Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Okay, have you ever sued anybody before? I can imagine that they will start off by trying to settle your claim out of court. Normally speaking if you refuse to accept their offer then you would be at risk of having to pay their costs even though you would win your judgement because the court would take the view that there was no point in going to litigation because everything you had asked for had been put on the table. However in this case, because first of all it would be a statutory breach – and secondly, because I would expect that the storage of your personal data would continue even after they settled, I think you would have a reasonable basis for continuing the action and the cost rules are that if there is a reasonable basis for refusing an offer and continuing the claim then the court can decide not to award costs against you. However it is a risk – albeit a very small one.
    • Let's go for it ! At no point have they spoken to me as the ombudsman had put in her findings the whole policy was controlled by the brother they haven't even completed basic data protection never spoken to me until the default notices started arriving  I gave them authorisation to speak to my sibling at that point as I had no idea what this policy was about  I'm happy to follow your lead @BankFodder
    • Okay this is excellent. This means that we have a pretty will open and shut case in terms of inaccurate data processing. I can imagine that this is an extremely distressing experience and by coincidence, breach of data protection rules is one of the very rare areas where you can claim against a data processor to recover damages simply for distress. I think that we can begin this campaign against Aviva by suing them under the data protection act. How does that sound to you?
    • I think that the letter you are proposing is not a good idea. You are presently occupying the moral high ground and not only do you want to keep the moral high ground but also you want to strengthen that moral position. Your letter is heading directly into confrontation and without giving any opportunities for them to reconsider their position. I know that they have had lots of opportunities already, but there is no problem with going an extra mile. You say that the letter I have suggested is "weak" – but actually you have misunderstood the letter. Your letter imposes extremely owners conditions and yet they are not at all unreasonable because basically you are simply asking that the whole thing be done and supervised by an independent third party. If they are confident about their workmanship and any proposed remedial action then they would be happy to do this. If they are not confident about it then they will object. Frankly I think that they won't accept the conditions and in that case you will be free to go ahead and issue of proceedings but you will be able to show the court that you have bent over backwards to accommodate them. There is no court at all which would criticise you for requiring supervision by an independent third party. Any judge would be puzzled as to why these builders refuse to accept a very reasonable condition which really is an attempt to mediate the situation, to assure that there is transparency in all dealings and to put an end to the dispute once and for all. Your ultimate goal is to get your patio sorted out to a proper professional standard. If they agreed to third-party supervision then this is what will happen – and if it doesn't, then you will have 1/3 party involved who will give their own professional opinion that the workers not been completed either on time or to a reasonable standard and this will give you enormous power if you then eventually go to litigate against them. I'm afraid that your proposal – which is to now refuse any opportunity to remedy the situation outside the court process and to reject the idea of independent supervision means that you are starting to deal with them in the same way that they deal with you – head-on and without any subtle diplomacy. Don't forget that at the end of the day, once the matter settled, you are going to have to find somebody else to address all the problems and to go through all that hassle of having to monitor the standards of some other building company – and without the benefit of third-party supervision. If Lords agree to your conditions (unlikely) then it means that you will be in a position where you have the work completed – subject to independent third-party supervision with no skin in the game and you can then be confident that it is going to be done to a satisfactory standard. If you simply sue Lords, then you are still left with a defective patio and when you put the work out to another firm of builders, there will be no possibility of independent supervision. By the way I'm amending the letter above to include a provision that in view of the defective workmanship which has been caused by them, they will pay the cost of the supervision. Frankly there is not a hope in hell that they will accept these conditions – even though they are extremely reasonable. That will leave you in a position where you can still proceed and issue your claim at the end of 21 days but you will have acquired a very substantial moral asset in your case against them. You need to look at the broader picture. It's really quite delicious.
    • @BankFodder yes that's correct I've never dealt with Aviva the details they've used are my name address and date of birth that's all they hold the rest is details of the sibling 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Aninha Vs Nationwide

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5221 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hi everyone!

I filed my claim on MCOL on 29.05.07. Just checked today and my claim has been issued.


I was just wondering if I enter Judgement By Default or by Admission?


If so, does have to be done now or shall I wait for 14 or 28 days?


I confused! Please advice.


Thank you.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aninha


You have to wait i'm affraid, it won't let you enter judgement until after the time period. There are some links below to help you get around the site. Look for the MCOL one for guidance.



  • Haha 1


Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for not replying earlier. Still trying to figure out how to get around the site!!!

Thank you for the helpful links!!!



Link to post
Share on other sites

im new to this site but also bank with nationwide,ive foned them today asking for my statements and they told me they would cost £5 each!!!im also worried about my overdraft of £1000 once i start the claims process,ive opened another acc with tsb just a basic one,but the overdraft is my biggest worry i wish you well with your claim!


Link to post
Share on other sites

ive read through loads tonite,ive done my letter and my schedule,it totals £1349!!!im nervous about it all but cant believe ive paid that much in just 2 1/2 years.


Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...