Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi. I am reading through the full thread and will continue to research. I have come across a reference to a form called N180 DQ in the thread, but I cannot see any reference to this form in my case nor can I see it on the MoneyClaim website. Should I have been sent this form? Thanks 
    • 12mph (beyond any UK limit) will certainly qualify for a Fixed Penalty. So you should received an offer of a FP for each of the remaining two offences. Be sure to submit your licence details as instructed when you accept the offer. If you don't your £100 will be returned to you and the police will prosecute you in court.
    • and it will be also now written off under age related criteria anyway.
    • @dx100ukThanks for this! I'm still not clear if I'm facing more than 6 points on my license though. Can you explain any further please? When I accept the 2nd speeding ticket, will they just charge me £100 and 3 points, or will they be more severe consequences since that offense took place the following day of the 1st offense? Similarly, when I accept the 3rd offense, will they look at my record or just charge me with the £100 fine and 3 points? @Man in the middleI've been searching the forum and you seem very knowledgeable. Would you mind giving a look at my query please? Thanks in advance!!
    • Yes of course. That's why it says cc:: BIg Motoring World at the bottom. Don't imagine that this solves the issue. It doesn't. He not have to force the finance company and big motoring world to accept the rejection to give your money back. I suggest that you get the letter off tomorrow. And let us know what you hear but on Friday you should then send a threat to the finance company.   Have a look what I have said here about your options and read the whole thread as well.  
  • 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

Vs Natwest final stage I THINK


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6180 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

Great site, its helped me all the way but... I just received a letter from the courts today saying: :confused:

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

1. Unless the claiment do file and serve replies to Part 18 request by 4.00pm 5th March 2007

 

2. Defendant do serve and file proposed directions for the disposal of the case by 4.00 12th March 2006

 

can anyone explain what this is all about Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what you need to do:

 

 

Dear Sir or Madam:

Claim No:

 

I Acknowledge the receipt of the defence posted on behalf of National Westminster Bank plc.

I am not prepared at this stage to answer the CPR Part 18 Request. I anticipate that the claim will be allocated to the small claims track and would not then expect to have to deal with a Part 18 request since these are specifically excluded under Part 27 unless the court specifically orders me to do so of its own initiative

Furthermore I consider that the CPR part 18 request is intimidatory and I intend to bring the intimidation to the notice of the court. However, for clarity, I confirm the charges I am claiming were applied to the following account:

Account Name:

Account number:

Sort Code:

 

Please also find enclosed a breakdown of all charges I am claiming.

Yours Faithfully

Won....:D:D:D...£3778.50

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the court has asked you for the info you need to give it, can you please put down what you put on your Particulars of the Claim. Please use x's for account number and sort code and x's if you want for the amount. We can advise further with that info

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this what your after ;-(

 

Particulars of Claim

1. The Claimant has an account ******** with

the Defendant, opened Oct 2002 2. Since

28/11/02 the Defendant debited charges and

interest in respect of purported breaches of

contract. 3. Defendant is aware of all

details as a list of charges has already

been supplied. Another copy will be sent. 4.

Claimant contends: (a) The charges exceed

the Defendant's losses caused by the

breaches; (b) The Term permitting the

Defendant to levy such charges is

unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in

Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, Unfair

Contract Terms Act 1977 and at Common Law.

5. Claimant claims: (a) return of the

amounts debited of £1,401.00; (b) Interest

per S.69 County Courts Act 1984 of 8% -

£245.07 continuing at 8% until judgment or

settlement at a daily rate of £0.30; 6.

Alternatively, if the charges are a fee for

a service, then they must be reasonable

under S.15 of the Supply of Goods and

Services Act 1982. 7. Costs allowed by the

Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically does this

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

1. Unless the claiment do file and serve replies to Part 18 request by 4.00pm 5th March 2007

 

2. Defendant do serve and file proposed directions for the disposal of the case by 4.00 12th March 2006

 

Mean unless I now reply to the Part 18 it will be thrown out of court :-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

The schedule of charges where sent with the request letter to Natwest and then with the LBA, then again with the reply to (part 18 request) to Cobbett. Shall I send another copy? A schedule of charges were never sent to the courts as it was done via money claims online.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you post Cobbetts Part 18 request.

