Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • lolerz - are you sure about the payer not being responsible?   On hmrc website there's a section about 'joint and several liability'....  It appears J&SL could apply if "hmrc believe it can show that you knew or had reasonable grounds to suspect that VAT would go unpaid".   They check to see if there is "sufficient evidence on a balance of probabilities to show the requisite knowledge or reasonable grounds for suspicion".    The email trail indicates the payer (the instigator of the deal with the contractor) must have known costs were being kept artificially low due to vat not being charged.  There were emails between the parties indicating the ongoing budget, and its constraints.  Invoices were issued in-line with the budget emails and emailed to the party over-seeing the works & budget - who then regularly passed the emails/ invoices on to the accounts team for payment.  There was constant dialogue between all parties on the sums payable..  Vat was not included on any invoices.   Thus the payer, on the balance of probabilities, had the requisite knowledge to assess that vat fraud was being implemented.    The payer ceo was also cc-ed into many emails.  There's also a couple instances of a 3rd party forwarding the contractor's invoices.  This could appear quite innocuous.  But this 3rd party (different surname) appears to share addresses with/ be a partner of the contractor (in biblical sense).  I don't have the investigative power of hmrc - but my simple research shows further (property) links between the ceo, the contractor and his 'partner'.   If they constantly do works projects together as a team then there is a propensity for regular vat evasion.  In my particular matter, the lender is trying to pass all the costs of works on to me.   So from an auditing perspective they are passing the buck to me; the payer appears to be me - whilst the actual payer (who is complicit in the evasion/ fraud) actually gets hidden (gets lost in the disclose-able paperwork).   A few years ago they set up a department to handle development of repossessed properties.  So how many times have they used a contractor and not paid vat for works? How many times have they passed the costs on to the borrower whilst attempting to absolve themselves of any participatory (vat fraud) guilt?   This is actually a potentially really big issue, that goes way beyond my own issue with them.  I don't benefit.  But if they are guilty on an industrial scale of not paying building contractor vat, facilitating vat fraud, and manipulating/ hiding the figures  behind borrower's debts - then this will be further vindication of what utter scoundrels they are.    The Govt website says if you notice tax fraud you 'must' disclose it.
    • I've never had an Egg loan. Just to confirm. Definitely not a loan. Yes. It is an 11 digit 'reference' number.
    • Some time ago i made a complaint to Lowell regarding what i felt was their harrassment due to the volume of letters I was receiving from them. I know i should have ignored it, but it was upsetting my wife that they kept sending them so I thought i would complain and see if anything could be done about it. i have just received their reply to my complaint, which no surprise they havent upheld. However they said something in that letter that didnt feel "right" to me and i wanted to see what people's opinion of this was please: Section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act relates to the original lender and not a debt purchaser such as Lowell. As the original terms of the agreement have not been met, due to payments falling into arrears and the account being in default, the requirement to provide a copy agreement no longer applies. I know this is incorrect, and frankly want to challenge this in any way i can, it feels very wrong that a collection agency can set aside or ignore sections of the law like this. Or should i just leave it and continue to try and ignore the letters? I would welcome any advice. Thanks.    
    • Watch this webinar to explore what young people think about the 2024 general election with early insight into the 2024 Youth Voice Census.View the full article
  • 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

It's only £30, but I want it Back! ***WON***


Odd Fellow
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5525 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

Sending Prelininary letter to Nat West Card Services today to recover £30.00 levied in Feb 2006.

 

I wonder whether Nat West will waste costly time and resources on this?

Abbey - Won DPA Claim - Aug 06 and got bailiffs in to recover my court costs of just £30.00

Abbey - Won Charges Refund of £1050 - Nov 06

Egg - Recovered £220 due to Customer Services misinformation - Feb 2007

Nat West - Prelinimary Letter to recover on Credit Card charges £30.00 sent March 2006. £25.40 offered - rejected and the bank reckons that this is it's last word on the matter. We'll see if that's still the case when it reads my N1 form sent recently. It has until the 17th April to respond or the N1 will be submitted.

 

Please check out my web site www.BankChargesScandal.co.uk for Research, Useful links and my story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

odd fellow,

It's your money claim it. action-smiley-033.gif

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 was going to suggest phoning them or nipping into your branch about it - its a low amount but IS your money that they shouldn't have taken!!

 

If they don't resolve it informally then send prelim, my thoughts are they'll pay it back asap!

Natwest Bank Plc owe me £1,227.48

06/03/07 - Prelim Sent

16/03/07 - Claim authorised, in full, via telephone...

28/03/07 - Full offer received in writing - YAY

29/03/07 - Offer accepted!

 

Bank of Scotland Mastercard owe me £497.00

11/03/07 - Complaint telephone call logged

29/03/07 - 50% offer received...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

With credit card charges never go into the branch, we can do nothing at branch level re charges on credit cards unless there was a bank error in the application of the charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Prelim letter went yesterday.

