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.
A little bit of background first is probably wise.
Since autumn I have been pursuing Natwest for re-imbursement of penalty fees. I received a partial offer fairly swiftly yet had to take things further in order to get back the full amount involved. This involved making a small claim against them in the court. As a part of this claim I added a certain amount to cover the cost of my time and did so having done so before with other successful claims against other banks.
In the post this morning I received a letter from NW stating that they would refund the full amount in relation to the outstanding penalty fees, in effect a win and obviously good news. They have not however settled as regards the cost of my time.
I have two options in which I seek advice, yet before I do either in terms of settling or continuing on, the exact wording of the paragraph of their letter relating to this part of the claim is as follows:-
“Regarding the part of your claim for £ x for your own time, the point of the legal process is not for you to make money out of the claim but to put you back where you would have been if the default fees had not been charged. As I have refunded all the fees and the interest I do not feel that any further form of compensation is necessary. These refunds are made purely as a gesture of goodwill and we will now defend this claim on the basis that we have refunded the correct amount”.
Ok, seems a reasonable point and my first gut feeling was to say fair enough and to stop the court process as they then go on to request. Yet on the other hand there is a part of me that thinks it’s ‘pot calling kettle black’ as regards ‘making money’. In addition, had the legal work I conducted to prepare the claim been carried out by a solicitor then said solicitor would still irrespectively insist that they were paid for their time. In effect letting NW of at the point they request would mean in this scenario that ‘I’ would be liable for my costs even though I won, when it should really be the other way around.
At this stage I guess I’m looking for thoughts, opinion and also how the law would stand should I let this continue. Would I loose because it is my own time rather than a solicitors, or are costs ‘costs’ regardless of who is charging. How would a court view this? Am I being fair or unreasonable?
If it's a small claim - i.e., less than £5K - my inclination would be to take their full settlement (if it is all the charges, interest thereon and statutory interest) and run.
There isn't a facility for claiming costs in small claims: there isn't the expectation that solicitors will be involved and, even if they are, then you have to carry your own can.
If it's over £5K then it's reasonable to claim costs: the established principle is that the loser pays.
How much are your costs? Is it worth dragging everything out into the New Year and pursuing a claim - which the Court may then say no to?
Those are the options I'd weigh up.
Best
Westy
Westy
If you like my post, click the scales!!
Nov 1 2006 Preliminary letter 21 Feb 2007 - cheque arrived for charges+DEBIT interest +Statutory Interest! Hurray!
Read all about it: natwesttookmymoney - v- NatWest
Thanks NWTMM. My costs admittedly are perhaps higher than most (low-ish 3 figures), yet by the same token they are somewhat lower than that you'ld find in the legal profession.
I think you are right in the ethical sense, absolutely. However, I've come to learn that being ethical is not always the 'right' choice in life, especially when dealing with dishonest institutions that veil themselves otherwise. After all, these institutions knowingly take money that does not belong to them, a psychological act equating to theft. Therefore I feel a bit torn direction wise. Also I'm not particularly fussed about the issue of dragging it out if that which I select is the right thing to do. I'm organised enough to not let this take over.
Whilst in the letter they state the expected lines as regards 'good faith' and 'without admission of liability' the very fact that they have offered everything as regards the core penalties infers and implies the direct opposite. Would not a judge recognise this?
Another point also came to mind.
The letter was sent to me, not the court. Therefore presumably it cannot be classed as a legal defence at court level. The deadline court wise is December 3rd. If at this point the court has not received a separate admission or defence from them surely I still win by default of their lack of court level legal admission or defence, the 'full amount including costs'; ie - in the request for judgement form I would tick box A, then the third sub box relating to not accepting the defendant's proposal for payment. Basically, NW say they would defend if I went for the costs, yet I can't see that they would have that right after December 3rd.
I am still undecided at this point, which is why I've posted.
It's nothing to do with being 'ethical': we all know we're not dealing with ethical organisations, here. It's a question of balancing risk and reward. If your original claim is for less than £5K then it was going to be small claims and you simply CANNOT claim costs there. No-one can.
If it's over £5K then yes, you can claim costs, limited to £750 in fast track. You can charge reasonable time at £9.50 per hour, plus stationery, ink, other disposables and travel costs (if any).
If it's small claims then, while i understand how you feel - and sympathise - take the money and run coz it's as much as you're gonna git. If It's
fast track, then it really is up to you: how many birds are you getting in your hand, how many are in the bush and what's the effort involved in getting the brutes out of the bush?
If that makes sense!
Best
Westy
Westy
If you like my post, click the scales!!
Nov 1 2006 Preliminary letter 21 Feb 2007 - cheque arrived for charges+DEBIT interest +Statutory Interest! Hurray!
Read all about it: natwesttookmymoney - v- NatWest
If your case is complicated you could argue that it is a Fast Track case.
Anyway I suppose if they have already funded the charges and your just going for costs there is nothing to lose. I would advise you not to take an "all or nothing" approach to the preperation time issue - perhaps see if a partial settlement for your "costs" is possible. Saves everyone some time.
NW Settlement Offer & 'Own Costs' Question?
for re-imbursement of penalty fees. I received a partial offer fairly swiftly yet had to take things further in order to get back the full amount involved. This involved making a small claim
and we will now defend this claim on the basis that we have refunded the correct amount”.
Reply With Quote
Re: NW Settlement Offer & 'Own Costs' Question?
LucyT