Angelclaire v Natwest - ** WON WON WON !!! **

**angelclaire** · 16th November 2006 23:09

I got this letter from them today (in reply to the letter sent with the schedule of charges):

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

In your letter you have claimed that we have been acting as your fiduciary, which is not correct. This doesn't form part of the normal banker/customer relationship and if your claim is based on this premise I can only recommend that you seek independent advice.

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.

Much of the recent media coverage on bank charges has been prompted by the Office of Fair Trading investigation earlier this year but that was limited to administration charges on credit card accounts and did not extend to include bank charges.

We have considered the Office of Fair Trading's statement of 5 April 2006 and do not accepts its findings in relation to the setting of credit card fees. We are concerned that the Office of Fair Trading has publicly called into question the setting of charges applied to other products, including current accounts. The OFT has restricted its investigation to credit cards and made no attempt to consult with the RBS icon

Group or the industry in relation to other entirely different products.

You may be aware that the OFT has recently announced that it is to investigate bank charges as a separate matter and estimate that it could be up to six months before it is in a position to announce any findings. Realistically, it would be fitting to wait for the OFT's deliberations as your letter is based on comments relating specifically to a different issue, namely credit card charges.

Consequently, against that background, we must differ with the views you have expressed. Having reviewed your account, I can find no instance where charges have been applied when they were not properly due. They have all been associated with a lack of covering funds in the account at the time items were presented for payment. Accordingly, the charges that have been applied your account should stand.

I am disappointed to note that you are contemplating legal action. Whilst I hope that you will feel able to reconsider in all the circumstances, should you decide to go ahead, please ensuer that any Proceedings are served on etc....

I suspect that this is unlikely to be the answer you might have hoped to receive but nonetheless thank you etc...

Natwest icon

What does all this mean, and what should I do next?! Help!

Similar Threads:

**Bigredbus** · 16th November 2006 23:57

Standard reply... Get to the next stage... Start your claim online (MCOL) or go to your local Court and fill in a N1 form...
Check the templates and other threads to get it right!

**Lemondrop** · 17th November 2006 16:06

Hi Angelclaire

I got exactly the same letter so that makes me feel better. General consensus of opinion seems to be that you issue the lba icon

which you will find a template for on this site. Let me know how you get on as I am about to send mine in. Was the letter sent by Stuart Higley??

**ataction** · 17th November 2006 16:28

This letter is churned out like confetti. File it in the 'laugh and tear up in tray'.

**Lemondrop** · 17th November 2006 16:46

Does anyone know why the bank seems to think they are not acting as a fiduciary????

**ataction** · 17th November 2006 16:58

You really do not have to worry about this letter, or the contents. Just schpeel.

**bill-k** · 7th December 2006 14:32

Originally Posted by Lemondrop

Does anyone know why the bank seems to think they are not acting as a fiduciary????

A rather learned member here suggests that the term is better expressed as an adjective than as a noun.

As in: "Acting in a fidiciary capacity."

But I think it's a backhanded compliment to CAG icon

that they appear to have based their standard sodoff letter on the CAG icon

template !!

**bill-k** · 7th December 2006 14:44

Yet another learned member has found this, if you're REALLY interested !!

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...html#post34646

Look - don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger !!

**angelclaire** · 27th December 2006 15:19

I have just entered judgement on HMCS as the Natwest icon

have not entered a defence, or offered me anything (they acknowledged the claim, that's all)... but I see from other threads that they have been putting in a defence on other's claims... have I done the right thing? Could they have put a defence in but I haven't received it? I have had nothing from Cobbetts.

**Rooster-UK** · 27th December 2006 15:21

It won't cause a problem. The bank may enter a defence icon

but the only effect it will have, overall, is to delay settlement by a few weeks.

Good luck.
Regards, Rooster.

**ataction** · 27th December 2006 16:33

There defences are not always delivered within the deadlines, and with the Christmas holidays icon

, and the mass of claims they are dealing with, expect delays.

**angelclaire** · 27th December 2006 22:14

And if I do receive a defence what then? Help!!

**stan5131** · 27th December 2006 22:24

Just sit tight. If you receive their defence, you should receive the aq icon

shortly after that. Dont worry, it is all part of Natwests tactics. They delay and stall to the bitter end, but alas, victory will be yours

**angelclaire** · 29th December 2006 16:09

I entered judgement after the 28 days, and it was accpeted (I didn't know there may be a delay because of the Christmas rush) and have since received the defence; I have responded as suggested on here, and on the HMCS Money Claim on line thingie it is saying my Judgement has been rejected... this doesn't mean permanently does it? Help!

**Deller** · 29th December 2006 16:50

This is quite usual for the defence to be recieved at the very last minute. You just need to wait now for the aq icon

and your full settlement should be very soon.

**angelclaire** · 29th December 2006 19:59

Ah right, I see, just one other thing, I sent the standard letter to Cobbetts, along with my schedule of charges, and a copy of the letter to Northampton county court icon

.

I have just had an email from HMCS saying it is to be transferred to Burnley (my town) County Court... should I send a further copy to them? It's all very confusing!!

Regards and thanks,
Claire.

**Deller** · 29th December 2006 23:17

It certainly wouldn't hurt to send another copy to Burnley county court icon

, at least there will be no reason for them to say they havn't seen it then.

**Allyxia** · 30th December 2006 13:46

This is the usal fair Im afriad - and the reason why many people are draftign up complaintletter to the law society - but that another matter.

Dont panic you are on track, as Dellar has pointed out to you.

take care and keep us informed.

**angelclaire** · 30th December 2006 21:21

I have today received the Allocation Questionnaire.. but I have not yet sent my reply to the Defence/CPR 18 request received from Cobbetts (I was going to send the standard letter as posted by Martin3030, along with my schedule of charges).

Should I still send the letter to Cobbetts, AS WELL as completing and submitting the aq icon

?

Thanks,
Claire

**Deller** · 30th December 2006 22:18

Yes send the letter to Cobbetts along with your scedule and then return your aq icon

.

Thread: Angelclaire v Natwest - WON WON WON !!!

Thread Tools