Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks BN. I should add, that any Bailiff action is, to my mind unconscionable, and the point should have been raised by the Master IMO. As usual our problem will not be, what the amendment says.  But more, what some EA will imply it says, on the doorstep.    
    • Yes agree UB it will be unworkable in practice, the issue being that some EA will regard the Virtual CGA as allowing them to physically force entry later if payment not forthcoming.  Or like some bailiffs used to try to imply that phone call a desperate debtor makes at Compliance stage is in effect a Virtual CGA when itn is nothing of the sort. Rule 1 it is known some  bailiffs Lie. Rule 2 Treat all bailiffs as liars until they prove they are not.
    • I cannot see many people agreeing to any virtual webcam review of goods to be controlled.     Many people in debt may not even have the facilities to be able to do this.   And the few that agree may try to have a laugh at the enforcement companies expense.  e.g. this painting is by well known local artist Peter Ist, but he signs his paintings as  P Ist and this other painting is by Brian Roke who signs his paintings as B Roke.     Who would agree to this without understanding the consequences ?      
    • Well poss unenforceable cca both lets see
    • Although I will be submitting another request as DVLA haven't stated when they responded to VCS with the information.  18th was a Friday,  VCS say they posted the letter on Mon 21th.  Seeing how this SAR has taken this long, I doubt the DVLA went all out to clear the request over the weekend, but we'll see.
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Nationwide upheld complaint - should I still take to FOS for interest?

Recommended Posts



To cut a long story short, I entered into a DMP back in Autumn 2014 and Nationwide was one of my creditors.


They issued a default notice but never actually defaulted the account. Instead, until 2017 they just recorded late payment and AR markers. From 2017 when I stopped my DMP,  they resumed charging interest.


I recently complained and they have agreed that my account should have been defaulted in 2014, and will update the CRAs accordingly so the debt will now drop off my file. They also agreed to refund all the interest from 2017 which was over £900 and also offered a compensation payment on top. 

Now, had I taken this to the FOS and it had been upheld, I suspect they would have awarded 8% interest on top as is standard for many of their judgements.


I asked Nationwide to consider making an additional payment for interest but they refused.


My question is should I persue this with the FOS or should I just accept what I’ve been given and leave it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they paid you the interest that you are seeking, what would it amount to?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think you can be certain that the FOS probably won't award you anything – although if you want to make trouble then why not because it won't cost you anything. I think it costs the bank about £400 for every complaint which is heard by the FOS – so they may consider it prudent to pay you out rather than to go ahead with the complaint.

On the other hand, banks don't seem to make rational decisions like this when trying to crush their customers.

I was going to suggest that you could think about a small claim for unfair treatment – but for £75, it may not be worthwhile and you would be risking a claim fee.

Put it to the FOS – why not. You have nothing to lose

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes you've not raised a claim yet, so can't hurt you.

send them everything.

  • Like 1

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 have seen many of these cases over the last year or so, mainly Vanquis but now other dca and credit providers. 

When taken to the ombudsman the response is that legally the creditor has done nothing wrong, however they have agreed to

..., then they give the scenario seen here.


This pactice is wrong for many reasons but it seems the creditors will continue to pursue this course, until there is some positive ruling on the matter. 

Which is why they relent from their initial bullish responses should the customer look like he is taking it to court.




  • Like 1




Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies.


I’ve made it clear to Nationwide that I intend to persue this with the FOS, and have asked them to send me all the statements since they resumed charging interest for my calculations.


As my account is now closed I no longer have access to them online.


In my polite but firm response to them, I have indicated what my rough calculations are in the hope that they may decide to offer me that without the need to go through the FOS process. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...