Thread: Bilgeman v natwest ** WON **

Hi Folks, hope we all had a good Easter despite the best efforts of the blood-sucking corporations.

Before I send this letter off to Natwest, just wondering if anyone has any thoughts about the content. Thanks:-


I refer you to a letter I have received from Mr Ian Marshall, Manager of NatWest Newtown Branch dated 12 April 2006 in response to a letter which I had delivered there as the most convenient branch at the time. The envelope carried a request for it to be forwarded to Customer Services but apparently it was opened in Newtown branch by someone to whom it was not addressed.

Reading the reply, which I am sure you will have on file, it seems that you are, either deliberately or unprofessionally, missing the point.

I have it on good authority that the regime of 'fees' which you have been applying to my account in relation to direct debit/standing order refusals, exceeding overdraft limits and so forth are unlawful at Common Law, Statute and recent Consumer regulations.

I would draw your attention to the terms of the contract which you agreed to at the time that I opened my account. It is an implied term of that contract that you would conduct yourselves lawfully and in a manner which complies with UK law.

I would also draw your attention to the fact that the most recent spate of charges stems from an initial return of two items on 27 March 2006 (as below)

27 Mar 2006
CHG
UNPAID ITEM(S) , D/D 28.00, AXA SUN LIFE , D/D 20.00, AXA SUN LIFE
-
76.00


which I attempted to recall on that morning. I was told that the items would be recalled. I was NOT told that I would still be charged and, as I had done the same on previous occasions and not been charged, was somewhat surprised to see these charges applied the next day.

To date you have removed what amounts to a almost a full week’s wages from my account.

I am frankly shocked that you have operated my account in this way as I had always reposed confidence in your integrity and expertise as my fiduciary.

I am not, therefore, coming cap in hand, begging you to return my money as one of your meaningless ‘ gestures of goodwill’. This is not your money in the first place and such arrogance only serves to add to the insulting and dismissive manner in which you continue to behave.

I calculate that you have taken £414.00 plus any overdraft interest for the sum which you have taken. This does not include any amounts which may have been taken further back than 10 January 2006 which is as far back as my online statement shows. I also claim repayment of any sums taken from my account before this date. I am not willing to accept a partial refund.

I require repayment in full of this money. If you do not comply fully within 14 days then I shall consider a claim against you for the full amount plus interest plus my costs and without further notice.

At this stage I have not included any costs incurred as a result of items being returned, neither am I claiming compensation for embarrassment, inconvenience or staining of my character.

Please do not telephone in reply to this letter. All correspondence concerning this matter should be in writing so that I have a record in the event that this matter cannot be resolved.

Furthermore, any moves toward closing my account or restricting services as a result of this letter will be looked on in a very poor light and will be referred to during any action taken to recover this debt.





Yours faithfully,


etc




Similar Threads:

• Fendy V Natwest 16.1k. Anything I Can Do About The Shoddy Envelopes Used By Natwest.
• NATWEST bank and NATWEST credit card- are they different claims????
• Bilgeman son v Lloyds
• David Toomey V NatWest Bank PLC - Telephone Call From NatWest
• Bilgeman V Abbey - Settled

Thanks, Both, I did wonder about that. Best not let the weasely toilet-drinkers have any excuse for prevaricating, eh? Any more observations eagerly awaited....

Phoned regarding the letter I sent (as above). Basically, 'we're in the right. OFT agree with us. Don't care if you can't work, lose you job, house, family, life. **** off, Peasant'.

Right!.

Onward..............

Can you claim compensation for expenses , loss of time, and ebarassment - of so how would you calculate

What i find increasingly worrying and annoying is their insistence on claiming to be acting lawfully and within 'OFT guidelines' even after you've told them you know they aren't and you know what you're talking about. More rhetoric designed to make a small percentage give up and not bother each time.

Well, here we go. Got a letter this morning claiming charges to be fair, transparent and within all guidelines BUT with a 'goodwill offer' providing I sign an agreement that it will be in Full and final settlement. Why would they do that if they were within their rights??? The offer amounts to about a quarter of what they owe me. I am going to write back saying that will do for starters but I don't accept it's full and final and will continue to pursue them for the rest, and any further charges they might impose.

The text of the letter I received is as follows:-

Thank you for your letter of 6th May 2006 and I apologise for any dissatisfaction caused by the application of charges to your account.

We believe that our charges are fair, reasonable and transparent. We consider that the amounts debited to your account have been applied strictly in accordance with your agreement with us and our published tariff, which we are satisfied, complies with all applicable laws and regulations. We are also committed to ensuring the transparency of the information that we give to our customers about the operation of our products.

(No mention of OFT being in touch regarding charges relating to credit cards only as in several other standard letters I've seen)

Against that background, we must differ to (why don't they employ people who have basic grammar skills? They could use the money embezelled from customers who don't know they can claim it back to pay them?) the views expressed in your letter.

However, we have taken the oportunity to review the charges applied to your account and as an exceptional matter we are prepared to refund £184.00 as a gesture of goodwill. Acceptance by you of this payment will be in Full and final settlement of all claims you may have rleating to our charges (yeah, right!) and strictly on the basis that you agree not to disclose to any third party (Aha!!!) the fact of, or any details relating to, this payment (Good job I'm not accepting it then, innit?).

If you agree to accept my offer on this basis, please sign and return the copy of this letter in the enclosed prepaid envelope. Once returned (Grammar), arrangemtns will be made immediately to credit your account.

