My own NatWest claim

[Fred_Funk]

steven4064 et al

Hi! I've been following this thread and the parallel thread (Contractual Interest - Precedent - LOST) with great interest for a week or two now.


My circumstances are very similar to yours in that I'm chasing NatWest for for unlawful bank charges, as well as interest incurred as a result of those charges and contractual interest (compounded) on both.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/general/95909-particulars-claim-when-asking.html

I was arguing for CI on the basis of mutuality and reciprocity which, it would seem, is now doomed to failure. I'd already got as far as submitting my N1 but rather fortuitously, as it happens, it was returned to me as my application for the court fee to be remitted was rejected.

That being the case, I'm now looking to resubmit it but will now be arguing for CI on the basis that it represents an equitable remedy to NatWest having profited from a fiduciary position, contrary to common law.

I ought to say at this point, I'm a journalist with little or no understanding of the law and it has taken me a long, long while to grasp this argument - indeed I would never have done so without all the help and advice you and others have offered on this thread and elsewhere - but I think I'm finally getting there.

Suffice to say, I'm now preparing to resubmit my court claim and am seeking some reassurance as to how best I should fill it in. As regards my 'Brief details of claim', I've removed the paragraph referring to CI on the basis of mutuality and reciprocity and intend to replace it with the following...

The Claimant claims contractual interest (compounded) at a rate of 29.5% per annum from March 2001 to June 2007 as an equitable remedy to the defendant having, contrary to common law, profited from a fiduciary position.

Does that seem okay? And, assuming it is, how much more detail do I need to add to this in my 'Particulars of claim' which I'm hoping to put together tonight?

Thanks in anticipation of your continuing help and co-operation
Fred_Funk

[hedgey06]

Hi Fred-Funk............ Steven's away on business this week - but I'm sure he'll respond as soon as he gets back.

[Fred_Funk]

hedgey06

Thanks for letting me know - I thought he'd been a bit quiet these last few days.

In anycase, you, clearly, know a thing or two about all this; what do you reckon to what I've written above?!

Fred_Funk

[steven4064]

Hi Fred

I've juts dropped in between coming back from a business trip and going on holiday tomorrow. I am exploring this way forward at the moment both on CAG and off. My claim is at the LBA stage and I would intend to godown this route when it comes to making a court claim. What that all boils down to is that I have not quite decided on the ddetails yet.

Your brief PoC looks OK and I don't think you need much more in your main PoC. Where it will be necessary to get it really right is in the Statement of Evidence. It could be that you are a couple of weeks ahead of me. If you PM me with your e-mail address I'll forward some stuff I was sent.

Which court are you claiming through BTW.

Also I should point out that I haven't got any legal training either. I have however, sought some legal advice (not come yet though).

Steven

If this post is helpful, please click the scales

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability.
Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site.

[Micky the Hippo]

didn't cankster get a stiff slap from his judge on his arguments for CI?

one of which was that 'a fiduciary position' did not exist

I may be wrong but I think that was part of the judge's argument

ooh, and Steve, can I see that too, I'm waiting for acknowledgement from NatWest any day now

ta much

[Fred_Funk]

steven4064

I've sent you a PM. Look forward to your response.

Fred_Funk

[hedgey06]

Hi Steven - have a lovely holiday hun! See ya when you're back. xx

[steven4064]

Originally Posted by Micky the Hippo

didn't cankster get a stiff slap from his judge on his arguments for CI?

one of which was that 'a fiduciary position' did not exist

I may be wrong but I think that was part of the judge's argument

ooh, and Steve, can I see that too, I'm waiting for acknowledgement from NatWest any day now

ta much

Look on Contractual Interest - Precedent - LOST for arguements regarding fiduciary position

It doesn't apply across the board but there is case law for it applying to the payment of cheques and therefore by analogy to DDs and SOs too.

Steven

If this post is helpful, please click the scales

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability.
Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site.

[steven4064]

Originally Posted by hedgey06

Hi Steven - have a lovely holiday hun! See ya when you're back. xx

Thanks hedgey - only away for a week

Steven

If this post is helpful, please click the scales

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability.
Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site.

[hedgey06]

Well thank God you're back my friend! How the devil are you, how was your hol and how's the claim going!!!

[steven4064]

Got back from hols to find not one, but TWO letters from Stu saying they will get back to me in 6-7 weeks. I don't think so!!


Steven

If this post is helpful, please click the scales

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability.
Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site

[hedgey06]

Two letters? From Stu himself? Well how special do you feel right now!

I take it you won't be waiting dear?

[steven4064]

When I say from Stu, it's his name printed on the letter with a squiggle that looks like it says "Minging" above.

(and no, I won't be waiting - like you thought I might!!!)

Steven

If this post is helpful, please click the scales

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability.
Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site

[hedgey06]

Minging? Now there's a thought. Perhaps we should addressing our letters to the Borehamwood minger!

Ignore me....... I'm just glad to see you back! xxx

[steven4064]

OK. 14 days are up. With recent developments I am reviewing where I go with this. The claim is for only 3 charges: an 'unarranged borrowing fee' on my personal account and 2 'referrals' on my business account, all from the time when I set up in business on my own and cash-flow was a bit haphazard.

Here's what I am thinking:

1) The unarranged borrowing fee is (now) the most obviously a contract penalty and therefore the subject of the OFT case.

2) The other 2 may or may not be contract penalties, depending on the wording of the T&Cs - I think they are in NatWest's case. However, they both refer to DDs, for which I am convinced the bank is in a fiduciary relationship and therefore, under common law, not allowed to make an unauthorised profit.

So what I think I will do is:

1) Drop the unauthorised overdraft charge from the claim.

2) claim for the other 2 on the basis of breach of fiduciary relationship based on common law and unauthorised profit

3) claim CCI at the bank's authorised borrowing rate on the basis that that is what I would have had to do to maintain the 'money in my hand' at the level it was before they took my money - an remedy in equity, now supported by the Sempra judgement of last week.

4) In this way, I avoid all mention of UTCCR1999 and common law on penalties, which are both the subject of the OFT case. If my claim is stayed on the basis of that case, I can then just say it is irrelevant!

What does anyone think? Am I mad?