Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I googled "prescribed disability" to see where it is defined for the purposes of S.92. I found HMRC's definition, which included deafness. I don't  think anyone is saying deaf people cant drive, though! digging deeper,  Is it that “prescribed disability” (for the purposes of S.88 and S.92) is defined at: The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations consolidate with amendments the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996...   ….. and sleep apnoea / increased daytime sleepiness is NOT included there directly as a condition but only becomes prescribed under “liability to sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting” (but falling asleep isn't fainting!), so it isn’t defined there as a “prescribed disability”  Yet, under S.92(2)(b) RTA 1988 “ any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of a licence to be a source of danger to the public" So (IMHO) sleep apnea / daytime sleepiness MIGHT be a prescribed disability, but only if it causes likelihood of "driving being a source of danger to the public" : which is where meeting / not meeting the medical standard of fitness to drive comes into play?  
    • You can counter a Judges's question on why you didn't respond by pointing out that any company that charges you with stopping at a zebra crossing is likely to be of a criminal mentality and so unlikely to cancel the PCN plus you didn't want to give away any knowledge you had at that time that could allow them to counteract your claim if it went to Court. There are many ways in which you can see off their stupid claim-you will see them in other threads  where our members have been caught by Met at other airports as well as Bristol.  Time and again they take motorists to Court for "NO Stopping" apparently completely forgetting that the have lost doing that because no stopping is prohibitory and cannot form a contract. Yet they keep on issuing PCNs because so many people just pay up . Crazy . You can see what chuckleheads they are when you read their Claim form which is pursuing you as the driver or the keeper. they don't seem to understand that on airport land because of the Bye laws, the keeper is never liable.   
    • The video-sharing app told the BBC that a "very limited" number of accounts had been compromised.View the full article
    • The King is the second monarch to appear on Bank of England notes which will be fed gradually into the system.View the full article
    • The King is the second monarch to appear on Bank of England notes which will be fed gradually into the system.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

Oh My God! They Paid Up!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6554 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

TOTAL REFUND ASKED FOR £1241 TOTAL REFUND GIVEN £1241

 

Hi,

Just to let you all know, 9 days following my pre-lim letter, (wasnt the same as on here i just quoted the relevant parts to make them realise i was serious) i received a letter from Stuart Higley with the following text

''Before I address the various points you have made, after due consideration, we have agreed to refund charges totalling £1,241, as you asked''

 

Oh my god!

They asked for me to either close my account or change it to a basic account as a condition, however they were the only conditions.

 

Now, on with my second claim!

12th May DPA sent to Natwest

17th May pre-lim sent £1241

26th May Full refund offered

27th May Accepted!!

on with next....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! Congratulations!!

 

I've had 2 letters from Mr Higley and he didn't even offer me a penny!!

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SM_yupi3ti.gif

 

 

Donations gratefully accepted...smiley2.gif

If you have found this post (or any other post) useful ensure you click on the scales in the top right of that post to give credit where credit is due.:D

 

DO YOU HAVE A WEBSITE AND WANT TO PROVIDE A VALUABLE LINK TO THIS FORUM ? Go to this thread:-http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=52854

 

As ever, with (I believe most if not) all advice given on this website, I am not qualified to give any advice and you are duly warned that any decisions are your own decisions made on your own account and no liability will be accepted for any advice followed ! Use your own judgment.

Seek advice of a qualified, insured, professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW. Well done you!!

NatWest - £3702.94 - Won.. Done and Dusted!!

Lloyds - £771.52 - Nearly there...

 

The Daily Mirror, GMTV, Granada Reports........

Hollywood Next!

 

Check out how I re-claimed my unlawfull bank charges:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/NatWest-bank/4797-stephanie-NatWest-i-i.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's great. any chance of posting the text from your letter so we can see what the differences were?

If you found this post useful please click on the scales above.

 

Egg - £400 - Prelim sent. On hold.

Mint - On the list Est £800

GE Capital - On the list (3 accounts!) Est £4000

 

MBNA - £545 Prelim sent 13/11/2006

LBA sent 1/12/2006

£350 partial payment received 18/12/2006.

