Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • next time dont upload 19 single page pdfs use the sites listed on upload to merge them into one multipage pdf.. we aint got all day to download load single page files 2024-01-15 DBCLegal SAR.pdf
    • If you have not kept the original PCN you can always send an SAR to Excel and they have to send you all the info they have on you within a month. failure to do so can lead to you being able to sue them for their failure.......................................nice irony.
    • Thank you and well done  for posting up all those notices it must have have taken you ages.. The entrance sign is very helpful since the headline states                    FREE PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY in capitals with not time limit mentioned. Underneath and not in capitals they then give the actual times of parking which would not be possible to read when driving into the car park unless you actually stopped and read them. Very unlikely especially arriving at 5.30 pm with possibly other cars behind. On top of that the Notice goes on to say that the terms and conditions are inside the car park so the entrance sign cannot offer a contract it is merely an offer to treat. Inside the car park the signs are mostly too high up and the font size too small to be able to read much of their signs. DCBL have not shown a single sign that can be read on their SAR. Although as they show photographs which were taken the year after your alleged breach we do not know what the signs were when you were there. For instance the new signs showed the charge was then £100 whereas your PCN was for £85. Who knows, when you were there perhaps the time was for 3 hours. They were asked to produce  planning permission which would have been necessary for the ANPR cameras alone and didn't do so. Nor did they provide a copy of the contract-DCBL  "deeming them disproportionate or not relevant to the substantive issues in the dispute" How arrogant and untruthful is that? The contract and planning permission could be vital to having the claim thrown out. I can find no trace of planning permission for the signs nor the cameras on Tonbridge Council planning portal. and the contract of course is highly relevant since some contracts advise the parking rouges that they cannot take motorists to Court. I understand that Europarks are now running that car park which means that nexus didn't  last long before being thrown out.....................................
    • Hi,   I am not sure if I posted this already here but I don't think I did. I attach a judgement that raises very interesting points IMO. Essentially EVRi did their usual non attendance that we normally see, however the judge (for the first time I've seen in these threads) dismissed the notice and awarded me judgement by default because their notice misses the "confirmation of compliance" paragraph. in and out in 3 minutes (aside from the chat at the end with the judge about his problems with evri) Redacted - evri CPR loss.pdf
    • Just to update this. I did apply to strikeout and they did not attend the hearing. I won by defualt and the hearing lasted 5 minutes (court only allocated 15). The judge simply explained that the only matter he was really considering is if the Defendant could have any oral evidence to defend the claim. However he said he had decided that based on their defence, and their misunderstanding of law, and their non attendence he did not think they had any reasonsable chance so he awarded me SJ + Costs on the claim form + the strikeout fee. Luckily when I sent the defendant the order I woke up the next day to a wire trasnfer for the full sum of the judgement
  • 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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Claiming beyond 6 yrs - important new information!!!


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5720 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 am claiming back pre 6 years can you look at my thread:

 

un1boy's dad vs natwest - over 6 years (possible exemption from Limitations Act?)

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 973
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi just came back from court , Natwest application to strike out the claim under section 5 of limitation act has been denied and a full hearing has been allocated by the judge. Can a mod please pm me.

 

Brilliant - nice work. Would be interested to see the update to your thread with all the relevant info from the hearing :)

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

This would be great for me as Natwest stung me and my ex for hundreds at a time that was really difficult for us, it was about 9 years ago. Only one problem I dont think I have any old account information, If I supply them with the name and address details at the time of having the account will they still be able to issue the information ?

 

Fingers crossed here

Nationwide Bank Account subject access request

21st Feb 07, statements received 13th April 2007

 

Nationwide Credit Card SAR sent 21st Feb 07 .. Still not received :-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi just came back from court , Natwest application to strike out the claim under section 5 of limitation act has been denied and a full hearing has been allocated by the judge. Can a mod please pm me.

 

great news!! well done!!!!

 

can you give us more details of who said what etc..I'm nosey like that:D ...or have you got another thread with all this in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry, didnt see this had spilled over onto another page...will now join the queue and wait patiently.:o :p

 

P.S. you're not Tom Brennan are you??!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone :p

 

I'm looking for a quick opinion please.

 

I'm really not fully understanding the leagal ins and outs of making these claims. I have £850 to claim from the past 6 years and £255 from the year previous...as I'm making my claim from the position of "WHAT ON EARTH DOES THAT MEAN?"...am I wiser just going for the 6 year claim rather than risk ending up in court looking like a complete numpty???? :o

;):razz:;):p;):p
Link to post
Share on other sites

iloveguinness,

Do not be scared. The banks are toothless dogs, they bark but they will not bite you.

