Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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 5901 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

yes but breenan stands for us all not only will natwest be looking but all banks i think brennan will win his action like i said on above thread its about time we had the truth from the banks of the real cost of fees. look at it this way one bank how much does it make from us the customers all of our cash in one bank millions in intrest then on top of this we have the charges// fees from me and you. a bank makes millions good luck to the man on justice to us all

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck to you Tom Brennan. I'd sure help out if this guy lost, but hoping for the best :)

 

 

p.s. Does anyone have a solution to watching/listening to the programmes? All the current links crash both firefox and IE for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn, i haven;t but that is my understanding from a further re read yesterday and this morning. It would compel the bank to reveal costs if he is successful. I think i may try and listen to it, i am just surprised nobody has tried this route previously. one to watch on Friday the 13th.

 

Nattie

 

My POC for Glenn Vs Abbey is effectively the same in my claim i have called it an account of profits if they decide to argue over it they will have to provide their costs to prove they have not made any profit.

 

incidentally my claim was issued on the 30/03/07 before i heard of this case.

 

GLenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

we need to get a pound each to send to cag, this way this Tom Brennan will be able to fight this without FEAR of losing either his career or this case. I so wish admin would post to state the same. If we want to stay as sheep then we shall, however if we want to hunt those that have hunted us for years, then we shall have to do as we are doing and go hunting against the people that cannot justify their charges and are too bloody scared to stand in a court of law and state any defence. I call for one pound from each member of this forum to support this one case. If the case fails then all costs will be paid for a man that put all on the line. TOM BRENNA'S COSTS WILL BE PAID. Lets make this bloody clear to the rip off banks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My mum and dad were supposed to go to Southend on 5th April... there cheque arrived on the day!!! x

03/10/06-Data Protection Act request sent via recorded delivery

06/10/06- Letter signed for. 15th Nov cut off date.

10/10/06- Statements come in tatty brown envelope.

Will be claiming for £1946.22

23/10/06- Preliminary request for £1946.22 sent recorded delivery.

24/10/06-Letter signed for. 7th Nov cut off.

08/11/06- Standard letter received wanting more time.

 

23/03/07- Time up for NatWest to say whether defending or not.

19/03/07- Acknowledgement of service and saying was going to defend came through.

04/04/07- Deadline for Natwests defence.

03/04/07- Defence filed came through.

05/05/07- Letter from Court to say claim stayed until 27/06/07

25/06/07- Letter from court, claim stayed until further notice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For fear of going against the grain here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/27030-harsh-letter-received-kensington-17.html

 

This woman took on Kensington for something that alot of us have won without court. She lost. She was ordered to pay the other sides costs.

We are not allowed to donate through CAG for her sever costs.

 

Now again, dont shoot me but I think her claim for assistance is greater than his. As far as I am aware, he is not a memebr of CAG (if he is I appologies) and he has been offered far in excess of his charges.

 

While what he is doing can be admired by some, I can imagine his actions are also doubted by others.

 

I dont seem to recall seeing a moderators comments on such a massive issue.

Whatever I post is my opinion and should be taken as such, an opinion. While it is what I believe and is offered in good faith, it should not be taken as a statement of truth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rock on Mr Brennan! I just hope he goes in armed to the teeth, otherwise the weasel lawyers that Nat West hire, might manage to squirm their sleezy way to victory. I hope he gives them hell for leather! He's effectively got his career riding on the case. If he wins, I suspect he'll never be short of work as a barrister again, however if the boot is on the other foot, then it could effectively be career suicide! I will watch with baited breath!

25/01/07 Statements collected online

27/01/07 Prelim sent

09/02/07 Thank you letter received (and duly ignored)

12/02/07 LBA on its way

27/02/07 MCOL filed

26/03/07 Defence entered

02/04/07 Notice of transfer paperwork received

10/04/07 Lattie's hastner sent

19/04/07 AQ arrived (never mind lattie!)

20/04/07 Last Chance letter sent to DG, AQ filled out.

08/05/07 AQ returned to courts, cc'd to DG

11/06/07 Request for the defence to be struck out sent after not hearing from the court for 5 long weeks.

14/06/07 Directions hearing set for the end of August. 10 long weeks away.

14/06/07 rob-the-viking waits yet longer......

23/08/07 DG apply for a stay, instantly granted by judge.

29/08/07 The waiting begins again, 7 months since prelim was sent.

 

"If you kick a Tiger in the ass, you'd better have a plan to deal with it's teeth!!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Give you said it all with Midland Bank, those far away days when bank branches had a manager who had been trained to think and make deals because they knew if you were making money then they would too.

Unlike today when some clone looks what the computer says, looks at a rule book and phones there boss because they can’t make a decision on there own and takes the money anyway.

Or is that just another way of calling you old

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now again, dont shoot me but I think her claim for assistance is greater than his. As far as I am aware, he is not a memebr of CAG (if he is I appologies) and he has been offered far in excess of his charges.

 

While what he is doing can be admired by some, I can imagine his actions are also doubted by others.

 

If it were money he were after he would have accepted the offer already. He is trying to expose the banks and their unfair charges - basically force them to admit they are wrong. He's putting his career on the line to do this which is why people here are so thankful and willing to help :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were money he were after he would have accepted the offer already. He is trying to expose the banks and their unfair charges - basically force them to admit they are wrong. He's putting his career on the line to do this which is why people here are so thankful and willing to help :)

 

Or that is how it would appear.

 

As has being discussed on a thread in Banks in Print, there are holes in the story. There is no such thing as a Trainee Barrister and a Bankrupt barrister can still practice, contrary to what the chap has said.

Like I said, it may all be true but I cannot just believe what I see in the news and if there is a case for our financial support, it is Jamorgans

  • Haha 1

Whatever I post is my opinion and should be taken as such, an opinion. While it is what I believe and is offered in good faith, it should not be taken as a statement of truth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if this man is just trying to make a name for himself I think it is good that someone will actually be able to get this decided once and for all by a court. At least then the whole matter will be finally in the open and will finally put this whole charade to an end. I find it utterly appalling that the banks continue to operate the charging system in spite of everything that is happening. There must be millions of people out there who continue to be hit with these charges who have no idea about the unlawfulness and have no hope of ever getting to grips with it. And as for Government inaction, well that's another argument I could get wound up about. Just who are they representing!

Link to post
Share on other sites

At least this barrister fellow will be paying his own costs.At £200 per hour or so.:)

 

Mind you if he wins he can only claim 9.25 per hour same as any other litigant in person unless he can prove loss of earnings.

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn, Spot on as normal. ;)

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have added this :D , I do think its ironic that LIP can only charge at this rate bearing in mind the amount of effort and work involved.

 

Still its better than nowt as they say.

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree entirely with joneshousehold. His status and motivation is irelevant, his cause is what matters. Besides I'm pretty sure the BBC would have checked their facts before describing him as a newly qualified barrister and I don't hear anyone, including the bar, disputing it.

 

As for the banks continuing to operate their charging system, they have no choice, as to back down now would make a mockery of everything they have said and done in the past and open the flood gates to handing out refunds like confetti.

 

They're stuck between a rock and a hard place and Brennans action could

begin the stoning they deserve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

good Lord! Our local Bobby looks about 12 - along with all the "managers" of the estate agencies. At least I would know they may have been to school for another 4 years if they looked 16. And the assistants in mobile phone shops and big "electrical retailers" I'm sure, come straight from playgroup.

So I must be nearing a gazillion years old!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...