Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello, Following the submission of my defense, last night I received an email from DCBL indicating that the claimant intends to proceed with the claim (I've attached a screenshot of the email for reference) along with the N180 directions questionnaire. I'm unsure how they obtained my email, but I suspect it was through the courts' form when I completed the Acknowledgment of Service. This email almost slipped my attention. I have also today received a letter from court to state they have received my defense.  It appears they are requesting an online telephone hearing with the court. Could you please advise me on the necessary steps I should take at this point? Thank you for your assistance. Letter-Email 25-04-24.pdf N180 - Directions questionnaire (Small Claims Track).pdf
    • Default Amount £9237.88, all this started in 2006 Admitted debt £9075.65 Weightmans added £1515.01 immediately they became involved, no explanation The Statement shows when Marlin bought debt in May 2011 £10439.25 Their statements, not received until the SAR, are based on this. Cabot deducted £1515.01on their statements in January 2019, again did not find this out until SAR. Weightmans added in  2007 after the CH1 etc was confirmed by the court £741.50, made up of Process server fees, Court Fee (they tried for bankruptcy), Solicitors fee and Land Registry fee. Unspecfied Legal costs were added by Marlin in March 2015, again I did not know this until statements received with SAR I had been paying monthly, without exception until December 2018. I am minded to take the property charge, CH1 amount ,deduct all my payments and the subsequent fees, and request/demand a refund on the final payment made? I consistently disputed Weightmans balances, but they never responded. I also told Mortimer Clarke/Cabot that I disputed their amounts.  
    • Just follow this link and have read of some threads so your familiar with the process https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/347310-legal-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track/#comment-5178739
    • Sorry,  I'm not familiar with terminology.  Direction questionnaire is what I've seen online as next step. Witness statement: I haven't gone that far, that's why I put the question marks.
    • 2. Is correct disregard 1. You must attend ad per the order 
  • 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

Stunning victory against Nationwide


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6465 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 have just returned from court where I finally managed to kill off Nationwide's case against me.

 

In March last year I wrote to them refusing to pay off my overdraft of £1500 because of their excessive charges. Eventually they sued me for it and I used the unfair penalties argument as my defence.

 

When we got to the first hearing Nationwide's lawyer announced that they were walking away from it, with no expenses due by or to either party. Much to everyones surprise, I refused to settle the matter on that basis because it had come to my attention that they had Defaulted me, in clear breach of The Banking Code. At this stage Nationwide refused point blank to even entertain the idea of removing the Default, stating that they had a legal obligation to 'accurately' record my lending history.

 

There then followed several hearings at which they tried to persuade the sheriff to force settlement on their terms, and during which I steadfastly stuck to my position and did not deviate from it by so much as a milimetre.

 

As we moved into 2006 their position changed and they agreed to remove the Default, but only if I paid about half the overdraft. Again I refused, but since their offer to remove the default had been written in such a way that it appeared to be unconditional, the sheriff forced them to honour it. I'm not sure if this was their intention or not, but the upshot was that I got an interlocutor (court order) requiring the removal of any prejudicial information they may have passed on to third parties. The sheriff continued the case for four weeks for them to remove the Default, after which we would talk about financial settlements. When we got to the hearing this morning their lawyer announced that they were dropping the entire matter and walking away.

 

In summary. Nationwide sued me for the recovery of their overdraft. I defended on the basis that a large part of it was made up of unlawful bank charges. End result: I went from owing £1500 and having a Default registered against me, to owing nothing and having a clean credit file again. Result.

 

Discussion.

This surely makes it a high risk strategy for the bank to sue anyone to recover an amount owed on either a loan or an overdraft. If the person has racked up bank charges over the years, then there has to be a good possibility that they can make the whole thing go away by using the same strategy as me. Anyone got any thoughts about that?

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 10

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My only thought is that sheer determination and bravery won the day. Good result, and a great confidence booster for everyone else on the site. Well done. :cool:

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great result - many congratulations for fighting this!

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic Result & good for you for sticking to your principles

Barclays - £4k - Hearing Date 19th Sept 06

Smile - £370 - Refunded in Full

Capitla One - £100 LBA 25/5

Virgin ? Data Protection Act 25/5

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the kind comments. I'm actually quite used to fighting my corner in court, so I wasn't too handicapped by the intimidating atmosphere which you often find there. I am pleased that I no longer have to put up with the disdainful looks from the lawyers in the court, who seem to resent a layman coming in and taking them on on their own turf. (and winning).

