tifo v NatWest (business account)

[tifo]

It also says they 'cannot locate any overdraft agreements'. Does this mean they cannot claim the £1400 overdraft on the account, which would be wiped out anyway if they pay me what i am asking for?

By paying £700 into my personal account, there will be nothing going towards the business account, except maybe the £420 offer they have sent me, which i will ask them to pay into my personal account. Then, i may receive an offer of £700 from NatWest as the RBS offer is for different reasons, they say. It's confusing.

I've been paying £2.00 a month towards my business overdraft which they've been paying back into my personal account, which makes me think they're confused somewhere. Now they've said there is no overdraft agreement. I hope they mean the business account because i have no overdraft on my personal account.

[tifo]

I'm going to accept their offer of £700 charges refund and £250 compensation for putting account on hold, to be paid into my personal account so at least it doesn't get swallowed into the business overdraft, for which they've admitted they have no agreement.

They'll send me a full set of statements to confirm all charges have been paid, so at least I have some comeback if it turns out they've paid me less.

The £250 makes up for the interest they're not paying.

So i've got £950 and a £1,400 overdraft still remains which they've never chased for years anyway, as i've been paying a nominal amount towards it. No default exists for this.

Makes sense to write to the Chief Exec's Office if anyone has RBS group complaints.

[photoman]

Tifo,

Have you seen lancasterchelseas great Business account claim win ?

Just shows that Business claims are very much back on track !!


PM


lancasterchelsea v. Lloyds/business (1995-1998) ***WON***

[steven4064]

Not wanting to pour cold water, but I thing there were special features in lancasterchelsea's win. The judge caused confusion by splitting the limitation issue and taking that first.

If he had decided to do it the other way round - ie unlawful charges first and then the limitations issue, Lloyds could have applied for the charges case to be dismissed under CPR 3.4(2) on the grounds that there is not sufficient cause of action (OFT case saus they are not penalties - although there is still the issue of historic terms I suppose but I don't hold out much hope there) and then had the limitations issue dropped as irrelevant.

By going the way round he did, the judge prevented this line of attack - they would have had to go to court (which we know they won't do) and argue the limitations issue in isolation - hence the cave in.

Of course, I may be wrong.

This line of attack could be used by others but it would rely on getting a judge who would respond in the same way - 50-50 at best IMHO.