Claiming on a Business account? Lets join forces?

[photoman]

Originally Posted by steven4064

Maybe. Ideally, you would like a condition that said "You must not exceed you overdraft limit"

Agreed.
The terminology could maybe be construed as a bit ambiguous, and if before a judge it would perhaps come down to their interpretation. However, I do believe that they would make a reasonable interpretation of the evidence and agree with such arguments.

Do bear in mind, that I am only presently posting this stuff up, and having this debate for the benefit of others, as my own claim relating to my Business account is satisfactorily settled.
So hopefully others yet to complete the process will have use of what I have posted and am making available.

However....

I do still have a couple of personal account claims yet to deal with, and as these pre-date the UTCCR, then they will need to be raised and contested upon the issues of penalty at common law.

...... and I DO actually have some very real, very implicitly worded actual signed T&C's from way back, which VERY CLEARLY DO state that I am not permitted to exceed any stated and agreed limit upon the accounts..... and then some letters subsequently received upon exceeding such limits, which then present the exorbitant resultant charges as arising due to their costs involved.
I am unwilling to publicly post them up here at the moment until matters are further progressed, but I could email them to you ?

[TheyrCriminals]

Originally Posted by steven4064

Maybe. Ideally, you would like a condition that said "You must not exceed you overdraft limit"

I am pretty sure you will find this phrase in every single banks' terms and conditions.

TheyrCriminals

[photoman]

Not necessarily phrased so implicitly.

For example in the page I posted earlier it states:

You should always discuss any borrowing requirements in advance.

They could perhaps plead that this is just advisory.
They could claim that it just merely advises you to (but not actually insists upon) your discussing any and all borrowing in advance.
It could perhaps be construed (or misconstrued) that it does not necessarily implicitly forbid any borrowing without arrangement.
ie: It is phrased as you "should" discuss, rather than you "must" discuss.

They would try to claim such terminology would still allow for excess borrowing without prior agreement to occur whilst still being within the contract terms (at their discretion of course).
They would then argue that this is why they publish terms and describe such an event as "unauthorised" borrowing, and vis a vis then claim the consideration and provision of such was by way of a "service", and the charge is a fee for such.
(........ except.... why did they then later present them as costs) ??

This may or may not all be agreed as being the case by a judge.
We already know that the judge in the OFT case dismissed the service charge defence, plus the fact that they publish one thing, and then later present it another way, would I hope be seen through as the smokescreen it is.

Anyhow, it would be far better and less open to interpretation if it stated that borrowing without prior arrangement was "not" allowed.
eg: "You MUST always discuss any borrowing in advance"
or "Borrowing without prior arrangement is NOT allowed"

[steven4064]

We are looking at a different approach to business claims - not quite 'cooked' yes though

[gandolfi]

Hello Photoman, steven4064 and all other Business claimants.

I'm hoping it will be possible for my thread...

Gandolfi v NatWest

...to be moved over to the Business Claims forum.

The most recent post on my (very long) thread gives a summary of the case so far. My Counterclaim against NatWest is a combination of 70% Business 30% Personal account claims for charges. The case is currently stayed.

I'd really appreciate you guys taking a look - any advice regarding my options post-OFT would be appreciated (especially as the two accounts are being claimed as part of one counterclaim).

Apologies for posting this within your thread Photoman.
Thanks and best wishes,
Gandolfi

[photoman]

Originally Posted by gandolfi

Hello Photoman, steven4064 and all other Business claimants.

I'm hoping it will be possible for my thread...

Gandolfi v NatWest

...to be moved over to the Business Claims forum.

The most recent post on my (very long) thread gives a summary of the case so far. My Counterclaim against NatWest is a combination of 70% Business 30% Personal account claims for charges. The case is currently stayed.

I'd really appreciate you guys taking a look - any advice regarding my options post-OFT would be appreciated (especially as the two accounts are being claimed as part of one counterclaim).

Apologies for posting this within your thread Photoman.
Thanks and best wishes,
Gandolfi

Gandolfi,

Firstly, no need to make any kind of apology for posting in this thread.

I do not consider it to be my own thread.
Although I started it up, it was always intended to be for the use of all business claimants, as a a place to exchange ideas and experiences, develop tactics, update others on your own progress and plead for help if need be.
So post away.

CAG now have a Business forum, which is great news.
This thread is now included in this forum, as it has through its life had some very valuable and useful contributions from lots of Business claimants, Mods, helpers etc, so is still a useful resource and a potted history of Business claims so far.
Hopefully it will remain to be so.

I'm sure Steven or someone will be able to move your own thread into this Forum.
I'll take a peek myself if I get a chance.

Best regards

PM

[gandolfi]

Thanks PM
It's quite a complex case, so I didn't want to completely take over
Cheers,
Gandolfi

[steven4064]

Gandolfi - thread moved - Gandolfi v NatWest

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,

Bit of a result here. My friends just got an offer of settlement on a business account from HSBC Bank plc. Not a very good offer though - 25%.

TheyrCriminals

[steven4064]

That's interesting

[photoman]

Originally Posted by TheyrCriminals

Hi Guys,

Bit of a result here. My friends just got an offer of settlement on a business account from HSBC Bank plc. Not a very good offer though - 25%.

TheyrCriminals

Agree,
Yes interesting.
Also especially interesting in respect of the fact that this is very probably subject to an acceptance within the next 14 days ? (ie: prior to the announcement re historic terms... which although primarily focused toward personal accounts, will have some indication upon how Business accounts may be viewed).

Can you post some more info?
ie: What was the size of the claim?
Was it likely to to end up as a Small Claims Track case or go Fast or Multi?
How far had the claim gone? Was it just a filing of papers, or had AQ's been filed?
What was the total claim size for?
Was it just the charges, or was it the charges plus statutory 8%, or another rate?
What was the total claim, and what actual amount does the 25% work out at actually being?

Methinks there may be some uncertainty within their camp.... but it would be useful to know a bit more info before drawing any conclusions.
PM

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Photoman,

I now have the details. Claim came to £2,500 with 8% statutory interest. They had got to the LBA stage, so obviously at that stage not entitled to interest. Their claim before interest was £2,000. They really don't know whether to accept or not!!!!!

TheyrCriminals

[photoman]

So, Does that mean they have been offered £500 ?

IMHO, if it were me, I would not accept.
I would then go ahead and file a claim (but perhaps wait to see what develops over coming weeks, and also think about what to now use for a POC. I gather from Stevens post earlier that CAG are working on some new approaches and POC's for Business claims, so watch this space).

For a £2000 claim, it is likely to end up Small claims, which would afford them the benefit of protection against costs. So, it is not in the Banks interest to see it progress to court, even if they thought they could win.

I think the Bank are also wary that there is still some basis for Business claims, and so rather than face the extra costs involved with litigation are trying to get this sorted before it goes to an actual claim, and so trying it on.

Of course, this is just my own view, and what I would probably do.
It is of course up to each individual to make their own choice.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Photoman,

Thanks for that. Yes the offer was just over £500. I guess, for the time being, they may as well wait for the judgement on historical terms and conditions as regards penalties and take it from there.

TheyrCriminals