Thread: NatWest settle at last ...

I have checked and double checked - the 28 days with MCOL is up today and we haven't heard a single peep out of Natwest. I am going to start tonight and go for judgement, having heard nothing from NatWest - this is the right thing to do now, isn't it?
Has anyone else got to this stage without hearing anything? What happened next?
Thanks for all your help ;D

Similar Threads:

• Should I settle????
• RBS settle after S.A.R
• Settle or not?
• Richard Vs Natwest - Settle Or To Court?
• Natwest won't accept less than 60% to settle. FACT or FICTION?

Originally Posted by lindy123

I have checked and double checked - the 28 days with MCOL is up today and we haven't heard a single peep out of Natwest. I am going to start tonight and go for judgement, having heard nothing from NatWest - this is the right thing to do now, isn't it?
Has anyone else got to this stage without hearing anything? What happened next?
Thanks for all your help ;D

Hi dont shout!!! yes you can enter for judgement at midnight however they can apply for a set aside or still enter a defence until judgement is issued.

Sorry, I realized my post was gigantic and I've just edited it - but you were too quick!
Thanks for the advice though

Originally Posted by lindy123

Sorry, I realized my post was gigantic and I've just edited it - but you were too quick!
Thanks for the advice though

no problem!!! my ears are sore though! if i helped click my scales please

Got this from Natwest today - is there a standard response to this? Cobbetts and the court have had everything, list of charges, prompt responses to letters, allocation questionnaire etc.
I think it's a stalling tactic and hopefully we're near the end now ....
Thanks for all your help and good luck to you all

Dear Sir
Our client: National Westminster Bank plc
We refer to your letter dated 21 September 2006.We note your comments on our Request for Further Information. It is our client’s contention that your Particulars of Claim did not property particularise your claim. For example, our client cannot properly defend a claim where you have not given the details of each charge you claim is disproportionate and unreasonable.
The Court is bound by an overriding objective to deal with cases justly and ensure that parties are on an equal footing. It was clearly the case that our client could not respond to your claim where you did not provide sufficient particulars. Our client therefore objects to your allegation that the Request is intimidating.

Thanks Shaz - the latest Cobbetts letter is in response to my letter refusing to give furtherand accusing them of intimidating me - the self same letter in the link. This is another step further where they are not accepting my refusal and accusing me of not properly particularising the claim. They've all had the lot and Natwest, Cobbetts and the court have the Breakdown of charges and completed aq etc.
Now do I send the same letter again, refusing to answer questions unless directed by the court ???
I've followed everything to the letter so far.
Thank you so much

bump

Originally Posted by tillers

Hi Lindy

Don't worry this is a standard letter, I received 10 days or so go There are a few threads where if you wish you can send a letter to Cobbetts to reinforce your position. I have today recieved a 50% offer from Cobbetts needless to say the answer is no.!! Just stick in there, Cobbetts are just dragging out to try and force you to back down. Your close to the winning line!!

Thank you so much
I can't find a template to suit anywhere - have you got a template you could email me or basic wording you could paste into a reply? It would be great if you could.
Thanks again, Linda

Originally Posted by lindy123

Got this from Natwest today - is there a standard response to this? Cobbetts and the court have had everything, list of charges, prompt responses to letters, allocation questionnaire etc.
I think it's a stalling tactic and hopefully we're near the end now ....
Thanks for all your help and good luck to you all

Dear Sir
Our client: National Westminster Bank plc
We refer to your letter dated 21 September 2006.We note your comments on our Request for Further Information. It is our client’s contention that your Particulars of Claim did not property particularise your claim. For example, our client cannot properly defend a claim where you have not given the details of each charge you claim is disproportionate and unreasonable.
The Court is bound by an overriding objective to deal with cases justly and ensure that parties are on an equal footing. It was clearly the case that our client could not respond to your claim where you did not provide sufficient particulars. Our client therefore objects to your allegation that the Request is intimidating.

What did your POC actually say and did you send Cobbetts a copy of schedule with reply to further info request?

Originally Posted by lindy123

Got this from Natwest today - is there a standard response to this? Cobbetts and the court have had everything, list of charges, prompt responses to letters, allocation questionnaire etc.
I think it's a stalling tactic and hopefully we're near the end now ....
Thanks for all your help and good luck to you all

Dear Sir
Our client: National Westminster Bank plc
We refer to your letter dated 21 September 2006.We note your comments on our Request for Further Information. It is our client’s contention that your Particulars of Claim did not property particularise your claim. For example, our client cannot properly defend a claim where you have not given the details of each charge you claim is disproportionate and unreasonable.
The Court is bound by an overriding objective to deal with cases justly and ensure that parties are on an equal footing. It was clearly the case that our client could not respond to your claim where you did not provide sufficient particulars. Our client therefore objects to your allegation that the Request is intimidating.

Hi Lindy

I too received that same letter myself yesterday, dont worry its standard time wasting on behalf of Cobblers/Natwest and "lets see how long we can hold out for". My advice is to sit tight and wait for your first offer!

Cheers

Y

Originally Posted by gizmo111

What did your POC actually say and did you send Cobbetts a copy of schedule with reply to further info request?

