Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Firstly, I would like to thank everyone for their help in this matter. Since my last post I have received a reply from Plymouth Council Insurance Team concerning my wife’s accident (please see enclosed letter and photo of the offending Badminton post) which they deny any responsibility for the said accident. I feel that the Council is in breach of their statutory duties under the following acts: The Leisure Centre was negligent in its duty of care and therefore, in breach of the statutory duty owed under section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (the Act) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees, and others who might be affected by its undertaking, e.g. members of the public visiting the Leisure Centre to use the facilities. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 that requires employers to assess risks (including slip and trip risks) and, where necessary, take action to address them. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) require the risk to people’s health and safety from equipment that is used at a Leisure Centre be prevented or controlled. I would like some advice to see if my assumptions are correct and my approach to obtaining satisfactory outcome to this matter are accurate. Many thanks   PLM23000150 - Copy Correspondence.pdf post docx.docx
    • Talking to them does not reset the time limit, although they will probably tell you it does, they'd be lying. Dumbdales are the in-house sols for Lowlife, just the next desk along. If Lowlifes were corresponding with you at your current address then Dumbdales know your address. However, knowing that they are lower than a snake's belly, you would be well advised to send them a letter, informing them of your current address and nothing else. Get 'proof of posting' which is free from the PO counter, don't sign it, simply type your name. That way then they have absolutely no excuse for attempting a back door CCJ.   P.S. Best course of action, IGNORE them, until or unless you get a claim form......you won't.
    • A 'signed for' Letter of Claim has been sent today so they have 14 days from tomorrow... Lets wait and see what happens but i suspect judging by their attitude they wont reply 
    • I am extremely apprehensive about burning our files.... I do not know why, so it is becoming an endless feedback loop. Scared to pull the trigger to speak in the desire not to mess up my file. 
    • Hi All, So brief outline. I have Natwest CC debt £8k last payment i made was 7th November 2018 Not a penny since. So coming up to the 6 year mark. Can't remember when i took out the  credit card would be a few years before everythign hit the fan. Moved house 2020 - updated NatWest as I still have a current account with them. Then Lowells took over from Moorcroft and were writing to me at my current address. I did get a family member to speak to them 3 years ago regarding the debt explained although it may be in my name I didn't rack it up then went contact again. 29th may received an email from overdales saying they were now managing the debt. I have not had any letter yet which i thought is odd?  Couple of questions 1. Does my family member speaking to lowell restart statute barred clock? 2. Do you think overdales aren't writing to me because they will back door CCJ to old address even though Lowells have contacted me at current address never at previous? ( have no proof though stupidly binned all letters  ) Should I write to them and confirm my address just incase? Does this restart statute barred clock? 3. what do you think best course of action is?   Any help/advice is appreciated I am aware they may ramp up the process now due to 7th December being the 6 year mark.   Many Thanks in advance! The threads on here have been super helpful to read.  
  • 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

Jimmyay V Natwest ***SETTLED IN FULL***


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6299 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

The bank now appears to have missed the date for submitting their AQ to the court.

 

Anyone had this and has an idea of what happens next (apart from i get my pen out at some point and write a letter to the court about non compliance etc etc).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Right - i'm ready to blink guys!

 

Despite Natwest not filling their AQ in , in time to the court, i'm pretty sure that i need to settle now, based on their offer of full charge refund (but no interest and no costs) because if the now we know that the OFT is to rule in April on this issue, it will be most likely rule before my case gets heard ; natwest may then defend, and i will only get the difference between my charges and the OFT recommendation and have to fight through the courts for interest.

 

I am about to send a letter off saying i've reconsidered their offer of full settlement of my charges ( less court costs and interest) and will accept.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmyjay,

This had crossed my mind already. Have a look at this

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/69641-can-nat-west-reduce.html

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes i see the thoughts there and i can appreciate the militancy with which the CAG wishes to prosecute the banks over this. i myself have got very wound up over this and want my money back!

 

However the likelhood of a test case or ruling by a judge is increased by an OFT ruling. The courts actually really WANT there to be a test case and are sick of banks coughing up at the last moment like they are doing. there would then be an enormous amount of confusion and the whole resources of the banks will be put on getting the "accepted" wisdom of the OFT seen as the "fair settlement".

 

Although i am not happy with this possible outcome, it is a reasonably forseeable one and will throw a spanner in the works of claims already underway when the ruling comes out.

 

Do those with actions already pending / awaiting court dates really relish the opportunity of a fight in court with the bank running the risk of having to settle for a proportion of the charges, when they could have easily accepted 100% settlement of the charges when the bank offered it.

 

Tricky one but my view is many will settle - can only speak for the natwest situation, other banks may be adopting different approaches, of course. Of course its different "post" an OFT ruling, if you start your claim after the ruling will just be another fact of life. it isnt' at the moment so i guess many wil opt for full settlement less court fees and interest in some of these Natwest cases.

 

I also heard anecdotally from a source within the courts that some (current account) bank claims are already being defended and rulings are being made using the OFT credit card ruling as a guide to settlements. i know this is not applicable with the bank charge issue and it may be that my source was confusing the credit card and current account bank charges issues but it doesnt stop a judge ruling - and if they were talking about rulings in credit card cases then it just shows that the same may apply post OFT bank charge ruling, to bank claims , in any event.

Link to post
Share on other sites

jimmyjay,

Whatever the OFT recomendation/ruling it still doesn't alter the law of the country. Which is what we are all using to reclaim our penalty charges. So the banks will still have to disclose their true costs in court or continue to settle out of court.

