BankHater Business v NatWest

[zootscoot]

No worries I'm always getting mistaken for a man on here

I have done a new POC and put it in the templates library here:

New POC NatWest *business* account


I woudn't do anything for the moment until you here from the court. If they do have a case management conference then take along a copy of the new PoC and the draft orders for directions if you have not submitted them already.

It is quite normal for NatWest to request a CMC and then settle just before hand.

As this is a business claim and you can only rely on penalties rather than UTCCRs, the charges imposed since the restructuring of the T &Cs are a little more vulnerable. As the claim is fast track you might consider dropping any later charges before the claim gets to court to avoid any costs implications. I would hold out for a full offer for as long as possible first.

All the best

Zoot

[BankLover_not]

Thank you Zoot,

I will look over your revised Business POC and take on board your advice.

Thanks again for your help.

BankLover_not

[BankLover_not]

Hi Zoot,

Thanks again for the help so far. Just to let you know the charges range from October 2001 - June 2005. So I'm hoping NatWest's change in T&C's won't affect the claim detrimentally, what are your thoughts? In addition my girlfriend's brother had a business account but a lot of his charges are Unarranged Borrowing Fees, Lloyds TSB have put loads of these charges on his business account between 2001 - 2006. The reason I am mentioning this is that you asked me before about Unarranged Borrowing Fees, are these not reclaimable?

Thanks.

BankLover_not

[zootscoot]

Thanks again for the help so far. Just to let you know the charges range from October 2001 - June 2005. So I'm hoping NatWest's change in T&C's won't affect the claim detrimentally, what are your thoughts?

No they shouldn't have any affect on your claim at all so you could remove any reference to them if you do need to amend your POC.

The reason I am mentioning this is that you asked me before about Unarranged Borrowing Fees, are these not reclaimable?

It depends on the wording of the T & Cs for each bank. With business claims because you can only rely on the common law, you have to establish a clear breach of contract. You could raise the argument of disguised penalty but this is less straight forward and may not succeed in court. Having said that the banks so far have paid out on all charges.

[andrew1]

Actually Zootscoot, this is an interesting take on claims. I know this is not a business account I am referring to but I wrote to HBOS about a credit card account and argued the point that they were obliged under common law not to exceed a liquidated loss and unless they could confirm exactly what their liquidated loss was the penalties should be refunded in full + interest - they have written back stating " With regard to your comments regarding our 'liquidated loss' I must advise you that we are under no legal obligation to provide this information to our customers and therefore I am not in a position to respond to the request for information you have requested"

They also refuse to pay ANY interest, but have made a 'goodwill Offer' to refund charges only.


Why is common law okay for a business, but not for a consumer account?


Just curious.

[steven4064]

Originally Posted by andrew1

They also refuse to pay ANY interest, but have made a 'goodwill Offer' to refund charges only.

Why is common law okay for a business, but not for a consumer account?

Two points: We had the same thing with GE Money - godwill offer of charges but flat refusal to pay interest. So we just poressed on with LBA and court and guess waht? THey paid up the interest too.

Secondly, the common law applies just as much to consumer accounts. It is just that, for business accounts, that's all there is. For consumer accounts you have (for the time being at least) the UTCCR 1999 as well.

[andrew1]

Thanks Steven, It's interesting isn't it? I have written back, despite the fact they say it's their final position blah blah, and stated that they might feel they have no legal obligation to me, but if and when I take it to court I will request full disclosure and they will have to let the court and DJ know what their liquidated loss is, they can either tell me, the court or pay up in full - their choice. Failure to pay up will mean taking the N1 route which I am happy to do, but it will also mean that if they choose to play silly beggars and take this to the court steps and THEN decide to pay up, I will inform the court of their intimidation and waste and abuse of the court process. What do you think the odds will be they'll pay up as a ' goodwill gesture' before then?

I feel quite strongly (rightly or wrongly) about this because it goes right back to the very beginning of the forum principle with bank claims that it relates to Common Law - why should common law not hold water? It's almost like this aspect has been over-shadowed by the OFT & UTCC

Sorry Bank_lover not - didn't mean to hijack your thread..

.

[BankLover_not]

That's fine Andrew,

But can we all please just stick to helping me from now on.

Many Thanks.

BankLover_not






(joke)

[bambers]

Hi

I am in a very similar position to you. Against NatWest for £17,000 on our business account 2002-2006 - Limited company.

I have had a judgement against them in default, but they applied to have that set aside and asked for a stay at the same time.

I attended the hearing today and they sent an agent to represent them. The judge allowed the set aside but would not allow the stay. We are now waiting for allocation questionnaires. The judge agreed with me that the defence was full of holes but advised we take legal advice and also that we consider filing a (not sure what its called CPR 36??) to make an offer to pay what we consider reasonable charges and just claim for the difference, in order to protect our costs. He also advised that we ought to try and mediate with cobetts!! - I guess this would be very difficult, they are still saying they don't know details of the account or charges we are claiming for, after being sent them 3 times!

Just thought you might llike to know we are in almost exactly the same boat - and could possibly help each other

regards

Bambers

[elsinore]

Originally Posted by bambers

He also advised that we ought to try and mediate with cobetts!! - I guess this would be very difficult, they are still saying they don't know details of the account or charges we are claiming for, after being sent them 3 times!

Hi bambers, well done for holding off a stay.

What grounds did Cobbetts use to have the judgment set aside?

Els

[elsinore]

Also , as this thread is Bankover_not's, I'll ask if your post can be moved to create your own thread.

Els

[andrew1]

Originally Posted by BankLover_not

That's fine Andrew,

But can we all please just stick to helping me from now on.

Many Thanks.

BankLover_not


(joke)

Many a true word said in jest eh els?

[bambers]

Hi

They fully accepted it was a clerical error on their part (they failed to acknowledge service after we re-issued POC ommitting UTCCRs) but they argued they had "a real prospect of defending the claim" - pretty basic really - I tried to argue that they did not intend to defend the claim and had been settling many claims of this nature prior to hearing, but the judge seemed to think this irrelavant and that they could not be blamed for seeing the commercial aspect of settling claims prior to court. I pointed out all the usual 'abuse of court process' charges were within statue of limitations (they say not - probably a template error), but all the same he has given the 3 weeks to put forward a "proper defence".

We got cost for today though £120.

Any advice?

Bambers - annoyed and confused!!!

[BankLover_not]

Hello again guys,

I spoke to a solicitor today who was very kind and gave me almost an hour of his time - free! He even did quite a bit of research for me and came back to me later.

I am concerned however because he affirmed that business claims rely on common law only but if I have mentioned in my POC s.4 Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and s.15 Sales of Goods and Services Act 1982, as I did do, then he told me that iot might be a good idea to make an official ammendment and pay the £40. The reason being that if I have put pleadings in my case that should not be relied on or will be thrown out as they have no relevance so apparently the other side can ask for costs 9wasted costs or asomething). However I remember you saying Zoot that I shouldn't worry about this. Do you still think I should let it go or do this official amemdement asking if Cobbetts will agree to it.

Thanks.

BankLover_not

[BankLover_not]

Hi Bambers,

Just seen your thread. Nice to meet you. If I can be of any help then please ask away, we are at the early stages of our court claim but have already had dealings with Cobbetts. You are more than welcome to stay on this thread you never know we may be able to help each other.

BankLover_not