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hahahahaha...love it!! They do think they're above the law don't they? Jeez!! When will they learn!!! At least you haven't been slapped with a gagging order so you can now shout this from the rooftops eh! :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what their bill will be for all this, but Nationwide were using a big Edinburgh law firm, and they subcontracted to a local law firm, so assuming say £1500 per hearing (x5), plus all the case work, they must be looking at a bill of about £12k. Just as well I didn't lose, as this was not Small Claims!

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Lueeze

Geez you risked alot then!

 

Very lucky, well done you!

 

I dont think the average person would risk owing that sort of money in cost's though!

 

Lou xx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, they were desperately trying to extricate themselves from it from the start. A lot of the delays were down to their innefiency, so it's pretty unlikely that the Sheriff would have awarded them all their costs anyway. Also, in Scotland charges are laid down in a tariff set by the Law Society of Scotland, so it's possible that regardless of what it cost them, they would only be able to claim the going rate. If I'd thought for one minute that I could get hit with 12 grand worth of costs I wouldn't have gone near it (probably).

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Lueeze

Ahh got ya! Phew thats okay then!

 

So pleased, It just spurs everyone else on more when good stories come along!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is utterly fantastic!

 

Mould you mind if I passed your story to the BBC reporter who wrote today's article - I won't mention names and if you are agreeable pass your email to him directly?

 

I think this would publicise the fact that the banks 'know' that what they are doing is unlawful.

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

------------

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post sir, knew it would make good reading.

 

Have a reputation on me.

If the name of the claim is blue and underlined, click it to see how I did it.

  • Halifax - 1st Request for £3748.80 sent 10/06 Settled in full and 5% donated


  • Goldfish - Unable to comment further, have a read


  • Lloyds - Data Protection Act sent 19/04 1st estimated request for £1500 sent15/08 LBA sent 08/09


  • Carphone Warehouse - Data Protection Act sent 19/04 Chased 04/07 ICO complaint 18/07


  • First National - 1st Request for £280 sent 05/05 Settled in full and 5% donated


  • Yes car credit - LBA sent 19/07 Court Action launched 26/09


  • HFC Bank - 1st Request for £100 sent 06/06 Settled in full and 5% donated


Like what I said? Hit the scales on the top right of my post. Cheers

 

Disclaimer - By giving advice, I am not putting myself across as a legal expert. Always seek professional advice.

Help the site, donate 5%, I have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much!

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow - what a fantastic victory, congratulations! :)

 

It's food for thought in terms of a strategy for taking banks on when there is debt outstanding too......hmmmm..........

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. I guess you could say that I set a trap for them, and they walked right into it. I knew for a fact that their procedures would automatically lead to court action, especially, since I refused even to discuss paying back the overdraft. Every letter they sent demanding payment was replied to with "Dear Sirs. My position remains as stated in my letter of xxx". Once they had served me with a summons, as far as I was concerned, the case was over. I knew they would try to drop it as soon as they saw my defence, and that I would then be in a position to insist that they remove the Default first, which has been my primary goal all along. As far as I'm concerned a clean credit file is infinitely more valuable than a couple of thousand pounds on an overdraft.

 

Actually, looking back it seems a bit convoluted, but at the time it was the only way I could see to both recover the charges and remove the Default.

 

Mind you, I'm glad to get shot of it, it was becoming quite tedious.

  • Confused 1

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! I'm so impressed, what a great story!!

If I end up needing to go to court (Kirkcaldy) would you go with me??

Halifax acc 1: 1st request letter sent 20/4/2006

LBA sent 27/04/2006

1st action filed Kirkcaldy Sherriff court 03/05/06

 

Halifax acc2 (closed): 1st request sent 03/05/06

LBA sent 11/05/06

Capital 1: 1st request sent 11/05/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly, if it happens (unlikely), send me a PM.

  • Confused 1

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My defence was quite simply that the value of the charges plus interest had to be deducted from the overdraft. They decided at the first hearing that they didn't want to pursue the matter and tried to walk away from the whole thing. I wouldn't let them until they fixed my credit file. Which is now being done.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a totally awesome result - especially encouraging as I'm chasing N'wide too at the moment - just brilliant stuff!!

25/06/08 - NatWest - Prelim letter

09/03/06 - Halifax - Settled 27/4

22/03/06 - Capital One - Settled 24/6

17/04/06 - Nationwide - Settled 8/9

 

 

Hit the DONATE BUTTON and give 5% back to support this site!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6465 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...