This is the POC wording I used:

The claimant has held a current account XXXXXX with the defendant since approximately 19XX. Between MONTH YEAR and MONTH YEAR the defendant made various deductions from the account in respect of unauthorised overdraft fees, paid item fees and any other fees imposed. If the defendant is able to establish that the contract between the claimant and the defendant did contain terms purporting to entitle the defendant to levy these charges, the claimant will contend that they are unenforceable at common law, being penalty clauses rather than being liquidated damages clauses. The claimant claims from the defendant a sum equivalent to the total amount unlawfully debited to the claimants account during the above mentioned period being £XXX.XX. The claimant further claims interest pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum, being the sum of £XXX.XXX. The claimant further claims the court fee of £XXX. The claimant requires the full amount to be paid by cheque, made payable to XXXXX.

And for Cobbetts I used the standard letter plus copy of charges schedule and calculator showing exact figures and listing of types of charges :

I acknowledge receipt of your defence & request for further information and clarification.
I anticipate that the claim would be allocated to the small claims track and would not then expect to have to deal with a part 18 request since these are specifically excluded under Part 27 unless the court specifically orders me to do so of its own initiative
Furthermore I consider that the CPR part 18 request is intimidatory and I intend to bring the intimidation to the notice of the court.
However, for clarity, I enclose a schedule of charges and I confirm the charges I am claiming were applied to the above mentioned account.

So their response was about my not sending the information required so I have sent them this with another itemised list of charges.

I write further to your letter dated 3 October 2006.I have sent schedules detailing charges applied to the above account with all correspondence.
The schedule includes the date, type of charge and amount charged.
However, for clarity, I once again enclose a schedule of charges and I confirm the charges I am claiming were applied to the above mentioned account:

I have had so many responses and private messages about this that I am confident (as I can be) that the offer will be in the post soon. My claim against A&L was a doddle compared to this marathon with Natwest/Cobbetts but hopefully it will all be over soon and my son will have his £1200 back where it belongs.
Thank you everyone for your help and support and good luck to those of you in the early stages of claiming

Originally Posted by Yaesu

Hi Lindy

I too received that same letter myself yesterday, dont worry its standard time wasting on behalf of Cobblers/Natwest and "lets see how long we can hold out for". My advice is to sit tight and wait for your first offer!

Cheers

Y

Thank you so much for answering - I am hopeful this fight will be over soon

The claimant has held a current account XXXXXX with the defendant since approximately 19XX. Between MONTH YEAR and MONTH YEAR the defendant made various deductions from the account in respect of unauthorised overdraft fees, paid item fees and any other fees imposed. If the defendant is able to establish that the contract between the claimant and the defendant did contain terms purporting to entitle the defendant to levy these charges, the claimant will contend that they are unenforceable at common law, being penalty clauses rather than being liquidated damages clauses. The claimant claims from the defendant a sum equivalent to the total amount unlawfully debited to the claimants account during the above mentioned period being £XXX.XX. The claimant further claims interest pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum, being the sum of £XXX.XXX. The claimant further claims the court fee of £XXX. The claimant requires the full amount to be paid by cheque, made payable to XXXXX.


My guess is that Cobbetts will apply to have this struck out as you are not saying which laws you are relying on - just a general statement ' unenforceable at common law, their letter quotes a for example as not particularised properly, but is not actually asking you to send schedule in again. last week I had to submit further info to court as they weren't happy with my POC and it had a lot more legislation quoted than yours does. I would use the N1 template in the library and send back - obviously this is your shout , and I can only relate my experience to you, and others may and have suggested differently, there is also a couple of others in danger of being struck out because of the POC, I think one has been. Check here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...omorrow-3.html

Best Wishes

Originally Posted by gizmo111

The claimant has held a current account XXXXXX with the defendant since approximately 19XX. Between MONTH YEAR and MONTH YEAR the defendant made various deductions from the account in respect of unauthorised overdraft fees, paid item fees and any other fees imposed. If the defendant is able to establish that the contract between the claimant and the defendant did contain terms purporting to entitle the defendant to levy these charges, the claimant will contend that they are unenforceable at common law, being penalty clauses rather than being liquidated damages clauses. The claimant claims from the defendant a sum equivalent to the total amount unlawfully debited to the claimants account during the above mentioned period being £XXX.XX. The claimant further claims interest pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum, being the sum of £XXX.XXX. The claimant further claims the court fee of £XXX. The claimant requires the full amount to be paid by cheque, made payable to XXXXX.


My guess is that Cobbetts will apply to have this struck out as you are not saying which laws you are relying on - just a general statement ' unenforceable at common law, their letter quotes a for example as not particularised properly, but is not actually asking you to send schedule in again. last week I had to submit further info to court as they weren't happy with my POC and it had a lot more legislation quoted than yours does. I would use the N1 template in the library and send back - obviously this is your shout , and I can only relate my experience to you, and others may and have suggested differently, there is also a couple of others in danger of being struck out because of the POC, I think one has been. Check here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...omorrow-3.html

Best Wishes

Thank you so much - I have filled in the N1 template and it will be posted tomorrow - I will send it to Cobbetts, the court and Natwest - is this right?
Thank you, Linda

No need to botehr with NAt west - they have passed on to solicitors so they can pass on any detils.