Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hobnail you don't know Elms too well yet. I am surprised that they got as close as they did to adding up to 30. I think the poor dears get confused because most other letters they send out are to give 28 days notice. They even  have difficulty with their two times table and often consult with the char lady to confirm that 2 plus 2 equals 4.  Just act on the notion that they are total numpties and you won't be far out.
    • To carry on from the above post it may be helpful to go through their WS using their numbers. 9] motorists do NOT accept the contract when entering the land. First they have to read it and understand it and then they realise that a] "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract. b] the signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the No Stopping signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and the creditor be identified.  10]There is no mention of £100 charge for breaching the No stopping request or if there is it is far too small to read even for a pedestrian. 11] no matter how often VCS say it, it is NOT a contractual clause   22]" the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site". No it hasn't. This is a road leading to the airport. All sorts of people are going to the airport-travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers, buses. It is absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS wth any sort of permissions. The land owners yes, but not VCS . There can be no sort of analogy between a car park and a major thoroughfare where VCS have no place as it is not relevant land.   23] there can be no contract as there is no offer only a prohibition. And it is not relevant land no matter how Mr Walli attempts to prove otherwise. 25] VCS may have won a few times but none quoted was on an airport covered by the RTA and its own Byelaws. They also have lost more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs. 26] First one has to consider if there is a contract. Is it relevant land? No. Does a valid contract exist betweer VCS and Peel? NO.  27] the signage at the bus stop may show the conditions ie  no stopping, and restricted zone but not the terms ie is there a charge for stopping and who is the creditor. The last section of the sign is illegible  29] already stated that a WS between VCS and peel is not a valid document 31] it will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant no matter who was driving. 32] there is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employedd relationship. VCS are muddying the waters because they have no way of transferring the driver's liability to the keeper 33] this a red herring. There is no list of highways at all  on the Highways act 1980 so this is a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. 34] there ican be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. Totally fatuous analogy.  35] yes the landowners can bring in their own terms but what the cannot do is overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. 39] surely the paralegal cannot be that ignorant of PoFA. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and so the specious argument about FGW is rubbish   36] what on earth is he talking about with Permits. There is no mention of permits on the signage and even if there were  would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on No Stopping roads? There are enough examples on CAG to counter act their idiocy on continuing charging the extra £60   46] VCS had NO reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. No valid  contract with the landowners No stopping is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for a motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP so not valid the WS contract does not appear to authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land.   48] what is this guy on? You weren't in a car park you were on a bus stop 59] this case is totally without merit. I am not surprised that the paralegal will not be turning up. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. Could have been said in at least half the time without the repetition and trying to make a case where none was there. One particularly bad example of misdirection was in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear  unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.      
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote...   your defence doesnt need any return of docs.. carefully read what has been posted here and in the other threads i pointed to in your old thread merged here too.   redwood/harwood or STA or brachers.   just use our enhanced google search box.   uni fees is useful too.   this guy is just in front of you    
    • Tech firm CEO Jeff Lawson warns bosses not to make hasty judgements about their employees.View the full article
    • I have just spent last few hours registering and signing up and filling in all the details.   Below is a POC I have drafted.   The defendant is a parcel delivery company DPD (UK) LIMITED On 09/08/2021 the defendant agreed to deliver the claimant's parcel containing a PlayStation 5 Disc Version value £530, to an address in the UK. The delivery fee of £7.79 was paid by the claimant. Parcel tracking number: ???????? Parcel reference no: ????????? The defendant failed to deliver the parcel and have reported it as lost on 20/08/2021. The defendant refuses to refund the full value of the item and the delivery fee. The claimant seeks £530 being the value of the item, £7.79 delivery cost and legal fees.        (Sorry for being stupid but this POC is supposed to go where it says    " Claim details Why you believe you’re owed the money: " right? Reason why I'm asking is because I don't see anywhere it specifically says what are your particulars of claim)   Tomorrow being the 15th day, I will be ready to click it off (assuming the POC is ok)    I have read a few more hermes/packlink etc stories where they were resolved and gives me hope I will regain my lost money.  Will carry on reading up as much as I can.  
  • Our picks

'Claire' v Natwest **WON**


Thailand
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5144 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

