Thread: NatWest historical terms are penalties - Official!!!

Natwest historical terms are penalties - Official!!!


The Consumer Forums - Welcome to the The Consumer Forums

Well, it's great that we can throw that back at them after all the fibs and 'you won't beat us' etc, but I read a post that said this leaves about a 6 month window due to the statute bar.

I am pleased that one was 'guilty' as what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I know officialy that's not quite right, but hey...it is. we all know what they are about, it still amazes me that a bank could have just shown up in court (except the few that did trying it on *hello Citibank*) and prove the whole issue there and then. Oh, the justice.

I'm a bit lost on it all because it has many twists and turns, but I really feel that section 32 of LA '80 should now be explored more than ever! If it has been proved that those T&C's were penalties, then I would hope that section 32 should be allowed!! I know that's not simple after reading, but I hope someone tries!

How convienient Natwest may only have to pay out 6 months. Question, can they do that now or does the waiver mean that even that small window is ticking away?.

No, as long as the waiver is in place, the clock is still stopped.

And I'm the one who said that about the 6 mths window, I could be wrong, it does happen occasionally, you know!

I also think the s32 "relief of a mistake" should be tested, after all, if the judge said that they may be penalties (he didn't say they were, as it goes, only that they may) then it should follow that Natwest made a mistake (let's be generous and pretend they didn't know ) and that the charges were levied as a result of that mistake and we paid them mistakenly thinking the bank had the right to charge them, so s32 should apply.

I am no lawyer however and we need someone a lot smarter than me to put this in proper legal argument for us to take forward.

Nice one, a bit clearer.

[quote=Bookworm;1937505]No, as long as the waiver is in place, the clock is still stopped.quote]

My peanut refuses to accept this though. Do you mean that no claims can go ahead and that that possible 6 month window is reducing?

And Bookie hun, would you mind looking at my thread in the Barclays forum? This too is pulling my chain.

It's only Barclays and Natwest that are confusing me! Honest guv!

No, you doughnut.

It means that if you start your complain now and it gets blocked, by the time the test case is over, those charges which would have then gone over the 6 yrs period wouldn't.

We're in 2009. Charges from 2003 will be statute barred by the end of this year. The ones which may be penalties and not statute barred are the ones between now and July 09. If people who could claim on those act now, even if the test case doesn't conclude until 2010, they'll still be able to claim those. People who don't act now and are waiting till the conclusion of the test case to start their action will lose out altogether unless they're prepared to test the LA1980 s32.

Originally Posted by Thailand

And Bookie hun, would you mind looking at my thread in the Barclays forum? This too is pulling my chain.

It's only Barclays and Natwest that are confusing me! Honest guv!

Link, lazy sod?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...re-waiver.html

Hi,

I have a direction hearing on 28/1/09 v Natwest at Lambeth CC - see www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/legal-issues/145837-25-400-penalty-charges.html.
The judge has already ordered NatWest to provide their Breakdown of admin costs, without success to date. With TODAY'S development where the High Court judge ruled that NatWest's terms and conditions, used from 2001 to July 2003, may have included unfair penalties for going overdrawn.
And Chris Warner, of Which's comment, "This means the customer would need to show that the charges were actually penalties by proving that the charge did not reflect the bank's costs." Means the Judge can now force NatWest to breakdown their admin costs.

Wise council would be appreciated.

ASKL