 

 

Look here for responses to a previous Part 18 request. It is several months old and therefore may differ from yours, but should answer most of it:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland/32948-cpr-18-requests-costs-5.html#post267852

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Request

 

1. In your claim you state: Claimant claims [the] return of £1401.

 

2. Please provide the following particulars in support of your claim:

 

2.1 In relation to each charge please identify (a) the date when the charges was charged; (b) the amount of the same; and © the reason(s) given for the charging of the same.

 

2.2 In relation to each charge, please clarify the following; (a) is it the case of the Claimant the same should not have been charged? (b) If yes; please explain why the Claimant contends that the same should not have been charged? © If no; is it the case of the Claimant that the same should have been charged in this amount? (d) If yes; please explain why the claimant contends that the same should not have been charge in this amount and identify the sum the claimant contends should have been charged. (e) If no; please state the claimant case.

 

3. In your claim you state that the charges are "unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and at Common law" and 2they must be reasonable under s15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

 

4. Please specify all of the facts relied on by the Claimant in support of the contentions in paragraph 3 above, and in particular please identify (a) the section(s) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 ("UCTA 1977"); (b) the regulations of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 ("the regulations"); and © the principles of common law replied upon by the Claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable. Please also identify the contractual provision(s) that the claimant alleges are unenforceable by reference to UCTA/ the regulations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so I've refered to the link you sent and put it together is this correct??? If so do whom then do I send it to (you've all been so helpfull thankyou) and if I win I'll be sure to make a contribution

 

The Request

 

1. In your claim you state: Claimant claims [the] return of £1401.

 

2. Please provide the following particulars in support of your claim:

 

2.1 In relation to each charge please identify (a) the date when the charges was charged; (b) the amount of the same; and © the reason(s) given for the charging of the same.

 

I refer the Defendant to the attached spreadsheet/document I have prepared in which I have listed the following:

 

(a) the date when each charge was charged;

 

(b) the amount of the same; and

 

© the reason given by the Defendant for the charging of the same.

 

2.2 In relation to each charge, please clarify the following;

(a) Is it the case of the Claimant the same should not have been charged?

The Claimant is aware that each charge has been debited by the Defendant from the Claimant’s account pursuant to the terms and conditions signed by the Claimant when the account was opened. However, please see my replies below.

 

(b) If yes; please explain why the Claimant contends that the same should not have been charged?

The Claimant does not contend that the same should not have been charged; merely that the charge made should have represented the Defendant’s liquidated losses and not the fixed charges applied by the Defendant according to the terms and conditions in force at the time the charge was made.

 

© If no; is it the case of the Claimant that the same should have been charged in this amount?

This is exactly the Claimant’s case. Each charge debited by the Defendant from the Claimant’s bank account should not have been charged in the amount that was charged. It is the Claimant’s case that each charge is a disproportionate penalty in that each charge does not truly represent the actual cost to the Defendant. The Claimant reminds the Defendant that it has been put to strict proof in previous correspondence and/or the Particulars of Claim that the amount charged for each charge debited does truly reflect the Defendant’s costs and that they are not making a profit from such charges – in the absence of any documentation to support the Defendant’s contention that each charge debited represents the Defendant’s liquidated losses, the Claimant contends that the Defendant has no defence to the claim that each charge is disproportionate and therefore unenforceable in common law, or by the previously claimed Acts, Statutes and Regulations pleaded.

 

(d) If yes; please explain why the claimant contends that the same should not have been charge in this amount and identify the sum the claimant contends should have been charged.

The Claimant cannot specifically reply to this request in that the amount that should have been charged cannot be specified because the Defendant has failed to reply to the Claimant’s request for a breakdown of costs incurred by the Defendant in applying charges to the Claimant’s account. The Defendant’s contentions that the charges are fair, reasonable and transparent are denied because of this material failure to disclose this information. Had the Claimant been made aware of the breakdown of each and every charge debited, the Claimant would have been able to reply to this particular request.

 

(e) If no; please state the claimant case.