However, our Terms & Conditions will continue to apply and any charges that accrue int the future must stand.

Thank you again for taking the trouble to write (????!!!!!!) and I hope that your concern is resolved to your satisfaction.

Yours sincerely

(not Stuart Higley)

Nrs Sue Crompeotn (Anyone know this name?)



I will post my intended reply below when I've calmed down enough to edit out the expletives and accusations of theft, embezzlement and corporate burglary.

Here's a rough for the letter I intend to send in response to Natwest's derisiory offer. A bit of editing to be done yet and possibly more to add but I would love to hear anyone's thoughts on it so far. Do you think I'm painting myself into a corner? What happens if, after all this, we're all wrong and the charges are deemed to be fair? Arrgh! I know it's unlikely but this is a rat-infested business and I imagine somebody on a golf course somewhere will come up with something before long. Hope not. Anyway, here goes:-

Thank you for your letter of 11 May 2006.

You have asked me to accept less than 25% of the funds you have unlawfully removed from my account in a manner which suggests you imagine you are doing me some sort of a favour. Why would I do that? How much more insult do you intend to add before you admit that you are in the wrong and give me back every penny of my money? How would you respond if I were to levy unlawful charges on you in respect of this unauthorised loan you have seen fit to award yourselves?

I require full and immediate payment without any further posturing and arrogance. Any future denials and demands will be seen as prevarication and delaying tactics and will be treated as such and referred to in the case I shall argue in Court.

The bank's charges are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law. Further, as a disproportionate penalty they are invalid under the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Para.8 and sch.2(1)(e). In the event that the charges are not a penalty then they are unreasonable within the meaning of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15.

Additionally it has now been confirmed that your particularly high level of penalties are considered to be unfair per se by the OFT, who reported on the 5th April 2006, and are therefore presumed to be unlawful in the absence of specific proof to the contrary.

You now owe me £800. Please pay it back now.

I will give you 14 days from the date you receive this recorded delivery letter to reply to me unconditionally accepting my request and letting me know a date by which I will receive payment.

If you do not respond positively within this time period, I shall send you a letter before action giving you a further 14 days in which to reflect. I believe that these targets are more than sufficient for a large company such as yours with dedicated staff and departments.

After that will be no further communication from me and I shall issue a claim at the expiry of the second deadline.

Sending this today. Anybody got any thoughts at all???

Thanks for that. I've added a few more bits. Somebody please tell me when I've gone too far.



Thank you for your letter of 11 May 2006.

You have asked me to accept less than 25% of the funds you have unlawfully removed from my account in a manner which suggests you imagine you are doing me some sort of a favour. Why would I do that? How much more insult do you intend to add before you admit that you are in the wrong and give me back every penny of my money? How would you respond if I were to levy unlawful charges on you in respect of this unauthorised loan you have seen fit to award yourselves? Why, if you were within the Law as you suggest, would you offer me even a partial refund? And please do not use the words 'gesture of goodwill' again as the echo from the emptiness of the previous instance has still not subsided.

There are two possible reasons I can see for your reply, each as worrying as the other. First, that a huge financial organisation is unaware of the Law regarding a fundamental part of its daily procedure. I think this very unlikely. Second, and far more likely, you are aware of the Law yet choose to ignore it in the face of overwhelming evidence and precedence, preferring to inflict hardship and suffering on your customers until the very last possible minute. Either way it is totally unacceptable.

I require full and immediate payment with no further posturing and arrogance. Any future denials and demands will be seen as prevarication and delaying tactics and will be treated as such and referred to in the case I shall argue in Court. I will also refer to the financial hardships outlined in my previous letter and the fact that I have been forced to miss payments on three Life Insurance policies risking losing the lump sums payable on maturity.

The bank's charges are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law. Further, as a disproportionate penalty they are invalid under the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Para.8 and sch.2(1)(e). In the event that the charges are not a penalty then they are unreasonable within the meaning of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15.

Additionally it has now been confirmed that your particularly high level of penalties are considered to be unfair per se by the OFT, who reported on the 5th April 2006, and are therefore presumed to be unlawful in the absence of specific proof to the contrary. I would ask that, if you continue to stand by your claim that the charges are a true reflection of costs incurred, you provide me with a Breakdown of those charges detailing how it can cost £38 to post a letter. I understand that the whole process in automated so the argument that it has to cover staff wages is tenuous to say the least. If it is so, would you please give me a job at the rate of £38 for ten seconds’ work?

I would draw your attention to the various websites devoted to this business, particularly The Consumer Action Group. You might be aware that this group is sponsored and supported by Martin Lewis on his Money Saving Expert website. I don’t need to remind you how well-respected in the financial world are both Mr Lewis and his site. I welcome your thoughts on the possibility that all these knowledgeable people are misguided and the information and case histories therein untrue or made up. Again, please put your views in writing so I can pass them on to the site administrators.

I will give you 14 days from the date you receive this recorded delivery letter to reply to me unconditionally accepting my request and letting me know a date by which I will receive payment.

If you do not respond positively within this time period, I shall send you a letter before action giving you a further 14 days in which to reflect. I believe that these targets are more than sufficient for a large company such as yours with dedicated staff and departments.

After that will be no further communication from me and I shall issue a claim at the expiry of the second deadline.

Good idea. Cheers

Bah!

You're right of course. How I wish there was a way to let the scurrilous toerags know what I'm thinking without having to play into their hands. Still, if there's a brain cell among them they probably have a fairly good idea already.