 

I did phone them and someone had to phone me back. Took them 3 days and then the lady hadn't been given the full story (typical).

 

The charges were Feb 06 and she didn't have access to it that far ago, but yaddered on about how they would have been applied in line etc. and trying to make out that the OFT ruling was after that date so it wasn't relevant.

 

Yeah, right.

Abbey - Won DPA Claim - Aug 06 and got bailiffs in to recover my court costs of just £30.00

Abbey - Won Charges Refund of £1050 - Nov 06

Egg - Recovered £220 due to Customer Services misinformation - Feb 2007

Nat West - Prelinimary Letter to recover on Credit Card charges £30.00 sent March 2006. £25.40 offered - rejected and the bank reckons that this is it's last word on the matter. We'll see if that's still the case when it reads my N1 form sent recently. It has until the 17th April to respond or the N1 will be submitted.

 

Please check out my web site www.BankChargesScandal.co.uk for Research, Useful links and my story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

£30 is £30 if you went shopping for groceries and were £30 short they'd want you to put your bacon back ( smiles at Nattie ) so I say go for it!!:)

NatWest : £857.00 won! March/07

Natwest : Witholding my statements & adding defaults etc , S.A.R sent Jan/08

Natwest for my partner : £2,101.00 won! Feb/07

Studio Cards : Refund for admin charges £108 Won! Dec/07

Complaint made to FOS for P.P.I Jan/08

Nationwide: S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent for statements Nov/07 ( waiting to see what happens in the OFT test case )

Littlewoods : defaulted on CCA request Feb/07

DCA's that crawled out from the woodwork and have crawled back : 28 so far!!

My favourite link on CAG:

Click here: Can't Find What You're Looking For? Here's A Complete A-z Index - The Consumer Forums

Link to post
Share on other sites

All this talk of putting bacon back is making me hungry. Hungry for lovely revenge on the Nasty West. Go get your money. I tend to think they will pay up at prelim or LBA. Cos its not mass wads were talking is it. Dont think they will be bothered to put up a fight for £30 squid. But we have been proved wrong on here from time to time. The ones we think will be quick straightforward, sometimes arent. But think positive. It helps. Fendy xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nattie don't take the" bacon" presonally. :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

Got what I expect is a standard letter on Saturday.

 

Blah, Blah, applied in line blah, blah.

 

However, as a goodwill gesture, blah, we'll offer you £25.44 representing the difference between the £20 that we charged and the £12 we now charge and the interest.

 

It's true they charged £20 on one thing and £10.00 on another (both related). I don't recall what these were, but they have ignored the £10.00 altogether. I thick they're working on the assumption that because it's under the £12 maximum they can apply, they're OK.

 

Oh no, Mr Nat West, you're not. You may have to justify this charge too - if it's more than it actually cost you, then it's unlawful and we both know it.

 

I've replied refusing the offer, providing links to two National Newspaper articles that feature my story of having the bailiffs into Abbey last year and making it clear that unless they can justify the charges, I expect a cheque for the refund or I will issue legal action in line with my first letter.

 

Frankly, I am surprised to have had a reply so quickly. I doubt that a further reply will be so swift.

Abbey - Won DPA Claim - Aug 06 and got bailiffs in to recover my court costs of just £30.00

Abbey - Won Charges Refund of £1050 - Nov 06

Egg - Recovered £220 due to Customer Services misinformation - Feb 2007

Nat West - Prelinimary Letter to recover on Credit Card charges £30.00 sent March 2006. £25.40 offered - rejected and the bank reckons that this is it's last word on the matter. We'll see if that's still the case when it reads my N1 form sent recently. It has until the 17th April to respond or the N1 will be submitted.

 

Please check out my web site www.BankChargesScandal.co.uk for Research, Useful links and my story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stick with it.

 

If we all took the view of its only £30 then banks would be laughing at us.

 

We need to let them know that we will lie down and let them trample over us-I have been battling with them since last November to get back just over £4500 and in thsi time all I have seen from them is a series of delaying tactics in the hope that I would not take the matter furtrher.

 

Last week I issued the MCOL and hoepfully will get something from them in due course.

 

To recap dont give up-its your money.

PPMAN159

 

If this comment has helped please click on the scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A further letter of defiance from Nat West today.

 

Reiterated that I could have £25.44 and that this was the bank's final response.

 

 

Errrr. No, I don't think it will be some how.

 

To reiterate how serious I am, am replying with a copy of my N1 Claim Form - it has 14 days.....

 

Bloody cheek.

Abbey - Won DPA Claim - Aug 06 and got bailiffs in to recover my court costs of just £30.00

Abbey - Won Charges Refund of £1050 - Nov 06

Egg - Recovered £220 due to Customer Services misinformation - Feb 2007

Nat West - Prelinimary Letter to recover on Credit Card charges £30.00 sent March 2006. £25.40 offered - rejected and the bank reckons that this is it's last word on the matter. We'll see if that's still the case when it reads my N1 form sent recently. It has until the 17th April to respond or the N1 will be submitted.