The Claimant has already stated a case in the Particulars of Claim (or as amended) and repeats the same claims as if they were repeated in this reply. The Claimant also refers the Defendant to the answer at 2.2© above.

 

3. In your claim you state that the charges are "unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and at Common law" and they must be reasonable under s15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

 

Answer to follow – I can’t find a copy of the terms and conditions to reply to the request for specific clauses.

 

4. Please specify all of the facts relied on by the Claimant in support of the contentions in paragraph 3 above, and in particular please identify (a) the section(s) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 ("UCTA 1977"); (b) the regulations of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 ("the regulations"); and © the principles of common law replied upon by the Claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable. Please also identify the contractual provision(s) that the claimant alleges are unenforceable by reference to UCTA/ the regulations.

 

The Claimant is aware that the Defendant contends that the charged applied to the Claimant’s account were due to a breach of contract on the part of the Claimant strictly according to the terms and conditions applied to the operation of the Claimant’s account; however, the Claimant has pleaded that the Court make a declaration that the contract between the Claimant and Defendant is invalid in light of the claim that the Defendant’s charges are disproportionate and therefore unenforceable and/or invalid. This decision will be made by a Judge at the final hearing of this matter. It is therefore not for the Claimant to reply as to whether the charges applied were or were not due to a breach of contract by the Claimant.

The Claimant specifically pleads that the charges debited to the Claimant’s account by the Defendant are automatically unfair because, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract (which the Claimant pleads is invalid in any event) to the detriment of the Claimant. “Good faith” (as defined by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999) means that that the Defendant must deal fairly and openly with the Claimant. The Defendant has not dealt fairly and openly with the Claimant. Further, as the contractual term (i.e. each and every charge debited from the Claimant’s account according to the “contract” entered into by the parties pursuant to the Defendant’s terms and conditions, as well as the terms and conditions themselves) was not individually negotiated and was drafted in advance, the Claimant was unable to influence the substance of the term, making it unfair. In the absence of a breakdown of the Defendant's liquidated losses and/or actual costs of each and every charge applied to the Claimant's account, the contractual term in force at the time of the charge forced the Claimant to pay a disproportionately high sum to the Defendant in compensation for the Claimant’s alleged failure to fulfil his obligation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3. In your claim you state that the charges are "unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and at Common law" and 2they must be reasonable under s15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

.

4. Please specify all of the facts relied on by the Claimant in support of the contentions in paragraph 3 above, and in particular please identify (a) the section(s) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 ("UCTA 1977"); (b) the regulations of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 ("the regulations"); and © the principles of common law replied upon by the Claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable. Please also identify the contractual provision(s) that the claimant alleges are unenforceable by reference to UCTA/ the regulations.

The Claimant specifically pleads that the charges debited to the Claimant’s account by the Defendant are automatically unfair because, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract (which the Claimant pleads is invalid in any event) to the detriment of the Claimant. “Good faith” (as defined by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999) means that that the Defendant must deal fairly and openly with the Claimant. The Defendant has not dealt fairly and openly with the Claimant. Further, as the contractual term (i.e. each and every charge debited from the Claimant’s account according to the “contract” entered into by the parties pursuant to the Defendant’s terms and conditions, as well as the terms and conditions themselves) was not individually negotiated and was drafted in advance, the Claimant was unable to influence the substance of the term, making it unfair. In the absence of a breakdown of the Defendant's liquidated losses and/or actual costs of each and every charge applied to the Claimant's account, the contractual term in force at the time of the charge forced the Claimant to pay a disproportionately high sum to the Defendant in compensation for the Claimant’s alleged failure to fulfil his obligation.

 

If the defendant contests this does not amount to a breach of contract the claimant will contest that charges appear to represent an unfair term of contract which is contrary to the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Para.8 and sch.2 (1) (e).The claimants account falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 as I am a consumer. These charges constitute an unfair penalty under reference to paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 of the said regulations:

 

Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair - 1. Terms which have the object of effect of - (e) requiring any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much here is a final draft to help others

 

IN THE XXXXXXX COUNTY COURT

 

CLAIM NO. XXXXXXXX

 

BETWEEN

 

XXXXXX XXXXXXXX

Claimants

 

-and-

 

NatWest BANK PLc

Defendant

 

 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR FUTHER INFORMATION AND CLARIFICATION

The Request

 

1. In your claim you state: Claimant claims [the] return of £1401.

 

2. Please provide the following particulars in support of your claim:

 

2.1 In relation to each charge please identify (a) the date when the charges was charged; (b) the amount of the same; and © the reason(s) given for the charging of the same.

