Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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
      • 160 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

Choco V Natwest


choco
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5628 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 test case started today so that lights getting a bit lighter:D

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

  • Replies 286
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I've read this thread and think it might be worth following:) Click here: Oft Test Case News! - The Consumer Forums

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

Ok, wait, big quote of the day: A spokesperson for the OFT claimed today that he "did not realise that the room would only hold this number of people".

LOL, purleaaase!! WOW talk about below the belt moves, they'll try anything wont they!

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I've just read this on the BBC website:

But if the OFT wins, this will not automatically lead to compensation being paid to customers whose claims for refunds are currently stuck in the legal system, or who may belatedly realise they are owed money.

What will happen to my case then if they win, does that mean all of this will be in vain?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmmmmm good question to which I have no idea :( Hang in there hunny x

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

Well the latest is i had £1.57 in my savings account and they transferred that money to one of the accounts in dispute and now as my savings has no money in it, it's now closed. When I called them and complained the bloke said all my accounts are closed now anyway and they won't be getting re-opened even if i get my money back! OK it's official I have now had enough I cant take no more of this... :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Awwww choco they're a right bunch of Tw**s! I had this lastyear - don't let them get you down hun:) Remember to write everything down when it happens i.e. the date they took the £1.57 because after your claim is over you can make a big complaint to the FOS because Natwest are breeching certain terms of the banking code with all this retaliatory behaviour when this account is clearly in dispute! ( all these little things will add up and if they find in your favour Natwest may be forced to pay you some compensation for all of this ).

I was in the middle of compiling my complaint when I had to have emergency work done on my house ( all my Natwest folders were put in the attic and now I can't find them:mad: ) I'm going to have a good search at the weekend because I still think they deserve a lovely big complaint from me!

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

OK I've just read this on the BBC website:

But if the OFT wins, this will not automatically lead to compensation being paid to customers whose claims for refunds are currently stuck in the legal system, or who may belatedly realise they are owed money.

What will happen to my case then if they win, does that mean all of this will be in vain?

 

IF the court finds in favour of the banks then any claim currently outstanding will be dismissed. The problem is that to set legal precedent, the judgement has to be in one of the higher courts (court of appeal or the Lords) so in theory, as I understand it (and I'm happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong) this case could go two ways.

 

The OFT case is upheld, in which case the banks would almost certainly appeal and the whole thing will drag on for years. In the event of the appeal court upholding the decision in favour of the OFT, it is likely that the court will order the repayment of all charges without claim as they have been proved to be unlawful. This however has been proven impractical, as in mis-sold endowments etc. You will probably still have to claim and will be hounded by the no win no fee merchants.

 

The other way it could go is that the court finds in favour of the banks, in which case all claims, current or percieved are dead in the water so to speak. I really don't think the OFT have got the bottle for an appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IF the court finds in favour of the banks then any claim currently outstanding will be dismissed. The problem is that to set legal precedent, the judgement has to be in one of the higher courts (court of appeal or the Lords) so in theory, as I understand it (and I'm happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong) this case could go two ways.

 

The OFT case is upheld, in which case the banks would almost certainly appeal and the whole thing will drag on for years. In the event of the appeal court upholding the decision in favour of the OFT, it is likely that the court will order the repayment of all charges without claim as they have been proved to be unlawful. This however has been proven impractical, as in mis-sold endowments etc. You will probably still have to claim and will be hounded by the no win no fee merchants.

 

The other way it could go is that the court finds in favour of the banks, in which case all claims, current or percieved are dead in the water so to speak. I really don't think the OFT have got the bottle for an appeal.

 

This sounds crap either way for me :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Awwww choco they're a right bunch of Tw**s! I had this lastyear - don't let them get you down hun:) Remember to write everything down when it happens i.e. the date they took the £1.57 because after your claim is over you can make a big complaint to the FOS because NatWest are breeching certain terms of the banking code with all this retaliatory behaviour when this account is clearly in dispute! ( all these little things will add up and if they find in your favour Natwest may be forced to pay you some compensation for all of this ).

I was in the middle of compiling my complaint when I had to have emergency work done on my house ( all my Natwest folders were put in the attic and now I can't find them:mad: ) I'm going to have a good search at the weekend because I still think they deserve a lovely big complaint from me!

 

Well this is not going to end for now, so God knows when my claim will be over, the test case is not gonna be a simple hearing and then they come to an agreement, practical thinking dont come into this! I may as well count this as over, I should of took the measley payout, I cant help but say I knew something bad would happen :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hang in there sweetcheeks :D

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

  • 2 months later...
  • 1 month later...

Hi all, I've just come back form a lovely holiday, I was on St Lucia for almost a month!! I felt so relaxed until I got back and saw my pile of letters waiting for me!!

What's the latest on the stayed cases then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

Hi hun, I'd like to say it's good to be back but it isnt! I wanted to be back a couple a grand richer! lol

 

Well its for the 2 accounts that are in dispute; one is £1594.45 as at the 30 Oct 2007, the other £1325.20 - same date.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I've received a letter from NatWest stating that the monthly arrangement I had with them to pay £1 a month towards my ever increasing O/D is coming to an end, now they know I'm claiming back my charges so what do I do????

 

ANY IDEAS PLEASE? I'LL NEED TO WRITE BACK TO THEM SOON!

Link to post
Share on other sites

try writing back to them with an offr to carry on paying a pound a month and see what happens. Or you could also try to make a case for a payout on hardship under the new waiver terms.

 

Also, go for credit card charges in the meantime, these aren't vcovered under the OFT case so you can still claim them back. Some are easier than others, just depends on what credit cards you've got.

Link to post
Share on other sites

try writing back to them with an offr to carry on paying a pound a month and see what happens. Or you could also try to make a case for a payout on hardship under the new waiver terms.

 

Also, go for credit card charges in the meantime, these aren't vcovered under the OFT case so you can still claim them back. Some are easier than others, just depends on what credit cards you've got.

 

Ok I'll do that and see what they say. In the meantime i'm gonna go for this hardshio thing and I'll also start the credit claims rolling as its not included! thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...