Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I googled "prescribed disability" to see where it is defined for the purposes of S.92. I found HMRC's definition, which included deafness. I don't  think anyone is saying deaf people cant drive, though! digging deeper,  Is it that “prescribed disability” (for the purposes of S.88 and S.92) is defined at: The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations consolidate with amendments the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996...   ….. and sleep apnoea / increased daytime sleepiness is NOT included there directly as a condition but only becomes prescribed under “liability to sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting” (but falling asleep isn't fainting!), so it isn’t defined there as a “prescribed disability”  Yet, under S.92(2)(b) RTA 1988 “ any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of a licence to be a source of danger to the public" So (IMHO) sleep apnea / daytime sleepiness MIGHT be a prescribed disability, but only if it causes likelihood of "driving being a source of danger to the public" : which is where meeting / not meeting the medical standard of fitness to drive comes into play?  
    • You can counter a Judges's question on why you didn't respond by pointing out that any company that charges you with stopping at a zebra crossing is likely to be of a criminal mentality and so unlikely to cancel the PCN plus you didn't want to give away any knowledge you had at that time that could allow them to counteract your claim if it went to Court. There are many ways in which you can see off their stupid claim-you will see them in other threads  where our members have been caught by Met at other airports as well as Bristol.  Time and again they take motorists to Court for "NO Stopping" apparently completely forgetting that the have lost doing that because no stopping is prohibitory and cannot form a contract. Yet they keep on issuing PCNs because so many people just pay up . Crazy . You can see what chuckleheads they are when you read their Claim form which is pursuing you as the driver or the keeper. they don't seem to understand that on airport land because of the Bye laws, the keeper is never liable.   
    • The video-sharing app told the BBC that a "very limited" number of accounts had been compromised.View the full article
    • The King is the second monarch to appear on Bank of England notes which will be fed gradually into the system.View the full article
    • The King is the second monarch to appear on Bank of England notes which will be fed gradually into the system.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

NatWest Latest


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1918 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 found out yesterday that mine and my mothers benefits were paid into NatWest this week - the DWP couldn't stop them soon enough. I was livid.

 

I decided to get onto NatWest with a non victim attitude and demand this money back.

 

I explained my mother was a "vunerable adult" and the monies paid in by the government were for her care and well being and as the bank had taken 2 weeks of this and left us with nothing, I felt there must be grounds to consider this abuse to a "vunerable adult" and her carer.

 

I also stated it was easy to see these were BACS benefit payments as the NI and benefit code were attached to each payment in.

 

The guy I spoke to, Oliver Lowery @ Wimbledon Lending centre, then told me that "your carers allowence has been recalled by the DWP", (please note: I hadn't yet told him which payment was carers allowence - they had a note of it - thus proving they know benefit payments).

 

To be fair to Oliver Lowery, he went off and got a special encashment arranged for the other two benefits totalling £107.25 which was returned as soon as I got to my bank.

 

It's a minor victory, but I get the feeling they have shot themselves in the foot as, and I may be wrong, by returning that money they are admitting the charges are wrong???

 

Without that £107.25 returned, I would be £1052.16 overdrawn against an overdraft of £700. They have removed in just under 2 weeks £550 in charges which would actually make me only £500 OD - £200 within my limit and available to spend!

 

Still no word from Head Office though!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The DWP take a dim view of the amount the law says someone needs to live on being diminished by a third party.

 

ANY deductions from benefit must be made by the DWP in accordance with government guidelines. If someone owes money, even if that is in fines to a court, the owed organisation MUST make an application for a third party deduction, and can only get a maximum of £5 per payment. If there are more than three deductions to organisations active on an account, a fourth simply has to wait until one of the deductions finishes.

 

For the bank to help itself is, in the DWP's book, breaking all the rules. The law says the money is what a person needs to live on, and if someone dips into that without the DWPs permission... well, they don't like it. They will, if they feel it necessary, recall the payment so that the bank can't have it and arrange another form of payment - even if this means a counter payment cashable over a post office counter.

 

Congratulations, by the way, Vampyra for taking the initiative here. Changing to direct payment is a bit of a risky proposition for the government whilever the bank feels it has a right to help itself to any charges it might dream up. I hope more people complain to their local benefits office when the banks take their money - removing it from the banks grubby little paws seems to be the ONLY way to keep enough aside to pay the bills.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

After asking for an investigation of my account, (please see earlier posts by me), I had no feedback from NatWest. I telephoned them a week ago to ask why not. I got told that an investigation from Head Office had been started but the Wimbledon Lending Centre had not bothered to reply regarding the charges.

 

I ask for this in writing and get a stupid letter informing me that an investigation had been started but the Lending Centre refused to refund the said £250 I claimed in charges but Head Office would still continue to investigate it for me.

 

In other words they have done nothing, but at least now I have a letter with a name and address to send the pro forma to.

 

And as for £250?!?!?!? I never stated a figure to them - I'm not that stoopid! :shock:

Link to post
Share on other sites

After asking for an investigation of my account, (please see earlier posts by me), I had no feedback from NatWest. I telephoned them a week ago to ask why not. I got told that an investigation from Head Office had been started but the Wimbledon Lending Centre had not bothered to reply regarding the charges.

 

I ask for this in writing and get a stupid letter informing me that an investigation had been started but the Lending Centre refused to refund the said £250 I claimed in charges but Head Office would still continue to investigate it for me.

 

In other words they have done nothing, but at least now I have a letter with a name and address to send the pro forma to.

 

And as for £250?!?!?!? I never stated a figure to them - I'm not that stoopid! :shock:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

When I last had problems with NatWest which was June 2004 - December 2004, the reason they gave for my overdraft facility constantly being removed and charges being applied to my account was because they had changed over to the Royal Bank of Scotland computer system and there was a glitch on the system.