Full settlement received 20/1/07

 

NatWest - Est £4000 not incl interest

Data Protection Act Sent 10/1/07

Statements received 24/1/07

Prelim sent 3/2/07

Full Settlement received 22/2/07

 

The contents of this post are the sole opinions of The Cornflake and not necessarily the opinions of any other members of this group. They do not constitute sound legal or financial advice and if in doubt you are advised to seek advice from a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont want to bump this thread really, but feel ignorant not replying, my letter was personal, in that i drafted a bit form the 'bankchargeshell' website...a bit from the govan law website a bit from here and then added a bit of my own (just to confuse them)!!...as in ''You have taken ...% ''of my income and as the legal amount by law that we are expected to live on is ''...'' this brings me below the legal minimum to live on..etc'' The important factor in this is that you state that these charges are punative and therefore illegal, its important to spend time reading through as many posts as possible and taking in as much information as possible, be prepared, fight for what is yours and stand your ground. As Bookworm' said 'ITS MY MONEY';) stick to that thought and go on...and put that thought forward in your letter..but make the legal stuff prominant and make it sound like you know what youre talking about...if you dont then READ UP you soon will!

  • Confused 1

12th May DPA sent to Natwest

17th May pre-lim sent £1241

26th May Full refund offered

27th May Accepted!!

on with next....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that's interesting. I read somewhere that according to the banking code they have to ensure you have enough money left in your account each month to live on. It was on a houses of parliament website in some evidence given by some high-up monkey on the board that set the code so it must have some truth but I've read the code and can't find it mentioned anywhere.

 

Even though the code is just an agreed-to set of guidelines and not legally binding no bank would want to be seen to be breaking the code.

 

Possibly this is a new angle to investigate - I haven't heard of Natwest refunding this much in full before now.

 

I've been reading up for the last couple of months now and doing my own legal investigation so I'm well aware of the laws used so far. I have a LOT to claim from Natwest and I really want to get it right so I intend to check every possibly avenue. I just haven't heard of this approach being used yet.

 

Is there really a legal amount by law you are expected to live on? Any legal terms that I could search for would be most helpful.

If you found this post useful please click on the scales above.

 

Egg - £400 - Prelim sent. On hold.

Mint - On the list Est £800

GE Capital - On the list (3 accounts!) Est £4000

 

MBNA - £545 Prelim sent 13/11/2006

LBA sent 1/12/2006

£350 partial payment received 18/12/2006.

Full settlement received 20/1/07

 

NatWest - Est £4000 not incl interest

Data Protection Act Sent 10/1/07

Statements received 24/1/07

Prelim sent 3/2/07

Full Settlement received 22/2/07

 

The contents of this post are the sole opinions of The Cornflake and not necessarily the opinions of any other members of this group. They do not constitute sound legal or financial advice and if in doubt you are advised to seek advice from a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the legal minimum amount to 'live' on is set by the government in benefits, so if you have a look at the amounts on there website..for example a single person minimum requirement is xx amount, married couple xx amount..with 1 child xx and so on. That has to be the ground rule. When I totted up my income over the year and then deducted there charges it left me 10% below those figures. Hope this helps.

12th May DPA sent to Natwest

17th May pre-lim sent £1241

26th May Full refund offered

27th May Accepted!!

on with next....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Natwest took so many charges off my daughter she and her baby were left below the mimimum for a couple of months,but we'll get 'um.

Sent Data Protection Act to Halifax 13.6.06

Daughters Data Protection Act sent to NatWest 5.6.06

Natwest sent statements on 24.6.06 Daughter owed £204.00 Preliminary ready to go.

Halifax sent my statements today(26.6.06) Owe me £1702.00

Preliminary sent on 27. 6.06.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well done. I ope it works

 

 

 

 

 

Dont want to bump this thread really, but feel ignorant not replying, my letter was personal, in that i drafted a bit form the 'bankchargeshell' website...a bit from the govan law website a bit from here and then added a bit of my own (just to confuse them)!!...as in ''You have taken ...% ''of my income and as the legal amount by law that we are expected to live on is ''...'' this brings me below the legal minimum to live on..etc'' The important factor in this is that you state that these charges are punative and therefore illegal, its important to spend time reading through as many posts as possible and taking in as much information as possible, be prepared, fight for what is yours and stand your ground. As Bookworm' said 'ITS MY MONEY';) stick to that thought and go on...and put that thought forward in your letter..but make the legal stuff prominant and make it sound like you know what youre talking about...if you dont then READ UP you soon will!
Link to post
Share on other sites

My daughter too was left with less than the minimum requirement to live on

Her pay went in one day and by the next there was £6 left for the week. Good eh?

We're nearly there - had an offer of £1000 - less than half, so writing the "no thank you see you in court" letter whilst keeping an eye on this brilliant site!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...