 

Please check out my web site www.BankChargesScandal.co.uk for Research, Useful links and my story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly thing is it has probably cost Nut West more than £30 to offer you £25.44 so why dontvthey just pay and have done with it.

 

Silly buggers!!

PPMAN159

 

If this comment has helped please click on the scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oddfellow,

If i was you i would contact a newspaper. They would love your story and they might pay you a few quid as well.

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

oddfellow,

If i was you i would contact a newspaper. They would love your story and they might pay you a few quid as well.

 

:-)

 

I might just do that.

 

Thanks to MoneySavingExpert, I was featured in the Express, Daily Mail, Independent and Norwich Evening News during March - pictures the lot.

 

Using the figures that they produced to establish the £25.44 offer, I work out that Nat West now owes me £95.40.

Abbey - Won DPA Claim - Aug 06 and got bailiffs in to recover my court costs of just £30.00

Abbey - Won Charges Refund of £1050 - Nov 06

Egg - Recovered £220 due to Customer Services misinformation - Feb 2007

Nat West - Prelinimary Letter to recover on Credit Card charges £30.00 sent March 2006. £25.40 offered - rejected and the bank reckons that this is it's last word on the matter. We'll see if that's still the case when it reads my N1 form sent recently. It has until the 17th April to respond or the N1 will be submitted.

 

Please check out my web site www.BankChargesScandal.co.uk for Research, Useful links and my story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have sent a short email to Martin Hickman at the Independent - you never know.....:D

 

 

 

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

Abbey - Won DPA Claim - Aug 06 and got bailiffs in to recover my court costs of just £30.00

Abbey - Won Charges Refund of £1050 - Nov 06

Egg - Recovered £220 due to Customer Services misinformation - Feb 2007

Nat West - Prelinimary Letter to recover on Credit Card charges £30.00 sent March 2006.

 

Please check out my web site www.BankChargesScandal.co .uk for Research, Useful links and my story.

Abbey - Won DPA Claim - Aug 06 and got bailiffs in to recover my court costs of just £30.00

Abbey - Won Charges Refund of £1050 - Nov 06

Egg - Recovered £220 due to Customer Services misinformation - Feb 2007

Nat West - Prelinimary Letter to recover on Credit Card charges £30.00 sent March 2006. £25.40 offered - rejected and the bank reckons that this is it's last word on the matter. We'll see if that's still the case when it reads my N1 form sent recently. It has until the 17th April to respond or the N1 will be submitted.

 

Please check out my web site www.BankChargesScandal.co.uk for Research, Useful links and my story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good on you. How ridiculous is that ? A star is born ;)

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

Keep at it :D I love this thread it just shows how ridiculous the banks are being

NatWest : £857.00 won! March/07

Natwest : Witholding my statements & adding defaults etc , S.A.R sent Jan/08

Natwest for my partner : £2,101.00 won! Feb/07

Studio Cards : Refund for admin charges £108 Won! Dec/07

Complaint made to FOS for P.P.I Jan/08

Nationwide: S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent for statements Nov/07 ( waiting to see what happens in the OFT test case )

Littlewoods : defaulted on CCA request Feb/07

DCA's that crawled out from the woodwork and have crawled back : 28 so far!!

My favourite link on CAG:

Click here: Can't Find What You're Looking For? Here's A Complete A-z Index - The Consumer Forums

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ridiculous, outrageous,intimidating,obnoxious and unlawful. Just a few more for the list.

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

Horrible,daft,silly and dumb there's a few more;)

NatWest : £857.00 won! March/07

Natwest : Witholding my statements & adding defaults etc , S.A.R sent Jan/08

Natwest for my partner : £2,101.00 won! Feb/07

Studio Cards : Refund for admin charges £108 Won! Dec/07

Complaint made to FOS for P.P.I Jan/08

Nationwide: S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent for statements Nov/07 ( waiting to see what happens in the OFT test case )

Littlewoods : defaulted on CCA request Feb/07

DCA's that crawled out from the woodwork and have crawled back : 28 so far!!

My favourite link on CAG:

Click here: Can't Find What You're Looking For? Here's A Complete A-z Index - The Consumer Forums

Link to post
Share on other sites

How stupid is this.

 

A bank will pay out a claim for say £1000 but then they fight tooth and nail over £30.

 

In this case if they had paid back the £30 when first asked then everyone would have gone away happy but rather than that they decide to dig their heels in.

 

Still I suppose at the end of the day it is our money that they are using to fight this claim so why should they care.

 

The only place we will find custoemr care in the future will be on the Antiques Roadshow in the 'Do you remember this' section.

PPMAN159

 

If this comment has helped please click on the scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...