Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I have been advised to start my own thread here so here goes.
Just to let you know i have been helping my dad's friend on his business account which we submitted to court a couple of weeks ago and got the obligatory stay imposed. Within the last 7 days Natwest has written to the court to ask that the stay be lifted. I read on another post before this has happened with Natwest so we are being very cautious with this (the claim is £10,000). We now expect to get allocation questionnaires sent and have to pay the newly increased allocation questionnaire fee of £200, with an additional allocation questionnaire 'listing fee' of £100 - buggers!!!! I'm hoping we don't get to the trial stage and that, fingers crossed, they will settle, does anyone know what the chances of Natwest settling are?
Hope it doesn't get to the hearing stage because that will then cost my dad's mate another £500 hearing fee!!!!!! I really hope the banks dont use the newly increased court fees as a cynical way of pushing the poorer people out of the court market!
Good luck to everyone with their business accounts (and thoose too with personal accounts) and remember, as has been written on these posts several times before - DON'T GIVE UP
The POC we used for the business account was one we got off the CAG website, we had looked at many. We are basically using S.4 Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977), S.15 Sales of Goods and Services Act and common law. We are not obviously relying on the UTCCR (1999). The type of charges we are reclaiming are unpaid item charges, unpaid cheque charges and referral charges.
We have today received Cobbetts (Natwest solicitors) defence through and I'll be honest and say I don't like the look of it, I'm worried. It says they are inviting the court to hold a case management conference in order for the court to consider the making of appropriate orders to give the Claimant the opportunity to properly particularise the claim. Whilst they deny every part of our claim they are also saying they can not pleade to certain parts. They also say we can't use UTCCR in our claim - we never put that in the POC anyway!!
I am worried because in the last paragraph they refer to defects in the pleaded case must be addressed.
Any help or guidance would really be appreciated at this moment in time.
Hi Banklover_not......... welcome on board the nat west forum!
Firstly, as you're probably already aware Cobbetts have started to have their own stays lifted on business claims, so don't worry too much about that part at the moment.
Secondly, with regards to Cobbett's defence and their claim that you can't use UTCCR even though you didn't include this in your POC, you'll find that Cobbetts tend to send out a templated defence depending on whether you're:
a) a consumer who file via MCOL
b) a consumer who filed via N1
c) a business claimant who filed via MCOL
d) a business claimant who filed via N1!!!
There are another few variables within their templates (e.g., particularly if you have pre-6 year charges in your PoC) - but as you're a business claimant, I'm sure we've seen the defence you've received before. You could:
a) post the defence up on this thread so that we can have a look at it for you. We have quite a few business claimants in the Nat West forum so somebody will be able to comment on the defence you've received.
b) post it to me or another site helper and we'll make sure that (if necessary) it's flagged up for further comment.
We are basically using S.4 Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977), S.15 Sales of Goods and Services Act and common law.
Neither UCTA or SGSA are applicable to any bank charge claims business claims are based solely on the common law.
It says they are inviting the court to hold a case management conference in order for the court to consider the making of appropriate orders to give the Claimant the opportunity to properly particularise the claim.
That is quite standard in their defences although your POC may need changing.
Within the last 7 days Natwest has written to the court to ask that the stay be lifted. I read on another post before this has happened with Natwest so we are being very cautious with this (the claim is £10,000).
Natwest are obliged by the fsa waiver conditions to ensure that claims unaffected by the test case are progressed swiftly so you shouldn't read too much into their application to lift the stay.
If you have a copy of their T & Cs then I'll see if I can put a revised POC together for you.
If you are new to the forum, you can subscribe to a thread by going to the thread tools at the top of the posts and clicking on 'subscribe to thread.....
If you are new to the forum, you can subscribe to a thread by going to the thread tools at the top of the posts and clicking on 'subscribe to thread.....
Hi els
Yes, but in this case I wanted the OP to know that I was subscribing.
Thanks for all your comments. Zoot I am troubled by your advice that SGSA and UCTA are not supposed to be used. I read on more than one of the recommended POCs on SAG and elsewhere that UCTA and SGSA should be used. Obviously confused, and very worried now.
Thanks for all your comments. Zoot I am troubled by your advice that SGSA and UCTA are not supposed to be used. I read on more than one of the recommended POCs on SAG and elsewhere that UCTA and SGSA should be used. Obviously confused, and very worried now.
BankLover_not
The generic template for business claims do not make reference to UCTA or SGSA?
Its nothing to get too worried about provided you have mentioned the common law also. If the hearing cmc goes ahead just take along a revised POC and ask the court to adopt those. There shouldn't be too much of a problem
1. The Claimant [has] [had] an account1("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around 2[and closed on or around 2 ]
2. During the period in which the Account [has been] [was] operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.
3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.
4. The Claimant contends that:
a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.
b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the common law. The precedent for the law relating to contractual penalties was set in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage Motor Co Ltd (1915) AC 79. Additionally, in the case of Murray v Leisureplay (2005) EWCA Civ 963 it was held that a contractual party may only recover damages in respect of its actual loss or liquidated losses.
5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:
a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £ 3and any interest charged thereon;
b) Court costs;
c) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act as set out on the attached list of charges or at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just.
6. Alternatively, if the charges are a fee for a service, then they must be reasonable under S.15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act (1982).
I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true
I offer my apologies to you, as photoman points out, i did mention your name in another post and i referred to you as a he not a she, please accept my apologies and i hope no offence has been taken.
No I can not see any unauthorised borrowing charges on the statements. Does any of this help you at all?
BankHater Business v Natwest
has written to the court to ask that the stay be lifted. I read on another post before this has happened with Natwest so we are being very cautious with this (the claim is £10,000). We now expect to get allocation questionnaires sent and have to pay the newly increased allocation questionnaire
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by elsinore
