Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
    • Well done.   Please let us know how it goes or come back with any questions. HB
  • 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

Tom Brennan v NatWest - This is a must-read!!!


calvi36
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5922 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

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Blimey - what time does your postman deliver then. We get ours by 11:00. Nah, this is tooooo important to be left to the postal service.

 

Now if they had been required to deliver the CB information it would have got there safely I'm sure.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

:(

 

All good karma to you for trying, Tom.

:p Wanting out of the red and into the pink! :p

 

If I've been nice please tip my scales. If I've been naughty, tip 'em twice! ;)

 

CURRENTLY CAGGING -

 

NatWest Bank - no response to S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), 40 days passed

 

Natwest CC - no response to CCA, 12+30 days passed. Calls continue, I ignore.

 

Sainsburys CCs x 2 - Current T&Cs rec'd in response to CCA request. Letter sent re lack of prescribed terms. Calls continue, mobile set to auto ignore.

 

Capital One - Copy application form rec'd in response to CCA. Letter sent re lack of prescribed terms. Standard final response received. Calls continue, I ignore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So gutted for you Tom, you put up a great fight.

Wishing you well.

Night Owl

Keep up the fight against Bank Charges.

 

 

Got Debt problems?

Don't panic, put the kettle on and read this

 

:-) Everything I write comes from my heart and head! The large filling cabinet that is my knowledge of life, however warped that may be!! :-)

 

<<< Please tickle my star!! if I have managed to help you or just made you chuckle!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad luck Tom

 

It seems very unjust that the banks have been able to get away with not only continuing to levy these charges, but not being made to reveal their true costs by the courts. My understanding of the OFT case is that the banks still wont have to do this, and until they do I dont see how this issue can be resolved. If the OFT is protecting our interests as the judge seems to believe then heaven help us as its done a rubbish job of it so far. I wouldnt put it past the OFT to manage to lose the case, but even if it does anyone with a brain can see these charges are unfair and this issue wont go away. Also, the judges assertion that the banks arent making additional profits off these charges seems incredibly naive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, I have always felt you were fighting a battle against the tide of financial institutions and like minded fiduciaries.Ostriches and sand spring to mind with some of the decisions being returned from our C.Cs. With the continuing support of this most excellent C.A.G.and a little luck the tide may turn hopefully in our favour. You have given lots of people hope in your endeavour for a FAIR hearing.You have been very brave in the attempt and I am sure some good will come of it. However it is an uphill battle against very powerful forces. "EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Best Wishes Tom, a valiant attempt, I'm sure we haven't heard the last of Tom Brennan. Keep snapping at the monsters heels, eventually you will find the weakness, even if next time it is for a Client.

 

I take my hat off to you Sir (and bite my thumb at them).

 

All the very best.

 

Tide

Link to post
Share on other sites

A valiant try by Tom on behalf of the public interest, at substantial personal cost. I am sure his courage and effort is much appreciated by millions.

 

CB018387.jpg

 

This court battle has always been fought between two unequal armies -- a phalanx of six NatWest barristers with legal fees no object, ranged against Tom himself plus an unpaid helper or three. Although this action failed to attain the holy grail, namely exposing in open court NatWest's £2 cost multiplied nineteen-fold into an extortionate £38 penalty charge, nevertheless this action brought before the gaze of millions something which UK banks are desperate to hush up. Irish Republic banks would not be embarassed by such exposure, as they levy an equitable £3 penalty charge, whereas across the border Northern Ireland banks (owned by UK banks) would be, as they too charge extortionate UK-level penalties.

 

Both judges would not accept Tom volunteering to speak for the public interest. This was not completely surprising as Tom did not walk into court with explicit endorsements from, for instance, the 140,000 members of CAG, or from MoneySavingExpert.co.uk, PenaltyCharges.co.uk, WhichMagazine.co.uk, etc.

 

The OFT was recognised by both judges as defender of the public interest. Within six short weeks, if the OFT were to press for lowering bank penalty charges to £12, this would still remain a painfully high figure, because of the clustering of penalty charges which characteristically terrorise any bank accounts falling into cashflow difficulty with no way out. Any account which, for being overdrawn £5 could previously have been punished with £600 penalties within a month made up of £35 charges, could still be punished with repeated new charges of £12 adding up to £200. In the case of Lloyds Bank since 1st November 2007, I understand their new rules stipulate the levy of penalty charges up to a maximum of £400 per month.

 

Time to awake, the Great British Public, from John O'Groats to Lands End.

  • Haha 1

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...