Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well we can't predict what the judge will believe. PE will say that they responded in the deadline and you will say they don't. Nobody can tell what a random DJ will decide. However if you go for an OOC settlement you should still be able to get some money
    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
  • 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 trying to be all nice now!


joe90
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6320 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,

my claim is in the courts and i am just about to send my AQ back with the £100 fee, when i opened the morning mail to find- tah dah

a settlement letter offering just under half (when you consider costs etc) of my total claim:)

 

the letter reads

 

"we think that all the charges were fair and within the terms and conditions that you signed when opening the account, our client does not agree that they are unfair blah blah blah

but our client is willing to offer a goodwill payment of £££££, which does not admit any liability but is a goodwill gesture on their part. should you accept this it will be a full payment and no further cost can be claimed for.

should you not accept this then we shall inform the court that this offer has been made and you have refused"

 

now the offer is a decent amount of money and if someone offered you this on the street you would bite their hand off

but the offer is also less than half when all my costs have been added in, i also have been going through this process for months now and have done alot of work on it and want to see it through to the end. i also think the way they have handled the whole affair has been very aggresive and bullying, which makes me want to see it through even more.

 

i guess what i was wanting from you guys is, is this a new tac from cobbetts? will it count against me if i do continue with the court process? and if you all say i should carry on some moral support would go a long way:D

 

i want to carry on but as most people on here, i have no experiance of court and as such i am feeling the nerves:eek:

if they had done this sooner i probably would have taken it but now after all the letters and triple checking of figures i really want to take it all the way

any thoughts?

 

cheers

CLAIMING £2,176.92 IN CHARGES (+£613.84 interest to date)

DATA LETTER SENT 18/10/2006

DATA REPLY 27/10/2006

PRELIMINARY LETTER OF REPAYMENT SENT 29/10/2006

NatWest REFUSAL LETTER RECEIVED 7/11/2006

LETTER BEFORE ACTION SENT 7/11/06

STARTED LITIGATION 22/11/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would thank them very much for the cheque, which you are quite happy to accept as partial settlement, but you intend to continue with your claim, and you look forward to the balance being sent 'post haste,' at which point you will be able to discontinue your claim.

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

thanks ataction

 

so just keep the cheque and continue with claim ie send AQ + fee whilst sending them a letter saying its a partial settelment as in your post?

i have a couple of weeks before the AQ has to be in, thats why i ask.

 

thanks again

CLAIMING £2,176.92 IN CHARGES (+£613.84 interest to date)

DATA LETTER SENT 18/10/2006

DATA REPLY 27/10/2006

PRELIMINARY LETTER OF REPAYMENT SENT 29/10/2006

NatWest REFUSAL LETTER RECEIVED 7/11/2006

LETTER BEFORE ACTION SENT 7/11/06

STARTED LITIGATION 22/11/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's unusual for them to actually send you a cheque with the first offer but you should certainly pursue the full amount.

 

There is a rejection letter here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/25716-rejection-settlement-offer.html.

 

You might need to modify it slightly to allow for what they have already sent you but it should do the job.

 

Paul

Advice given is either my experience or my opinion and is given without liability. If in doubt, consult a qualified professional.

If you PM me for advice I will only reply in your own thread

 

Never under estimate your ability. I won over £17,000!

For the full story - look here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/NatWest-bank/17630-thecobbettslayer-NatWest.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...