 

The same legal issue surrounding post-6 years also apply to pre-6 years. You should have some faith on the information you read here because they have been tried and trusted.

 

When making your claims, you do not need to differentiate the claims. Simply put them on the same spreadsheet as normal. Send off your preliminary letter with a copy of your spreadsheet. After all the unlawful charges they took from your account belongs to you.

 

Of course the banks will reply with a fob off letter (as always) but you will not be keeping to their own timetable. Prelim - 14 days, LBA - 14 days and its court. No waiting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks bennyowen

 

Your support's appreciated, I just didn't want to start something I didn't know I could finish and then have to drag everyone else in to help me. But I guess I'll probably pick it up better as I go along.

 

(Have you ever noticed that terrified nerves and excitement feel the same!) :)

;):razz:;):p;):p
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks bennyowen

 

Your support's appreciated, I just didn't want to start something I didn't know I could finish and then have to drag everyone else in to help me. But I guess I'll probably pick it up better as I go along.

 

(Have you ever noticed that terrified nerves and excitement feel the same!) :)

 

You can drag everyone in if it is for a good course. Everyone here have one purpose - claim back unlawful charges.

 

In the process of claiming, other issues come up and because we are working here as a large team, we are not alone in our fight. The banks know the power of collective voice of the consumers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya!

 

Dont worry guinness, were all in the same boat, we all pick this up as we go along. This site has been going best part of year now and there is always someone who can help out.

 

Never think that you are on your own, in joining CAG you've just found over 130,000 new chums to back you up. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and thanx to all you lovely people for the knowledge I have garnered over the past few days.

I am in the fortunate position that I have personal account statements going back to 1994 and business account statements as far back as 1993.

I have sent LBAs to HBOS demanding reimbursement in full and will post updates on my thread.

 

I would appreciate some advice on my other claim however..........

 

I am looking to reclaim a total of £4275 and since I live in Scotland this could be problematic because of the £750 and £1500 limits.

I got to thinking though...........

Would it be possible to lodge a claim for £1500 from say 2004 to the present then after resolution lodge another claim for unlawful charges of a further £1500 on the SAME account from say 2001 to 2004 then so on etc way back to 1993?

I would greatly appreciate any advice because if this tactic would work for me it would work for thousands of others.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/81891-me-versus-hbos.html#post728895

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

just seen the news article on bbc business about the barrister taking Nat west to Court and how it been adjurned till 30th April and that it's in the bank's interest to delay as people cannot claim beyond 6 year's? Surely if he's got links to this site he knows people are going for greater than six years or does he know something we don't.

 

Here's the link

BBC NEWS | Business | Court adjourns bank charges case

 

pmahonc

Link to post
Share on other sites

just seen the news article on bbc business about the barrister taking Nat west to Court and how it been adjurned till 30th April and that it's in the bank's interest to delay as people cannot claim beyond 6 year's? Surely if he's got links to this site he knows people are going for greater than six years or does he know something we don't.

 

Here's the link

BBC NEWS | Business | Court adjourns bank charges case

 

pmahonc

 

He obviously hasn't heard 'who CAG's wins'

 

Regards

 

Lantana

Link to post
Share on other sites

A question?

 

If we are claiming back charges beyond 10 years we are talking about charges pre-dating the unfair terms in consumer contracts act 1999, what law are we relying on prior to 1999?

 

IAN

 

If your account was opened before July 95 then you dont use the UTCCR 1999 in your case. you will be relying on common law in relation to penalties. see my HSBC thread here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/76820-calling-all-hsbc-claimants.html#post671596 with links to my POC if you are unsure about this - it wont affect your chances of winning at all, so don't worry about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's in the bank's interest to delay as people cannot claim beyond 6 year's?

 

this is absolute rubbish because what's already in his claim doesnt drop off because of the adjournment. I'd be surprised if those were his words and not the reporters. But I agree, I'm surprised he's not going beyond 6 years, if he had any older charges that is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bong

I thought it might be the reporters to but they are quoting him therefore i thought they couldn't change what he is supposed to have said. I'm just supprised that as a barrister he would know his case inside out with all the legal stuff backing him up. So i wonder how strong his case actually is for what he is actually trying to do.

 

pmahonc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps he doesnt want to, or doesnt have any pre-6 year charges?

 

(Or given that his career is at stake, feels he is pushing the envelope enough as it is.)

 

Dont forget that his claim is for exemplary damages, he has already had money thrown at him by the bank in relation to his charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think he has accepted the payment as such though noomill. He is still challenging the charges. Anyway, this is taking this thread off topic, sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...