Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Interesting. Thanks for that London.  That’s what I’m gathering.     iv no doubt they would send me fake documents but would they really dare present fake documents to a court of law?
    • Thank you very much for your letter in regard to the above mentioned shipment.  Due to the high volume of parcels coursing through the courier network each day, undergoing continuous processing and handling, certain packages may experience delays or even can get lost in the course of this journey. Please note that due to the time that has passed, this shipment has been declared as lost.  I have today processed the claim and made offers to the value of £75 as a goodwill gesture without prejudice. I do acknowledge that you have mentioned in your letter that the value was higher, however, you did not take out any protection to that amount. The protection for this shipment was £20 and we will not be increasing our goodwill offer any further.    Please log into your account online in order to accept our offer. Once accepted, our accounts department will process the claim accordingly. The claim payment will be processed and received within 7 working days.                                  In addition, a refund of the carriage fee will be processed as a separate payment and will be received within 3 working days.  If I can further assist, please feel free to contact me.   I have also just noticed that yesterday afternoon they sent me an email stating that "after my request" they have refunded the cost of shipping. I did not request the refund so will mention that in my letter as well.
    • Hi I had to leave Dubai back in 2011, during the financial crisis. And only now have I received a letter from IDRWW. Is this anything to worry about about as I have 2 years left until it’s been 15 years(statute barred in Dubai). Worried as just got a mortgage 2 years ago. Could they force me in to bankruptcy? Red lots of different threads on here. And unsure what true and what isn’t. 
    • Not that TOR will see this now he's thrown in the hand grenade. Rayner has plenty of female supporters on X, for a start. As for the council and HMRC, fair enough and I thought Rayner was already in touch with them. That's where it should be dealt with, not the police force. @tobyjugg2 Daniel Finkelstein thinks the same as you about tax. The Fiver theory. How the Fiver Theory explains this election campaign ARCHIVE.PH archived 28 May 2024 17:36:51 UTC  
    • Often with the Likes of Lowells/ Overdales that 'proof' doesn't stand up to scrutiny.   Think about it like a game of poker, they want to intimidate you into folding and giving up as soon as possible, and just get you to pay up and roll over, that is their business model, make you think your cards are rubbish. What they don't expect, and their business isn't set up for it, is for a defendant to find this place and to learn that they have an amazing set of cards to play. Overdales don't have an infinite number of lawyers, paralegals etc, and the time / money to spend on expensive court cases, that they are highly likely to lose, hence how hard they will try to get you to roll over.  Even to the extent of faking documents, which they need to do because the debts that they purchased were so cheap, in the first place. Nevertheless it works in most cases, most people chicken out, when they are so close to winning, and a holding defence is like slowly showing Overdales your first card, and a marker of intention that this could get tricky for them. In fact it may be,  although by no means guaranteed that it won't even go any further than that.  Even if it does, what they send you back will almost certainly have more holes than Swiss Cheese, and if with the help you receive here, you can identify those weaknesses and get the whole thing tossed in the bin.
  • 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

Richard v Natwest


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6312 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 everybody

 

I thought I should post on here to get some input and advice, now that things are looking a tad more serious on the reclaiming front and hence getting a little more complicated. I've followed the step-by-step instructions here to the 'T'.

 

I received NatWest's Defence and CPR 18 yesterday. I sent a letter to their Solicitors acknowledging receipt and stating that I would not be sending any further information, as this was not required of a Small Claims case, which it was likely to become (used the suggested template). Copied this letter and did a covering letter to the Court to explain I felt they were intimidating me etc.

 

Today I've received the Allocation Questionnaire.

 

I've completed it all, but have one question.

 

I understand that I must pay a fee of £100 if the claim is for over £1,500. The actual reclaiming charges amounts to £1,300, but the amount including interest totals over £1,500 ... so do I pay the £100 or not?! Or is it worth sending just to cover myself (don't want to risk the claim being struck out).

 

Thanks in advance!

 

EDIT - I've now just this second read about the 'new strategy for AQs' where you provide Draft Directions rather than the part about requesting standard disclosure. My problem is that I read this too late and have already written the standard disclosure text in the AQ. Shall I just send it as it is or attach a letter enclosing a draft Order for consideration???

Link to post
Share on other sites

The £100 is recoverable. Give the clerk of the court a ring, they are most helpful, just to confirm that payment is due. You are getting close to the end now.

Best of luck.

My advice has hardly any legal foundation whatsoever, however you never know it it might just work!

