Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • 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 5939 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 love the way that Cobbetts say that their cleint is confident that it will be successful in the final hearing and then they cave in and pay up.

 

If they are that confident then why do they not take the case to its conclusion?

 

The reason is that they know that they will lose

PPMAN159

 

If this comment has helped please click on the scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It's nice to see that they are being consistant.

 

The wording quoted from Cobbetts letter is identical to the letter they sent me with my cheque for £17000.

 

It proves that they are determined not to disclose actual costs. I had an order for disclosure but they settled on the day it was due.

Advice given is either my experience or my opinion and is given without liability. If in doubt, consult a qualified professional.

If you PM me for advice I will only reply in your own thread

 

Never under estimate your ability. I won over £17,000!

For the full story - look here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/NatWest-bank/17630-thecobbettslayer-NatWest.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

35k and they settled to save their costs. WHAT A LOAD OF BOL***

 

I agree. If bank won they would recover their costs from the claimant anyway and save themselves further litigation costs and settlement payouts 'cos people would think twice about claiming!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see the courts striking out all bank defences on the grounds of abuse of process and being branded vexatious litigants. It can't be far off after a year of claims, surely?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If (as we all know to be the case) bank charges are unlawful penalties, bravery doesn't come into it. The judge has to make his ruling according to the law. The problem is getting the banks to actually stand before a judge.

Advice given is either my experience or my opinion and is given without liability. If in doubt, consult a qualified professional.

If you PM me for advice I will only reply in your own thread

 

Never under estimate your ability. I won over £17,000!

For the full story - look here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/NatWest-bank/17630-thecobbettslayer-NatWest.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a judge brave enough to be the first to do this?

 

there have been a couple of courts sriking out on the abuse of process order on the judges own initiative but I dont know if courts operate in such a way as to make a uniform approach across all courts a possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So can a judge rule that a bank is wasting court time?

 

I assume that each case is allocated a time slot on a particular day and yet prior to that the banks tends to settle the claim.

 

My view is that there must be more important cases that need the courts attention so to have these cases allocated and then in effect cancelled at the last minute seems to be an abuse of the courts time.

PPMAN159

 

If this comment has helped please click on the scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've even seen a few cases where the court has allocated a 1 minute hearing because they know what will happen!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who shy away from county court cannot escape from the court of public opinion.

 

After Diana's death tabloid journalists were regarded like lepers. Now politicians are persons from whom you would not buy a used car.

 

Bankers cannot see they are becoming a public laughing stock.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The banks know that even though they are having to pay back millions they will still be able to find ways to get this back and more on top.

 

There was a post on CAG yesterday saying that some one had just joined Barclays and that for every new account that they opended they were to be paid £400!!!

 

So bank clerks are now no more than salesman hiding under a different name.

PPMAN159

 

If this comment has helped please click on the scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

bong,

 

Is it possible to collate a list of dates and courts which dished out strikeouts for abuse of legal process?

 

While county courts cannot establish binding precedents, judges would understandably take an interest in other judgments.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible by searching threads but I'm not sure if individual judges are that interested in the odd quirk here and there to be honest. It would be nice to think otherwise but I suspect that it would require a directive from a senior judge before there would be any change on a global scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that the Brennan case it not specifically about the charges that have been levied but if he wins(or should that be when he wins) what are the implications not just for Nat West claiments but the market as a whole?

PPMAN159

 

If this comment has helped please click on the scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that they are piling money into defending this because they know that if they lose it will open the floodgates to similar damages claims. I don't think it would only affect Natwest either.

 

I wonder if they would take it to appeal if they lose. I think court of appeal is precedent setting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bong - were they strike outs for abuse of process or was it that the defence was flawed under part 16 CPR.

 

I know that Boston CC threw a few out and there was almost certainly an element of judges chatting in chambers involved there.

 

I agree with the comment by PPman. Cobbetts must be raking it in. They sent a barrister to Mansfield CC to defend my application for an order under Part 18 and lost. Must have cost Natwest a fortune!

Advice given is either my experience or my opinion and is given without liability. If in doubt, consult a qualified professional.

If you PM me for advice I will only reply in your own thread

 

Never under estimate your ability. I won over £17,000!

For the full story - look here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/NatWest-bank/17630-thecobbettslayer-NatWest.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they feel that confident that they are able to defend this case why have they not defended others-they could have put a stop to this months ago.

 

I suppose that the feel that they have as Brennan has them by the short and curlies and has given them no alternative but to attend.

PPMAN159

 

If this comment has helped please click on the scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bong - were they strike outs for abuse of process or was it that the defence was flawed under part 16 CPR.

 

I know that Boston CC threw a few out and there was almost certainly an element of judges chatting in chambers involved there.

 

 

I think Lincoln was one of the courts. they were strike outs for abuse of process because no defence had actually been taken as far as a hearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RBS-NatWest are the biggest retail bank group in the world, and I believe now the biggest earning group in UK private sector. Lets say they have a ballpark 25% share of the 4.5 billion per annum unlawful charges, if so Cobbetts are defending a billionpound per annum income stream against Tom Brennan.

 

God knows what a battalion of lawyers RBS-NatWest have deployed against Tom, burning the midnight candle looking for loopholes.

 

Tom said in his Radio 4 interview he has a team of colleagues working with him -- I hope so. But this 30-year-old has been short of the readies within the past 6 years, and is currently not earning. Battle will be joined in 13 days, and I do not believe we should take Tom's victory for granted.

 

For Bankfodder (I would PM if only your mailbox were not overflowing):

 

I have 2 cheques burning a hole in my pocket -- £10 for CAG, £10 for Tom Brennan. Please tell me where to send them.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...