 

I refer the Defendant to the attached spreadsheet/document I have prepared in which I have listed the following:

 

(a) the date when each charge was charged;

 

(b) the amount of the same; and

 

© the reason given by the Defendant for the charging of the same.

2.2 In relation to each charge, please clarify the following;

(a) Is it the case of the Claimant the same should not have been charged?

The Claimant is aware that each charge has been debited by the Defendant from the Claimant’s account pursuant to the terms and conditions signed by the Claimant when the account was opened. However, please see my replies below.

 

(b) If yes; please explain why the Claimant contends that the same should not have been charged?

The Claimant does not contend that the same should not have been charged; merely that the charge made should have represented the Defendant’s liquidated losses and not the fixed charges applied by the Defendant according to the terms and conditions in force at the time the charge was made.

© If no; is it the case of the Claimant that the same should have been charged in this amount?

This is exactly the Claimant’s case. Each charge debited by the Defendant from the Claimant’s bank account should not have been charged in the amount that was charged. It is the Claimant’s case that each charge is a disproportionate penalty in that each charge does not truly represent the actual cost to the Defendant. The Claimant reminds the Defendant that it has been put to strict proof in previous correspondence and/or the Particulars of Claim that the amount charged for each charge debited does truly reflect the Defendant’s costs and that they are not making a profit from such charges – in the absence of any documentation to support the Defendant’s contention that each charge debited represents the Defendant’s liquidated losses, the Claimant contends that the Defendant has no defence to the claim that each charge is disproportionate and therefore unenforceable in common law, or by the previously claimed Acts, Statutes and Regulations pleaded.

 

(d) If yes; please explain why the claimant contends that the same should not have been charge in this amount and identify the sum the claimant contends should have been charged.

The Claimant cannot specifically reply to this request in that the amount that should have been charged cannot be specified because the Defendant has failed to reply to the Claimant’s request for a breakdown of costs incurred by the Defendant in applying charges to the Claimant’s account. The Defendant’s contentions that the charges are fair, reasonable and transparent are denied because of this material failure to disclose this information. Had the Claimant been made aware of the breakdown of each and every charge debited, the Claimant would have been able to reply to this particular request.

 

(e) If no; please state the claimant case.

The Claimant has already stated a case in the Particulars of Claim (or as amended) and repeats the same claims as if they were repeated in this reply. The Claimant also refers the Defendant to the answer at 2.2© above.

 

3. In your claim you state that the charges are "unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and at Common law" and 2they must be reasonable under s15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

4. Please specify all of the facts relied on by the Claimant in support of the contentions in paragraph 3 above, and in particular please identify (a) the section(s) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 ("UCTA 1977"); (b) the regulations of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 ("the regulations"); and © the principles of common law replied upon by the Claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable. Please also identify the contractual provision(s) that the claimant alleges are unenforceable by reference to UCTA/ the regulations.

The Claimant specifically pleads that the charges debited to the Claimant’s account by the Defendant are automatically unfair because, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract (which the Claimant pleads is invalid in any event) to the detriment of the Claimant. “Good faith” (as defined by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999) means that that the Defendant must deal fairly and openly with the Claimant. The Defendant has not dealt fairly and openly with the Claimant. Further, as the contractual term (i.e. each and every charge debited from the Claimant’s account according to the “contract” entered into by the parties pursuant to the Defendant’s terms and conditions, as well as the terms and conditions themselves) was not individually negotiated and was drafted in advance, the Claimant was unable to influence the substance of the term, making it unfair. In the absence of a breakdown of the Defendant's liquidated losses and/or actual costs of each and every charge applied to the Claimant's account, the contractual term in force at the time of the charge forced the Claimant to pay a disproportionately high sum to the Defendant in compensation for the Claimant’s alleged failure to fulfil his obligation.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...