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.
Hi I started my claim v. Nat West on July 25th. After initial letter I got a reply saying charges were fair, so I then sent my letter before action. I received a reply saying that I am claiming that they acted as my fiduciary (as says in letter template in library) but they say this is not the relationship between banker/customer?
They go on to say that the OFT's findings were against credit cards and not bank accounts - if so, then why have they already paid lots out?
They also say I might like to think about legal advice, so do they intend to take this all the way or are they just trying to frighten me?
Hi, I filed my MCOL v.Nat West 30/08/06, deemed served 04/09/06. They acknowledged receipt 08/09/06 and since then I have heard nothing. How long do I wait now and what is my next plan of action? do I wait until 30 days are up (02/10/06) and then enter judgment or do they have longer?
Hi, I filed my MCOL v.Nat West 30/08/06, deemed served 04/09/06. They acknowledged receipt 08/09/06 and since then I have heard nothing. How long do I wait now and what is my next plan of action? do I wait until 30 days are up (02/10/06) and then enter judgment or do they have longer?
.
Did the acknowledgement say they are defending the claim ?
If they did they have 28 days from the date they were served , not 30 days. Therefore they have until close of business 3rd Oct to respond.
If you do not hear anything by midnight on the 2nd Oct , then go on the moneyclaim site and file a " Judgement by default" at 1 minute past midnight ( 00.01 ) 3rd oct morning.
If I am wrong ,please will other forum readers let me know !!
YOU ARE ONE DAY "AFTER" ME. i'M CLAIMING OVER £6000.00 AND THE DEFENDANT HAS UNTIL CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE 1ST OCTOBER.(Sun)
I nothing is received I can enter judgement by default from the 2nd October.(mon)
Hope this helped.
Hi Savvykaz,
pobodys nerfect.
Wait until 1 minute after midnight on the 3rd ,then go on the "moneyclaim" website, and put in a judgement by default.
According to many "threads" I have read ,Nat west sometimes do not reply until a day or two after the deadline ,SO GET YOURS IN 1ST.
Best wishes
Chris.
In fact , you can file for judgement by default at "close of business" on the 2nd. Now , when is close of business ??, that debatable ,but I would say it was when the banks Close (e.g. 3-30 pm).
But to be sure 00.01 3rd oct.
Chris
I've not heard anything YET, But it is a weekend and after reding carefully the Mcol rules Nat west have until tues 3 RD to reply to me. It's because the 1st oct fell on a sunday.i am ready and will file if no reply is forthcoming.Also I am posting a letter tomorrow (2nd oct), by recorded delivery just to make sure.
Good luck
windchest
Hi - I don't believe this!
Today is 28 days since I filed my claim and the last day to receive any correspondence from Nat West. I have just got in from work and there is no letter from them but there is a Post Office card saying they tried to deliver a aparcel today but it was too big for the letter box - could this be an allocation questionnaire from Cobbett's? Do I still file for judgment tomorrow or do I need to wait and see what this parcel is? I can't pick it up until Wednesday a.m.
I didn't send it, it was a file for default, i've been on the mcol website and it won't let me file for default. i phoned them ,and they said try tomorrow !!! I THOUGHT IT WAS 28 DAYS THEY HAD TO REPLY BY ??
CHEERS CHRIS
Oh boy I have just gone on MCOL to file judgmeny and the status on my account has changed from acknowledged to defending. It says we can't continue on-line and has been referred to my local court. Now I am REALLY apprehensive
I have just received Nat West's defence papers from Cobbetts. They are saying that my POC do not disclose reasonable grounds for my claim and that I have to send a detailed list of each charge, the date it was debited and the description of the charge. Yet I did this at great length when I sent both mt letters to the bank (request letter and lba). They go on to say that if I want to sustain a claim that the charges are a apenalty then I need to prove a) the clause to which the charges were applied, b) the charges were applied due to a breach of contract and c) identify in each case the particular breach of contract. It says I am currently not pleading these matters and therefore do not disclose reasonable grounds. The letter goes on to say I need to identify which parts of the Unfair Contract Terms and Supply of Goods Act the charges breach! Now I am quite well educated but all this legal jargon is beyond me. Is this a standard letter Cobbetts send out or have they "got me "? I have until 16 Oct to reply.
