Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You will probably get a couple more reminders followed by further demands fro unregulated debt collectors with even increasing amounts to pay. They are all designed to scare you into paying.  Don't. It's a scam site and they do not know who was driving and they know the keeper is not liable to pay the PCN. Also the shop was closed so they have no legitimate interest in keeping the car park clear. So to charge £100 is a penalty as there is no legitimate interest which means that the case would be thrown out if it went to Court.  Keep your money in your wallet and be prepared to ignore all their letters and threats. Doubtful they would go to Court since a lot more people would not pay when they heard  MET lost in Court. However they may just send you a Letter of Claim to test your resolve.  If yoy get one of those, come back to us and we will advise a snotty letter to send them.  You probably already have, but take a look through some of our past Met PCNs to see how they are doing.
    • Hello, been a while since I posted on here, really hoping for the same support an advice I received last time :-) Long, long story for us, but basically through bad choices, bad luck and bad advice ended up in an IVA in 2016. The accounts involved all defaulted, to be expected. In 2018, I got contacted by an 'independent advisor' advising me that I shouldn't be in an IVA, that it wasn't the solution for our circumstances and that they would guide us through the process of leaving the IVA and finding a better solution. I feel very stupid for taking this persons advice, and feel they prey on vulnerable people for their own financial gain (it ended with us paying our IVA monthly contribution to them)-long and short of it our IVA failed in 2018. At the same time the IVA failed we also had our shared ownership property voluntarily repossessed (to say this was an incredibly stressful time would be an understatement!) When we moved to our new (rented) property in August 2018, I was aware that creditors would start contacting us from the IVA failure. I got advice from another help website and started sending off SARs and CCAs request letters. I was advised not to bury my head and update our address etc and tackle each company as they came along. Initially there was quite a lot of correspondence, and I still get a daily missed call from PRA group (and the occasional letter from them), but not much else. However, yesterday i had a letter through from Lowell (and one from Capital One) advising that they had bought my debt and would like to speak with me regarding the account. There will be several.of these through our door i suspect, as we did have several accounts with Capital One. Capital One have written to us with regular statements over the last 5 years, and my last communication with them was to advise of of our new address (June 2019), I also note that all of these accounts received a small payment in Jan2019 (i'm assuming the funds from the failed IVA pot). Really sorry for the long long post, but just thought id give (some of) the background for context.... I guess my question at the moment is.....how do I respond to Lowell...do I wait for the inevitable other letters to arrive then deal with them all together or individually...? Do I send them a CCA?  Many thanks
    • hi all just got the reminder letter, I have attached it and also the 2nd side of the original 1st pcn (i just saw the edit above) Look forward to your advice Thanks   PCN final reminder.pdf pcn original side 2.pdf
    • The airline said it was offering to pay $10,000 to those who sustained minor injuries.View the full article
    • The Senate Finance Committee wants answers from BMW over its use of banned Chinese components by 21 June.View the full article
  • 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

Santander withholding my money - suspected fraud - **SETTLED full amount+Court Fee+Compo**


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 869 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

I'm also going to say that if you had engaged more closely, you could be thinking of compensation of more than £10,000.

You can't imagine how important it is to the bank not to be seen to have breached their statutory duty – particularly in relation to the money laundering rules.
It's worth a huge amount of money to them – which actually is just peanuts for them but lots for you.

You may be interested to know that a few years ago we were assisting somebody who sued NatWest for unfair treatment for £200.
NatWest were desperate to stop the action and they offered the £200 and we refused and wanted to go to court. After a couple of weeks NatWest were offering £7500 to make it go away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Secondly, your offer of £100 apparently to compensate me for having to do without my money and having to chase you in this way for such a long time is derisory and the answer is no. "If you are looking to settle out of court before the 11th I would advise that you propose a reasonable and fair compensation"

 

What are your thoughts on including the sentence in bold?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can put it if you want but it's not really necessary but they will understand that anyway.

 

 

 

 

Also I wouldn't say reasonable compensation I would say sensible compensation

 

In fact I would say sensible compensation which properly reflects the loss and damage which you have caused to me and the value to you of avoiding a judgement against you.

I would also want undertakings from you that you have not damaged my credit file and also so that you will remove all reference to this from your records and inform me with whom you may have shared this kind of information.

If you will not tell me now getting this is another issue which I will raise before the court

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I can just butt in, I think I would want "adequate compensation".

 

Personally I would consider Santander's lack of mention of paying lost interest and a measly offer of £100 (whether compensation or goodwill) to be a personal insult, and indicative of the contempt in which they hold their customers.  Do they really think £100 is adequate recompense for what they've put you through over the last 15 - 18 months?

 

I think an adequate amount could be into 4 figures, but I think BankFodder's estimate of £5k or more is a bit over-optimistic.  Having said that, I don't have BankFodder's inside knowledge on what compensation this forum has helped members to win from banks etc. in previous cases.  Maybe several £k is achievable.

 

Personally I think I'd take up BF's offer to draft a reponse to them as I suspect BF is right that Santander really do not want this to get to court.  (I'm certain there is a lot here they want swept under the carpet!)  But a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, so if you are not certain you want to fight this much further, then I think it would be unfair to ask BF to waste their time drafting something.

 

But in any case, I'd certainly go back to Santander and make it very clear that I want more than they are offering.

Edited by Manxman in exile
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

damage to credit file is typically £1000 a shot.

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

Well maybe my guess of "could be into 4 figures" is woefully pessimistic and a hopeless underestimate of what this could be worth to the OP!

I think if the OP lacks confidence or has no experience of these aspects of "life" - or simply wants an end to this sorry saga - then it's a difficult decision as to what to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a hearing on the 11th then you must have received some court papers about this.

 

I think it's important that you let us know what is papers are and you should have load them here in pdf format.

 

All I help is completely free but it is very difficult if you won't keep us informed about what is happening to help you get the best solution for yourself

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think we can usefully add something to the letter you are going to send them.

I would want to give them a warning that one of the principles here is that they are holding onto your money and now only agreeing to return it on certain conditions – even though it's clear that they must know that the money was not involved in money laundering.

If they instruct a barrister then a barrister will have a clear duty to his or her own professional ethical duty and also to the court to tell Santander that as the money is no longer under suspicion, they have a duty to return it to you immediately and unconditionally.
Santander should warn the barrister that if this does not happen, that you will be reporting the barrister to the bar Council as well as to the court.

We need to include this. We eventually will need the name of the barrister.

Santander are treading on enormously serious ground here.

The other thing you should understand is that even though they want you to sign a confidentiality agreement, if the confidentiality agreement is intended to conceal lawbreaking by them then the confidentiality agreement is not binding.

I really think that you should come back to this thread and enter into this discussion fully because there is a lot at stake here for Santander and in money terms for you

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hello Team,

I would like to thank you all for your wonderful contributions and support towards resolving this matter.

Special appreciation to Bank Fodder for being a rock!.

Santander have refunded the full amount + Court Fees and the comp they proposed. All of this was completed last week.

apologies for not reporting here sooner.

Thank you all once again, I am grateful.

Regards

BB

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much indeed for this update. I think it will give a lot of people a lot of hope.

Did you get a copy of the court order? If so please could we see it here. It's quite important I think that everybody sees what happened

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Santander withholding my money - suspected fraud - **SETTLED full amount+Court Fee+Compo**
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...