 

Anyone going back some years on their account for charges may find NatWest use this as a bit of a twist in preceedings - possibly claiming it was a system error and not a banking one?

 

To be fore warned, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well I have now to sort my form for DPA disclosure - yes I know I'm a bit slow but I do have a seriously disabled person to care for.

 

Yesterday I was sent two default notices - one for the Current account which has now reached £1400 and rising and the other for the Step Account which had no money go in or out and because of a minor mistake on my part - i.e. forgot to change my DD to BT to my new account - I now have £106 of charges and a default notice there too!

 

Getting the DPA disclosure will over-run their 28 days for the default notices, so could someone please advise whether I should write to NatWest about that or just get the disclosures from NatWest and deal with the default notices afterwards?

 

Sorry to ask but as I said before, a bit of guidence in the right direction would help as I have mum to deal with and a million and one other problems and I dont want this bank thing to slip or me make a silly mistake at the wrong time.

 

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ring the customer care support team 0845 600 2803 or customer lending centre 0845 300 3042, tell them you sent a compalint to contest the charges on your account. They should put your account on "hold" this simply means they will/cant take any action until an outcome has been reached with regards to your complint. If you have the internet banking you should be able to get a list of all the charges of there. You can send in a DPA request and they ll charge you a tenner, but i would suggest the online banking is easyier. If you do not have it you can sign up fro free on their website. make sure you get the name of the person you spke to aswell

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your advice re putting the account on hold - that I will do but will write to them.

 

Don't have Internet banking with them and am happy to pay the £10 DPA fee - I've been with them quite a time and want to investigate this further.

 

Read my "Carer getting excessive charges" thread somewhere in this NatWest section.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's myl etter!

 

 

 

Customer Lending Centre, Birmingham

PO Box 5433

Birmingham

B1 2WZ

 

16/03/2006

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

 

ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxxxxxx & xxxxxxxx

 

With regard your letters dated 13th March 2006 explaining your intention to issue Default Notices upon the above named accounts, I am asking you put a hold on the intended 28 day time limit. The reason for this is that I had asked Maria Chizario at NatWest Head Office complaints, to carry out an investigation as to the application of penalty charges upon my account.

 

Some weeks later, I had still not received any outcome or even a polite letter explaining any delay in the proceedings. I then telephoned the Head Office and spoke to Anne Smith who sent me a placating ‘holding’ letter explaining a conclusion had not been reached on the investigation.

 

After sending a reply letter explaining the information she had quoted was incorrect and I was requesting complete disclosure of ALL activity including manual intervention by NatWest personnel, upon my account, I received a stock letter from Stuart Higley at Customer Relations at Head Office. I telephoned him and asked him to furnish me with the outcome of Maria Chizario’s investigation, which he said he would.

 

However, it never arrived – only a letter asking me to read some NatWest leaflets which he had enclosed and a form for Data Protection disclosure.

 

I shall be taking my £10 and a letter requesting complete disclosure to my local Epsom branch, today. However, as you are aware, DPA disclosure has a time limit of 40 days for the bank to comply, thus is would appear rather unjust of NatWest to continue to issue Default Notices, whilst I am obtaining this information, and having told you about such in this letter.

 

I will be perusing this case to Legal level as I am extremely dissatisfied with the way in which NatWest are and have been conducting themselves over this and other matters.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

 

 

Miss Vampyra

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Sorry I've not been about for a while but I've had a million and one things to do and the internet came second!

 

Just to keep you up to speed on my case.

 

I paid £10 for the DPA disclosure and asked for full disclosure on my account. I have to say I didn't get this. NatWest stated I opened my current account on 24th November 2004 even though it clearly states in their paperwork it was opened on 21st April 2002 - yet they say they cant provide me with bank statements from 2002 because my account wasn't open.

 

They have also failed to send copies of a few letters I have the originals of. They have sent only a few documents regarding manual intervention when there has been far more occasions of this.

 

Can someone advise me as to what I should do now? Can they withold certain documents under the DPA? Can they refuse to give me bank statements from as far back as 2002? Have they broken the terms of the Freedom of Information Act by not providing me with all I requested within the 40 days?

 

I do not want to let this slip, but as some of you know I have quite a full on job looking after mum, so pointers in the right directions, advice and any suggestions are all gratefully appreciated.

 

*Please keep to one thread fellow Vamp. It makes it easier for us to give advice if we see the whole story and saves you having to repeat yourself.*

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try this - if it does not work then let us know and I will take you through the next stage.

 

 

 

LETTER BEFORE ACTION

Section 7 – Data Protection Act 1998

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Account: xxxxxxxx

 

I am in receipt of the documents that you have supplied in response to my Data Protection Act information request dated (Insert Date). The disclosure of personal data is incomplete in that at least the following documents are missing.

 

(Adapt this next section to your situation)

1) You have failed to provide a complete list of transactions and charges.

2) You have provided no notes, or documents relating to instances of manual intervention.

Add any other things you know about.

 

This is not an exhaustive list by any means, it is just an example of some of the information I am missing.

Accordingly, I have to tell you that you have not yet complied with your obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

The time for compliance with my request has now expired. If you do not comply fully with my Subject Access Request within 7 days, I shall apply to the County Court for an order together with damages at the discretion of the court.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that.

 

Yes I was a victim in 2003/4 of the RBS computer system change over that cost me £1400 then as well!

 

Bloomin hopeless they are.

 

I think I'll write that letter as I have added up that all but £300 of the money I owe them is covered by unfair penalty charges and if those 2 years are found then maybe, they might end up owing me!

 

Well...I can but hope!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/05/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1918 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...