Guest NATTIE

thailand with regards to the original post, can i ask if the account is over its limit as we speak? are the benefits the only thing going into the account? What has been the cause of it? was it a charge that took it over the limit or a DD? It the latter make sure she gets a copy of the DD's and Standing Orders on the account which you will be able to have a look through to begin with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Thailand....... welcome on board with nasty west!!! Good luck with this claim.......... I think you're doing a brilliant job already. Best wishes, hedgey xxx :p

  • Haha 1

Can't find what you're looking for? Please have a look at Michael Browne's

A-Z Guide

*** PLEASE NOTE ***

I do not answer queries via PM. If you send me a PM, please include a link to your thread - any advice I am able to offer will be on your thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thailand with regards to the original post, can i ask if the account is over its limit as we speak? are the benefits the only thing going into the account? What has been the cause of it? was it a charge that took it over the limit or a DD? It the latter make sure she gets a copy of the DD's and Standing Orders on the account which you will be able to have a look through to begin with.

 

You know Nat, I called her today because I simply didn't ask enough questions and Lula's Appropriation post was enough to make me realise I debating it wasn't enough and I should get the answers.

 

I don't know the answers to these questions either:rolleyes: I will call again tomorrow and ask. Thanks for the support.( I was just going to wait for statements and see)

 

Nat, I probably should know better - but why does it matter if it was a charge or a DD that took her over? I can instantly see the difference but I am unsure of its worth.

 

Thai

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Thailand....... welcome on board with nasty west!!! Good luck with this claim.......... I think you're doing a brilliant job already. Best wishes, hedgey xxx :p

 

 

Awwwww, thanks:-) Anything to add a nail into the Banks coffins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

at the moment just background info to be honest, it is getting a picture of things which can help. I think once the SAR is fulfilled then the picture will be clearer and i can help more if there are any questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thai, sometimes it takes someone looking it from the outside to see things, ever heard the phrase "cant see the wood for the trees" well your are inside the wood ;-), thats what is so great about this site and the people on it.

 

oh and i have to ask, where on earth is Tangerine country? :D

  • Haha 1

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thats what I thought LOL, didnt we have a chat once about my family history?

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arghhh, I'd have to rely on your memory rather than mine! I did go in the chatroom a fair few times, but real time multi postings left me baffled as to what was being said. I've a feeling we did - but can't quite recall. Note to self *knock the russian fluids on the head* :o LOL x

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi peeps,

 

Well an update rather sooner than I'd thought. I am completely amazed. I haven't really had a good read around the Natwest forums (I will!) so I don't know if this is standard, but Natwest has complied with the SAR in around 7 working days (still pinching myself).

 

I really don't know where to start with the plethora of questions that have been popping in my head over the last couple of hours, whilst highlighting like crazy, but if anybody can help me with a few, I'd sure be grateful. The info and plausible outcomes on all levels is spinning round my head!

 

Right, I'll probably have to subtract some because these charges are all over the shop, and change frequently and are not that clear to me, some may be for service and others are bewildering but, I think this is going to be a potential fast tracker and I've never done that:( ( having seen these fees etc, I can imagine Nasty West loathers are used too it?)

 

The quick calculation comes out at £5283.78 :-x (includes part month charge increases, I assume). I know for sure looking at Natties charges post it is going to over 5K.

 

The first thing that is concerning me is that the statements recieved run from 9th Feb 2001 to 29th December 2006. Why have they gone back too far, and stopped to early - is this tactics? Towards the end of these statements 'Claire' was running up hundreds every month - the figure would surely have been close to 6K if they had provided up until my SAR request.

 

Thanks for any help with this guys.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

Credit management services?? Did the account go there? Also recheck those figures, remember advantage gold cannot be claimed, hint £37, £29, £40.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't seen Credit management services Nat, I don't think (god bless you for being online!)

 

I've seen loads of £37,£29 and £40 and loads of £9's amongst loads of other randoms. How do I find out from the statements if its adv Gold? it just says current account at the top.

 

I'm baffled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

100% it is. There is two threads on the natwest sticky's by my good self that explains them, they may one or two that may not necesarily tie in, post on here and i will answer definitively. But £37, £29, £40 and £9 tell me that i am correct but among the first three of those, there is unarranged borrowing and claimable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I've understood that correctly, there's a fair bit to knock off.

 

Thanks for the help Nat, I'm going to get some serious reading done, and get a better understanding of how Natwest operates, and then post further.