This sounds like the bog standard defence. Sorry to be a pain, but if you want to make sure the only way is to post it on here in full so we can tell you (or look at other people's posts and check there
PLUTOS G
Originally Posted by savvykaz
I have just received Nat West's defence papers from Cobbetts. They are saying that my POC do not disclose reasonable grounds for my claim and that I have to send a detailed list of each charge, the date it was debited and the description of the charge. Yet I did this at great length when I sent both mt letters to the bank (request letter and lba). They go on to say that if I want to sustain a claim that the charges are a apenalty then I need to prove a) the clause to which the charges were applied, b) the charges were applied due to a breach of contract and c) identify in each case the particular breach of contract. It says I am currently not pleading these matters and therefore do not disclose reasonable grounds. The letter goes on to say I need to identify which parts of the Unfair Contract Terms and Supply of Goods Act the charges breach! Now I am quite well educated but all this legal jargon is beyond me. Is this a standard letter Cobbetts send out or have they "got me "? I have until 16 Oct to reply.
xxxxx Claimant
And
NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC Defendant
AMENDED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
1. The Claimant has the following account with the Defendant:
a) Account no.xxxxxxxx sort code xx-xx-xx (“the Account”);
b) During the last 6 years the Defendant automatically debited charges to the Account in the sum of £xxx.xx
Full details of each and every charge applied to the accounts are already in the possession of the Defendant, from whom the Claimant obtained such information prior to this claim. However details of all charges, the amounts, dates debited and a description of each is attached to this Particulars of Claim.
3. a) The charges are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed alleged actual loss to the Defendant; and instead unduly enrich the Defendant which applies charges with a view to profit.
b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of i) the The Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 particularly but not limited to Regulations 5, 6 and 8 and Schedule 2, 1 e) and ii); the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, particularly but not limited to sections 3 and 11 and Schedule 2 and iii) the common law relating to liquidated damages and penalties in contracts.
4, a) The Claimant is unable to specifically plead the term of his contract with the Defendant upon which the Defendant relies in levying charges since the Claimant has never been provided with the Defendant’s terms and conditions for personal banking. However the Claimant is able to note from the Defendant’s website that it has produced standard terms and conditions for the Account, known as Personal Banking terms and conditions, (“the Personal Terms”). Copies of the Personal Terms have been supplied to the Defendant and will be referred to by the Claimant at the trial of his claim.
The Personal Terms contain provisions which are, as far as the Claimant is able to identify, the contractual terms upon which the Defendant relies in levying charges to the accounts. The Personal Terms do not contain numbered paragraphs that can be easily referred to and the Claimant therefore sets out the relevant terms below:
From the Personal Terms:
“Service charges
Service charges for operating the account are charged as detailed in the promotional leaflet insert relating to the account and are subject to annual review. If any changes are made, details of the revised charges will be sent to you at least one month before the implementation date for the changes.
Additional services and charges
We are entitled to charge for additional services provided to you, whether these relate directly to the account or not. The current charges for the most common additional services are detailed in a separate leaflet ‘A guide to Personal Current Account Fees’ available from any of our branches; details of services not included are also available from any branch. These additional charges, which are normally paid for at the time the service is provided, are subject to annual review. If any changes are made, a revised price list of the most common services will be sent to you at least 30 days prior to the date of their implementation. “
The Personal Terms contains the following provision relating to operations on the account.
“Operations on the Account
You must always ensure that the cleared balance (plus, where applicable, any unused agreed overdraft facility) on your account at 3.30pm on the working weekday before the day:
– cheques you have issued are presented for payment
– standing orders and direct debits are due to be paid
– you withdraw money from a cash machine
– you carry out a Switch/Maestro or Solo transaction
– you request us to make payments by any electronic means or by telephone
– any other transactions are due to take place, including the application of interest and charges
is sufficient to cover payment of all these transactions.
If a sufficient cleared balance (plus, where applicable, any unused arranged overdraft facility) to cover payment is not available on your account by 3.30pm on the working weekday before the day on which these transactions are due to take place, payment of some or all of the transactions may be refused.