:cool:

 

NatWest Prelim 07.10.206

LBA 21.10.2006

MCOL 30.10.2006

Acknowledgment of Service 06.11.2006

Offer of approx 50% £2200.00 22.11.2006

Full settlement £4500 received 03.01.2007

Smile settled in full

Barclaycard settled in full

RBS Worldwide settled in full

Lloyds TSB settled in full £750.00

Lloyds TSB settled in Full £275.00 11.04.2007

Lloyds TSB business account £1376.00 AQ filed

Lloyds TSB Business account settled in full 21.05.07

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can concur, the chaps at the court are far more helpful than the dimwits at Natwest.

Start smelling the bacon, your monies should be sprouting little legs and is on its way:D

:DSUCCESSESS:D

NATWEST01&02 won over 4k

See how

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/31683-muggins73-natwest.html

 

:)CURRENT CLAIMS:)

HALIFAX03

19-SEPT-07 APPLICATION TO HAVE STAY LIFTED

02-OCT-07 APPLICATION REFUSED

LLOYDS TSB04

10-MAY-07 LBA

 

ABBEY05

19-SEPT-07 LBA

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to you both! The Court's phone line is closed today, so I will have to ring on Monday. Funnily enough I actually work for a Solicitor and so I've called the Court many a time before and have completed many Allocation Questionnaires in the past! :) Never thought I'd be doing it for myself (well, not technically for myself - I'm acting on behalf of my new husband, who has left it all to me. The extra money will do us both a favour, so it's now my fight as much as his).

 

With regards to the latter part of my original post (whether I should use the 'new stategy' or not - anybody have any suggestions? I'd already handwritten in the box for the AQ before I read about the new strategy that people are using. Any ideas??

 

Thanks for the replies! The advice, encouragement and support makes this so much easier to get through.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Standard Disclosure text will be sufficient, draft order is just another option.

IF MY COMMENTS HAVE HELPED PLEASE CLICK MY SCALES

 

Don't be like the banks - give a little back

 

 

:D NAT WEST - WON - £4282.36:D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to update - I sent off the AQ and did have to pay the Court fee, after checking with the Court.

 

On 11 January I received a letter from Cobbetts saying that they consider my challenge to NatWest's charges would fail in Court. However, as a gesture of goodwill they will offer a goodwill payment of £850 and we're not allowed to disclose any details relating to this paymnent.

 

Clearly I will be rejecting this ridiculous offer and will be sending them a letter detailing the same.

 

However, I've just looked for the letter and can't find it. The only one I can find refers to a settlement response letter right after the LBA, which seems like years ago now - is there one available that's more relevant to my stage in this claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank them for the offer and you can accept as a partial settlement, but you will be continuing with you claim for full settlement etc etc. Swift polite reply ensures your claim does not get stuffed to the bottom of the pile.

My advice has hardly any legal foundation whatsoever, however you never know it it might just work!

:cool:

 

NatWest Prelim 07.10.206

LBA 21.10.2006

MCOL 30.10.2006

Acknowledgment of Service 06.11.2006

Offer of approx 50% £2200.00 22.11.2006

Full settlement £4500 received 03.01.2007

Smile settled in full

Barclaycard settled in full

RBS Worldwide settled in full

Lloyds TSB settled in full £750.00

Lloyds TSB settled in Full £275.00 11.04.2007

Lloyds TSB business account £1376.00 AQ filed

Lloyds TSB Business account settled in full 21.05.07

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

UPDATE

 

I've been away on my honeymoon and have returned to a letter from Cobbetts enclosing a copy of Natwest's Allocation Questionnaire.

 

I have a query - under 'Other Information' they have written the following:

 

Case management directions cannot be proposed until the Claimant serves a Reply to the Request for Further Information which was due on 17 January 2007. In light of this, the Defendant may amend its Defence or apply to strike out.

 

Now, I sent the standard 'I don't have to give you this information' CPR letter on 4 January and sent a copy to the Court too. My question is - should I send a covering letter to the Court again drawing attention to this part of the Defendant's AQ and my previous letter to them, or should I just ignore it and await the Court date?

 

Thanks in advance!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sit tight and await directions from the court.

IF MY COMMENTS HAVE HELPED PLEASE CLICK MY SCALES

 

Don't be like the banks - give a little back

 

 

:D NAT WEST - WON - £4282.36:D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi silverbird,

 

Firstly, and most importantly, congrats to you and your OH.

 

Secondly, are you mad, marriage, hey?:D

 

Thirdly, and no so importantly, (and as deller so rightly put it), sit back and wait to hear from the court.