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

appreciate that - you're quite correct.

 

however the OFT ruling will carry some weight.

 

up to the individual really. depends on your ratio of court costs/ interest /bank charges i guess.

 

i am going to sleep on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

just had copy of cobbetts AQ which they submitted at the last possible moment in the end the day of the deadline. Bloody typical - they must have all this info automatically programmed into a computer to spin it out as much as possible. Still they made it. And my argument about their cpr 18 request and my counter request for info must have hit home as they have confirmed they now want it to go on the SMALL CLAIMS track. A victory of a kind . Just waiting for a court date now & hope they cough up in full before we get to court.........

Link to post
Share on other sites

jimmyjay,

Turn a negative into a positive . You are on the home straight now. Just be patient and hold your nerve.

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

jimmyjay,

Courage is controling your fear, and fear is losing control of your courage. Good luck jimmy and welcome back, :D

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have thought and thought many times about my case Jimmy... a bit of SoLA, contractual interest to boot as well.. I have come to the conclusion that i only live once and need to make a stand. This is my moment.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Josamolly,

You are also a star ;)

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jimmyay - responding here from another thread where you posted.

 

The only time I would ever advise accepting offers of charges only would be where court action has not commenced. Once it has, as in your case, then there is absolutely no reason why you should accept less then the full value of the claim, this being;

Charges

Overdraft Interest (if claimed)

Interest on each charge

Court costs

s.69 daily interest from the date of claim until settlement.

 

In all likelihood, the bank will have several people in different departments dealing with these claims and I would imagine that the backlog means that some people will receive what the bank believes to be a full settlement, not actually realising that the claim had moved on...

 

I suspect that could easily be the case here. I'm glad you decided to reject it.

..

.

 

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

thanks for that - it inspires confidence - well i guess its a case of sitting back and doing my knitting for a while waiting for them catch up with things.

 

i am getting the impression that communication between Cobbetts and Natwest HQ is not all it should be , in co-ordinating and managing the claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have won!

Got cheque through from Cobbetts in (nearly) the full sum of £2,700+ at the weekend. With a very bitter letter of their non-admission of liability.

This is slightly less than i claimed as they didn't include my AQ fee but have since spoken with them and they are going to send me that separately & that will make it up to £2,850.

I'm so relieved i didn't crumble when Natwest offered me full settlement but no interest and no costs the other week, i had my withdrawal of rejection offer letters all typed up and ready to go but just waited a few more days and it was worth it.

Advice to others is keep in there and don't weaken as you will get it in the end if you face squarely up to them as per all the advice on this site.

I will be donating some money to this site as i would have struggled a bit without the help of people on here, even though i have some knowledge of courts and am not easily intimidated, it can be scary doing this kind of thing. Thanks to all who have helped me, Parkvale, Josamolly, Brownie 24 and Jonni2 bad!

Hopefully the cheque will now clear!

Link to post
Share on other sites

jimmyjay,

CONGRATULATIONS sport-smiley-001.gif Brilliant result . I am so pleased for you.

You are a real inspiration . I hope all the new CAGGERS look at this thread and take encouragement from your result. :D

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CONGRATULATIONS

 

I have also now moved your litigation details to 'concluded'.

 

Could you take a moment to compete our SURVEY please?

..

.

 

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

Well done Jimmy.:D

 

I still have no luck as yet, but missed the post this morning so fingers crossed x

 

Can I just ask you whether you changed the 6 year claim period to begin the date you submitted your MCOL or did you use the same figure and info you had outlined in prelim letter and LBA?

 

Brownie24

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the prelim letter and LBA i accidentally included 3 historic charges which were "out of time" , and so i removed them when i filled out the MCOL and I just charged 6 years from the date i first raised the issue with them which was in November. However my first charge was not until the February 2001 i think so i was within the limit for all charges anyway, i hadnt had a charge since well before this, my LBA, prelim had included charges from mid 2000 in error but of course these werent in the final claim.

 

In short though , as far as i understand you are able to recover 6 years charges from when you first raised the issue with them - this is so that they dont use the law to talk you "out of time" on the charges.

 

Best of luck, i'm sure you will meet with sucess as well, just a few days to wait hopefully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah hopefully I'll follow in your footsteps.:)

 

Although I am battling with them at the moment as to my claim amount and they are using the argument that the 6 year period begins when I submitted MCOL. However I am fighting my corner that my litigation with them actually began when I submitted my SAR and my claim was based on the subsequent info/statements they furnished me with.

 

Have fun spending your money:D

 

Brownie24

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just read thru all your messages, well done, I hope you are successful I am just about to start my own action with some intrepedation. Has your action resulted in them closing your account or withdrawing your overdraft?

recovering my own money

' with a little help from my friends'

-using the best legal system in the world!

:D

Claim £6k+ -March

Offer refused for £3,600+ -May sent in MCOL

Defence received end June with CPR 18 request

responded immediately to Northampton requested small claims process at local Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No they just said if i couldnt accept their terms and conditions then i'd have to just openh a basic account . it was more of a statement than anything ele. they are not supposed to do this retaliatory action but i did open a parachute account with overdraft matching facility, etc, just in case.

i am a private banking customer with NW and have a good credit rating these days (hadnt incurred any bank charges in the last 12 months anyway) and have been with them for 15 years, so i dont reckon i'll be first in line to get chopped by them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...