However, if at any time such transactions would result, without prior arrangement, in the account being overdrawn or the arranged overdraft limit being exceeded, we may exercise our sole discretion and without contacting you, allow an overdraft to be created or allow the borrowing limit to be exceeded. In these circumstances, the new or excess overdraft is an unarranged overdraft.”
b) The Claimant contends that the term “Additional Services and Charges” is not a core term of the contract and therefore falls within the remit of The Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and that the term is subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act and the common law as set out in paragraph 3b) of this Particulars of Claim.
c) The Claimant avers that the circumstances giving rise to the levying of charges by the Defendant are all breaches of the provision relating to Operations on the Account and which sets out a mandatory requirement in respect of the maintaining by the Claimant of cleared balances on the accounts. As such failure to adhere to that contractual requirement is a breach of the agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant.
d) The Claimant further contends that the Defendant is only entitled to be compensated by the amount it would be able to secure in a claim at common law in the event that the Claimant was individually sued for breach of contract by the Defendant. Accordingly the charges that result from the breaches are by their nature as set out in paragraph 3a) of this Particulars of Claim and are therefore unreasonable and/or unenforceable and/or in terrorum in respect of each and every occasion that they have been debited to all of the Claimant’s accounts.
e) The Claimant avers that the Provisions relating to “Service Charges and “Additional Services and Charges” provide no details whatever of the extent or type of services that might be provided and that it was not clear from the contract to the Claimant at the time the contract was made that the Defendant would be providing anything other than a free banking service. Further, the leaflets setting out charges referred to therein were not made available to the Claimant at the time the contract with the Defendant was made and are therefore not incorporated into the contract. To the extent that they may be found to be so incorporated and therefore form part of the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant the Claimant avers that the items referred to in such leaflets do not constitute service charges but punitive penalty or default charges for acts of default. Further the Claimant contends that these show that the Defendant has structured the Claimant’s accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made and that any purported fees for “services” or “additional services” are no more than disguised penalties. The Claimant avers that no additional services are supplied by the Defendant in relation to acts of default or at all.
f) The Claimant further avers that the sole discretion referred to in the provision relating to Operations on the Account does not refer to or make clear that the Defendant is providing an additional banking service to the Claimant in exercising that discretion, nor that a charge for such alleged “service” will be made. The Claimant also contends that the discretion referred to is limited to allowing payments to be made where insufficient funds are or were in the Account and therefore relates only to the Defendant’s “paid referral fee” and that this discretion has no connection with fees applied immediately for refusing payments or for unarranged borrowing/excess borrowing fees applied later to the Account for being overdrawn or exceeding any overdraft limit in the preceding month, card misuse fees or other fees.
5. a) To the extent that it is found that the Defendant’s charges are for the provision of banking services the Claimant contends that the price thereof is unreasonable pursuant to section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
6. Accordingly the Claimant claims:
a) the return of the amounts debited to all the Claimant’s accounts in the sum of £xxxx;
b) Court costs;
c) Interest at 8% per annum pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 on the charges debited to the Account in the sum of £xxx.xx and continuing at the daily rate of £0.50 until judgment or sooner payment
I believe the facts stated in this Amended Particulars of Claim are true
Signed…………………………………….
Claimant
Dated this 14th day of September 2006
NatWest £3211.86 - WON
Prelim letter sent 26/06,
Chq banked 25/10
Capital 1 c/c £240 - WON
Prelim letter sent 03/07
Response rcvd 18/07 - paid in full! (but paid off o/s balance )
Thanks for this Flossy! However, there are parts of it I don't quite understand and am not sure if all of it's relevant to me. Also, could you confirm what the word is after Claimant in para 4c?
If I quote all you have posted me and they ask me to elaborate I wouldn't know where to start. If you say about the bank informing you of their charges, how can you go on to say they are unfair, when presumably you must have accepted them to open the account?
bank charges
. I received a reply saying that I am claiming that they acted as my fiduciary (as says in letter template in library) but they say this is not the relationship between banker/customer?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by savvykaz
- good luck with yours too!
)