a practice direction.

(2)If the claimant is seeking interest he must –

(a)state whether he is doing so –

(i)under the terms of a contract;

(ii)under an enactment and if so which; or

(iii)on some other basis and if so what that basis is; and

(b)if the claim is for a specified amount of money, state –

(i)the percentage rate at which interest is claimed;

(ii)the date from which it is claimed;

(iii)the date to which it is calculated, which must not be later than the date on which the claim form is issued;

(iv)the total amount of interest claimed to the date of calculation; and

(v)the daily rate at which interest accrues after that date.

 

(Part 22 requires particulars of claim to be verified by a statement of truth)

hope this lot helps out! :-D

_________________

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just substitute the particulars of claim, I have put the paper work up for you, I would wait a few more days though and get a few different peoples thoughts on this. I also think that the wording from this very sites N1 particulars of claim, should do the job nicely, but again I would get few peoples thought on this.

 

I have put them here for you in a format you can use in this case, remember that it will need a cover page to explain what it is and point out that it is service.

SUBSTITUTED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM.doc

Link to post
Share on other sites

in fact here is a pair of service letters, to be on the safe side I would also send the court a completed certificate of service (N215) along with a copy of the N1 (stapled to the N215) so the court knows the date when the defendant's response is due.

 

if you use certificate of service (N215) on the second line put SUBSTITUTED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

(insert title or description of documents served)

service letters.doc

certificate of service (N215).pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...