Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm at work now but promise to look in later. Can you confirm how you paid the first invoice?  It wasn't your fault if the signal was so poor and there was no alternative way to pay.  There must be a chance of reversing the charge with your bank.  There are no guarantees but Kev  https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09766749/officers  has never had the backbone to do court so far.  Not even in one case,  
    • OK  so you may not have outed yourself if you said "we". No matter either way you paid. Snotty letter I am surprised that they were so quick off the mark threatening Court. They usually take months to go that far. No doubt that as you paid the first one they decided to strike quickly and scare you into paying. Dear Chuckleheads  aka Alliance,  I am replying to your LOCs You may have caught me the first time but that is  the end. What a nasty organisation you are. You do realise that you now have now no reason to continue to pursue me after reading my appeal since you know that my car was not cloned. Any further pursuit will end up with a complaint to the ICO that you are breaching my GDPR.  Please confirm that you have removed my details from your records. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I haven't gone for a snotty letter this time as they know that you paid for your car in another car park. So using a shot across their bows .  If it doesn't deter them and they send in the debt collectors or the Court you will then be able to get more money back from them for  breachi.ng your data protection than they will get should they win in Court-and they have no chance of that as you have paid. So go in with guns blazing and they might see sense.  Although never underestimate how stupid they are. Or greedy.
    • Thank you. Such a good point. They did issue all 3 before I paid though. I only paid one because I didn’t have proof of parking that time, only for two others.    Unfortunately no proof of my appeal as it was just submitted through a form on their website and no copy was sent to me. I only have the reply. I believe I just put something like “we made the honest mistake of using the incorrect parking area on the app” and that’s it. Thanks again for your help. 
    • They are absolute chuckleheads. You paid but because you entered a different car park site also belonging to them they are pursuing you despite them knowing what you had done. It would be very obvious to everyone, including Alliance that your car could not have been in two places at the same time. Thank you for posting the PCN so quickly making it a pity that you appealed since there are so many things wrong with it that you as keeper are not liable to pay the charge. They rarely accept appeals since that would mean they lose money but they have virtually no chance of beating you in Court. Very unlikely that they will take you to Court given the circumstances. Just in case you didn't out yourself as the driver could you please post up your appeal.
    • Jasowter I hope that common sense prevails with Iceland and the whole matter can be successfully ended. I would perhaps not have used a spell checker just to prove the dyslexia 🙂 though it may have made it more difficult to read. I noticed that you haven't uploaded the original PCN .Might not be necessary if the nes from Iceland is good. Otherwise perhaps you could get your son to do it by following the upload instructions so that we can appeal again with the extra ammunition provided by the PCN. Most of them rarely manage to get the wording right which means that you as the keeper are not liable to pay the charge-only the driver is and they do not know the name and address of the driver. So that would put you both in the clear if the PCN is non compliant.
  • 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 credit card PPI - unhappy with redress **RESOLVED WON**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1991 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

Hello,

This is my first post so I hope it's okay. I'm sorry it's so long but I've really tried to make it as concise as possible!

 

In November 1998 I took out a credit card with NatWest. PPI was added to the card in November 1998 and I cancelled the PPI in March 2008.

I made a complaint to NatWest about the mis selling of the PPI in 2012 which was refused and I escalated my complaint to the FOS. Fast forward to August 2018 when the FOS eventually upheld my complaint. The FOS advised me that NatWest would now be making me an offer in line with the FOS guidelines.

 

I heard nothing more from NatWest until I received a brief letter from RBS with a cheque for the redress on 15th October. There was no breakdown of the payment and, to be honest, I was disappointed with the amount particularly as the complaint had been going on for so long.

 

I rang RBS immediately and requested a breakdown of the redress. In the meantime I also requested all my credit card statements for the period I had PPI.

On 25th October I received a letter from RBS with information on the PPI I paid from July 2001 to March 2008. They specified an amount for PPI premiums paid and another amount for interest. (It was roughly 50/50). They said they had estimated the amount of PPI paid prior to July 2001.

 

Unfortunately, I don't have the statements for this time either. NatWest have subsequently sent me some of my requested statements but these were only from November 2003 to present day. I have completed a further SAR for the other statements as they have already admitted in their letter they had records from July 2001.

 

I went back to the ombudsman that had been dealing with my case who advised me that I would need to make a new complaint with the FOS if I was unhappy with the redress.

I have also looked at the spreadsheets on this site to try and work out the redress but as I don't have all the statements, I cannot get an accurate calculation.

 

I'm not sure what to do next and would really appreciate some advice. I have a feeling that I may have come to a dead end but as this has been going on for 6 years I want to make sure that I have tried everything I can to get a fair result.

 

Thank you so much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

under fos guidelines you use and avg figure from say the nearest 12mts period.

 

use the FOSCISHEET put in every ppi payment

 

use their int rate. in D15

claim to date is the date the PPI ceased.

 

take that figure and using the statint sheet put it in as a whole figure dated the day after the PPI ceased.

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

Hello,

 

I've used the spreadsheets as advised and the calculation is around £2000 more than I have been offered.

 

The letter RBS have sent me says that they calculated the PPI premiums and have added statutory interest and this is in line with the guidelines set by the FCA and FOS.

 

I will write to them again and question their calculations. In the meantime, I do not intend to bank the cheque (unless advised otherwise).

 

Thank you again to everyone on this site as I wouldn't have had the first clue where to start without all the information and experience shared on this forum. dx100uk - you are an absolute star.

Link to post
Share on other sites

inc your spreadsheets.

 

you can bank the cheque its no admittance nor acceptance, up to you or simply cross thru it and return it.

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

  • 4 weeks later...

Hello,

 

I received a response to my latest letter from RBS this week. They have reiterated that their calculations are correct and in line with the FOS guidance. I'm obviously an idiot for suggesting that my calculations should be considered and for disagreeing with their figures!

 

I am yet to receive the response to my SAR to see if they have any further statements. (I have also requested information on a critical illness premium that was on my credit card statement every month for a few years which I found when they sent some statements previously).

 

I assume my next step would be to wait for the SAR and then to approach the FOS. However, I would be grateful to receive any advice if there is anything else I can do in the meantime. I won't be offended if the advice is to accept the offer and run away!

 

I have also banked the original cheque as I was so worried that RBS would change their minds and I would be left with less that originally offered - thank you for the previous advice on this.

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Upload to pdf

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

Hello

 

Thank you for your reply. It is much appreciated.

 

Is there a way I can share the letter privately with you as there is a statement attached with details of my credit card payments and balances which I would prefer not to share publicly if possible?

 

I am also concerned that the bank could identify me personally by the financial details in the letter and, as you can probably tell, I have lost complete trust in them! (I must sound completely paranoid but I wouldn't put it past them to peruse forums such as this to use against their customers).:-)

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

so what !!

 

why do we need to see credit card statements?

we only need to see what you paid PCm for PPI.

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...

looks correct to me

well the process.

 

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

glad to help

 

dx

 

thread marked as won

 

please consider a donation to keep us here

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...