I got pretty much the same dribble on mine, except, mine was about changing the POC, which has ticked me off just ever-so-slightly, as it is the same POC that is used in the templates section and seems to do just fine for everyone else. Typical, bunch of a*** ****s!!!!

I am now playing the waiting game, once again, as nothing yet from judgy whom I expect is busy with everyone elses' claim:rolleyes:

Hang in there, matey, time will be up soon enough.

:DSUCCESSESS:D

NATWEST01&02 won over 4k

See how

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/31683-muggins73-natwest.html

 

:)CURRENT CLAIMS:)

HALIFAX03

19-SEPT-07 APPLICATION TO HAVE STAY LIFTED

02-OCT-07 APPLICATION REFUSED

LLOYDS TSB04

10-MAY-07 LBA

 

ABBEY05

19-SEPT-07 LBA

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got the same sort of problem - I have to pay the £100 as well as my claim is for £1800. The weird thing is, is that Cobbetts have written to me to offer me more money and their letter basically says that I haven't got a chance of winning in court!

 

I don't know if they are correct

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are not correct Laura, you'll get ALL your money!!

IF MY COMMENTS HAVE HELPED PLEASE CLICK MY SCALES

 

Don't be like the banks - give a little back

 

 

:D NAT WEST - WON - £4282.36:D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got the same sort of problem - I have to pay the £100 as well as my claim is for £1800. The weird thing is, is that Cobbetts have written to me to offer me more money and their letter basically says that I haven't got a chance of winning in court!

 

I don't know if they are correct

 

I'd say laugh loudly and throw it in the recycling (but you may just need a copy of it for you court bundle):)

 

It's a shame they dont put 'you haven't got a chance of winning in court, but in reality we are pooping our pants, please forgive us':D:D:D:D

:DSUCCESSESS:D

NATWEST01&02 won over 4k

See how

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/31683-muggins73-natwest.html

 

:)CURRENT CLAIMS:)

HALIFAX03

19-SEPT-07 APPLICATION TO HAVE STAY LIFTED

02-OCT-07 APPLICATION REFUSED

LLOYDS TSB04

10-MAY-07 LBA

 

ABBEY05

19-SEPT-07 LBA

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Richard,

Court bundle it is then http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/33060-basic-court-bundle.html

 

and you might find this helpful (or downright confusing, either or;))

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/abbey-bank/57385-examples-witness-statements-disclosure.html

 

I've just got my court date today, 11th may, so I'm in the process of putting my own bundle together. Any probs you know who to call:D

:DSUCCESSESS:D

NATWEST01&02 won over 4k

See how

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/31683-muggins73-natwest.html

 

:)CURRENT CLAIMS:)

HALIFAX03

19-SEPT-07 APPLICATION TO HAVE STAY LIFTED

02-OCT-07 APPLICATION REFUSED

LLOYDS TSB04

10-MAY-07 LBA

 

ABBEY05

19-SEPT-07 LBA

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun thing to do, are you mad:D

 

let me know how you get on, we can compare notes.

 

Oh, you might want to add this when I find out where it is exactly!!

'the transcript of the ex-Lloyd's top geezer's evidence to the select committee, which has a couple of classics - charges are spread across all activities in order to provide free banking, is one'.

If you know, get in touch, otherwise I'm waiting on Westy to let me know. A mine field of knowledge that man!!!!

:DSUCCESSESS:D

NATWEST01&02 won over 4k

See how

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/31683-muggins73-natwest.html

 

:)CURRENT CLAIMS:)

HALIFAX03

19-SEPT-07 APPLICATION TO HAVE STAY LIFTED

02-OCT-07 APPLICATION REFUSED

LLOYDS TSB04

10-MAY-07 LBA

 

ABBEY05

19-SEPT-07 LBA

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've printed the basic Court Bundle now and I'm a bit unsure about the web links - I've gone to the page, but do I just literally print it off or do I highlight and copy around the web address, links, adverts etc? Probably really insignificant but it's bothering me!

 

Also, Muggins, where would I add that other thing you mentioned? Did you find out?

 

Thanks for any and all replies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting I'm afraid.

TBH, I'm thinking along the lines of just sticking to the tried and tested Basic Court Bundle:)

:DSUCCESSESS:D

NATWEST01&02 won over 4k

See how

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/31683-muggins73-natwest.html

 

:)CURRENT CLAIMS:)

HALIFAX03

19-SEPT-07 APPLICATION TO HAVE STAY LIFTED

02-OCT-07 APPLICATION REFUSED

LLOYDS TSB04

10-MAY-07 LBA

 

ABBEY05

19-SEPT-07 LBA

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...