 

Just had anther quick skim through, and all of the above numbers appear at some point, including £14 and £20 Unauth borrowing.

 

Thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Righty ho! I've got my head round all these charges.

 

Its going to be over 5K.

 

Natwest only provided 5 years 11 months despite asking for her entire banking history. I don't yet know how long she has banked with Natwest, but there is a running balance, so it does go back further.

 

I still don't understand why they have only sent up until December 06. If Claire hasn't got those 4 months to hand, I'll see if she's up for giving Joyce Tudor a call. I'm considering a letter to the IC for non-complaince, but will wait for 40 days to be up and phone calls etc. The Natwest fun begins.

 

There is only one charge I'm puzzled with now, £22.50 for 'copy statement fee' in Feb '03 - WTF?!

 

If I can't sort this out easily (re phone calls) I'll seriously look into the power of attorney thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm a happy chappie this evening, I feel mightily relieved.

 

I've spoke to Claire today and managed to find out something that I should have known from the start that relieves me of all the potential problems I was worrying about. I was worried about Appropriaton and what the banks reaction would be (freebirds getting called into the bank was on my mind and having just lost my licence and the distance etc). Also needing signatures re non-compliance, and phone calls etc....

 

I could go on all night about my worrying:) but its all vanished, because it turns out the reason why Natwest only provided statements to Dec 06 is because the account was closed then (even though I don't see a closing balance?) She is now with RBS and in no cycle of charges.

 

So, I'll put in prelim in the next couple of days - the statements do go back beyond 6 years - just - but I think I've read they'll either pay them or they won't.

 

Has anyone any opinion on the £22.50 copy statement fee before I charge on?

 

Cheers,

 

Thai

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

Yes, it was £2.50 per sheet minimum charge £5 at one point which changed about a year or two ago to £5 per request

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Nat.

 

Prelim ready to off tomorrow, £4874 as ADV gold and I missed bank refung took it under. Claiming 23/02/2001 - 06/11/2006.

 

My BP wasn't doing to well when I noticed they had taken £538 in April 05, and similar around those months.

 

Gits!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Evening, good Caggers.

 

I'm having a little prob with this claim and wondered if someone could aid me in a little advice. The logistical one has been overcome, but I'm finding myself in an area I've never been into before, nor ever read about (I have read exactly where the info lies on HMCS, but its not sinking in!)

 

When I submitted my mums YB claim, it was via EX160 (exemption) and as she qualified, it was pretty straight forward. However, as this lady claims Serious Disability Allowance - she doesn't qualify, it sucks I know, but they must know why thats the case, as I don't. Which leads me to my question.

 

I now have to consider Remission (another way of getting this claim raised for free, or reduced), as this lady can no way afford it.

 

As I've said, I read the info - but I've got alot on my mind at the mo and it just refuses to answer my questions! HELP!

 

Anyone in the know know about Remission?.She has a wage (from partner) coming in at around 750-800 PCM, and her SDA. As this is is not from Income support with Serious Disabily Element, she simply won't get Exemption.

 

I realise its a tricky one, and I can ring the court - but I did that today and it was like banging my head against a brick wall - its all about circumstance and income/expenditure which I can appreciate.

 

I guess I'm asking if anyone out there has any experience in this, and what might be the best way forward?. Spoke to 'Claire' again today and is still not getting charged at new bank (not possible she says, I hope so), but I know for a fact - and having just done her income/expeniture, she can't afford the fees.

 

Anyone any ideas? :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Looking for a bit of advice:D

 

I haven't got round to submitting Court claim yet, the main reason being fees. Also problems with remission.

 

This shouldn't be a problem as I have an offer of 93% on my lap which 'Claire' is desperate to accept, and has signed the acceptance.

 

My concern is that it says 'paid into your account' which is closed, and that that it doesn't appear to be time bound.

 

I'm thinking I should write in stating as the account is closed, payment should be via check, and within 14 days.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Jeez, the letter could almost be generic:rolleyes: even though they have clearly reviewed this case. (Just forgot she doesn't even bank with them)

 

Thai

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you could write back stating that you accept on condition that the money is paid via cheque for deposited into XXX account, dont forget about not accepting any confidentiality clauses and not being able to claim again, but if it is not stated in the letter then dont worry about it, oh and very well done :-)

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...