Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Default Notice Natwest Seeking Compensation


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6204 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 had an advantage gold account with Natwest and I am not sure if you know but you have to pay £8 a month to have it which is taken by DD anyway I had a belly full of Natwest so I decided to keep the account open with £1 in there and not use it. I asked them to make the account into a normal amount and I requested to cancel the £8 DD which they said they would do in the branch.

 

Anyway went away abroad for 6 months to come back and find that my account is overdrawn by about £500 and they had issued me with a default notice.

 

It turns out they had continued to take the £8 out which made me overdrawn and charged my interest as well.

 

I called up and disputed this and evtually had to write they said they would take off all charges and remove the default. This was back in early 2006.

 

Anyway I got my credit reports 3 days ago and the default is showing as a default and not even settled let alone taken off.

 

When I wrote to them asking for compensation this is what they wrote to me.

 

"I have now arranged for the default recorded with the credit referebce agencies in June 2006 to be removed and would apologise for this oversioght on the Bank's part. In view of the other defaults recorded against your name it is unlinkely that your credit record has been adversely affected by this entry"

 

I am not just fuming by this I an hopping off the walls!! I cant beleive that a bank can use your credit record in this way.

 

I am in the process of having the other defaults removed as they have all been applied due to excess charges.

 

Should I write something back or should I let sleeping dogs lie?

 

Any advice on how to proceed I would be very grateful - the way in which Natwest have treated since I opened my account in 1998 is really and truly disgusting so I am up for a fight with them as they make my blood truly boil.:evil:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do sympathise with you, but once you've calmed down, I would just let sleeping dogs lie - it would be extremely difficult to claim compensation through court action. You cannot just claim for distress/inconvenience etc, you first have to have a quantifiable damages claim. Given that you had other defaults, it would be near impossible to show and prove to a court that Natwest's default caused you any tangible loss. Keep up the fight with the other default removals though!

Settled Claims:

Abbey: £4025 Claimed 27/02/06 - Paid in full 19/06/06

NatWest: £4529 Claimed 10/05/06 - Paid in full 1/08/06

Halifax: £1150 lba 18/05/06 - Paid in full 07/06/06

Natwest CC: £420 Initial letter 25/07/06 - Paid in full 08/06

Woolwich: £1100 Paid in full 28/2/07 + Default removed

NatWest Pt 2: £1700 Claimed 10/05/06 - Paid in full 7/2/07 + Defaults removed

 

Current Claims:

Abbey Pt 2: £2300 + adverse credit removal claimed 23/03/07

Alliance & Leicester: £1421 + adverse credit removal claimed 23/03/07

 

Refunds pending:

Capital Bank: Swift Advances: Halifax

 

Son's Refunds pending:

Abbey: HSBC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I know that you are probably right!!

 

It is just that I hate Natwest so much!!

 

I have lots of other charges that I can claim back from about 3/4 years ago so I think that I will concentrate on that now - and as they have annoyed me so much - I will not be happy with statutory interest I will be going for the whole contractual interest as well.

 

Watch this space - they have now made a proper enemy out of me and I will not stop until I squeezed every last penny that they owe me out of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...