Matilda v RBOS ***SETTLED IN FULL***

**matilda153** · 17th May 2006 16:40

Hi all,

Posted my claim today on Money Claim for £3100.00 inc. interest icon

.

Will let you know how things unfold.

Matilda

Similar Threads:

Lueeze · 17th May 2006 16:41

Goood Luck!

Lou x

**cowlie** · 17th May 2006 17:00

Good luck Matilda, I'm behind you all the way. Make sure you hang in there for the full amount - don't accept a 'guthie'.

**matilda153** · 7th June 2006 09:29

Have today applied for a default judgement against RBOS.

Looking forward to donating 5% and keeping the other 95%

Matilda

**pac1208** · 7th June 2006 11:50

Originally Posted by matilda153

Have today applied for a default judgement against RBOS.

Looking forward to donating 5% and keeping the other 95%

Matilda

Hi Matilda, sounds like good news!

Are you applying for a default judgement after only 21days? Does that mean that they didn't even "acknowledge" your claim?

Thanks

**matilda153** · 7th June 2006 12:32

Hi,

The Bank did not acknowledge my claim, I issued the default judgement after the standard 14 days

Matilda

**matilda153** · 9th June 2006 12:35

I have just been successful in a default judgement and now I have the opportunity to apply for a warrant of execution icon

. What is a reasonable amount of time to give the Bank to pay up. I was thinking 7 days. Any advice?

Matilda

**stacymason** · 11th June 2006 21:29

Hi matilda

Any more news on your case?

Have they paid up yet?

Stacy

**matilda153** · 16th June 2006 13:29

I have heard nothing from RBoS since 17th May, when they said "I am sorry we have not yet resolved matters, I am not yet able to repond to you fully as I am still investigating the matter"

and so......

I have issued my 'warrant of execution icon

' today, being seven days after my default judgement was served.

...I guess this should push things on a little!

I will update when I have some news.

Matilda

**matilda153** · 28th June 2006 17:03

I have now recieved a letter from Cobbetts who are seeking to set aside icon

the judgement, which I will not be challenging.

They have presented their standard defense and requested the usual CPR 18 information I am responding as follows:

"I am writing regarding your recent correspondence consisting of your defense and a request for further information in accordance with CPR part 18.

As you are no doubt aware CPR part 18 is not applicable to claims under the small claims track, and although not allocated as yet, in all probability it will be, therefore I will not be complying with your request.

I am willing to provide the requested information only if the court requests it.

I am, however, enclosing in good faith a Breakdown icon

of the penalty charges and the related account details which have been unlawfully levied against me. Please note that all this information has already been provided to your client.

I have today also sent the court a copy of this information.

I look forward to your reply."

Any comments?

Many Thanks

Matilda

**stacymason** · 29th June 2006 08:35

sounds good, hopefully they'll settle soon!!! There doesn't seem to be many of us taking on RBS icon

!

**matilda153** · 30th June 2006 13:42

I have today received a ‘Notice of Hearing of application’ from the courts to take place on the 4th August.

This of course is not for my claim itself but rather an attempt to have the judgement set aside icon

.

I will be seeking advise from the court directly as to whether I can just simply agree to this, and therefore speed up my claim.

As the hearing is now set…..does this mean it will definitely go ahead? ...Even if I agree to its result....or is this just for the judge to decide?

Do I have to attend?.....I may be on hoilday

Is their a possibility that the hearing will extend into hearing the claim case also? (….i’m sure I have read this in a thread somewhere!)

I would appreciate any comments…..as I have not read any other threads that describe this particular scenario.

I will update with the courts feedback.

Many Thanks

Matilda

**matilda153** · 1st July 2006 13:00

I will have some very exciting news....of which I will speak very soon.

Before I can speak of it could someonr please confirm that the following statement is true.

"under the Limitation Act 1980, you cannot bring a claim more than 6 years icon

after the date on which the cause of action accrued. You issued your claim on 18 May, and you are therefore only legally entitled to calim between the periods 18 May 2000 to 18 May 2006"

Can someone please tell me if they are being completely honest.

I am not disputing their quoting of the Act but rather I am questioning the definition of which the cause of action accrued.

Is this by court action date OR the date of my first letter requesting a refund of charges (a good month previous!)

This will make a difference of at least £100!

Many Thanks

Matilda

**matilda153** · 1st July 2006 13:27

Interesting to note that part of the above is clearly not true!

"only legally entitled to claim between periods 18 May to 18 May 2006".....RUBBISH!!!

I am sure I have read elsewhere that interest icon

is payable until the date the claim is resolved!

Can someone please confirm this as I will be claiming interest up until I receive payment.

Thanks

Matilda

**matilda153** · 1st July 2006 16:58

I am considering a different approach to claim back pre-6 year charges. This is what I am considering to send in reply to an offer received which covers ALL my charges within a 6 year period.

"I disagree with your assertion that the Limitation Act 1980 precludes charges made against me prior to the 6 year period. Section 32 of the Act says that if there was concealment of something then the six years begins from the day that the concealment is discovered, or could reasonably be discovered.

Your client has concealed from me that their charges are much more than their actual costs and therefore the punitive nature of their charges. The client states that their charges are fair and reasonable and yet the OFT statement has made it clear that this is almost certainly not true. The issue of concealment goes further. If your client has a fiduciary duty towards me, this means that they are obliged not to mislead me and must protect my interests when making statements about its charges. It seems to me that by misleading me as to the fairness of its charges and also that its charges reflect actual losses, that it may be in breach of fiduciary duty."

I would really like to test this as it demonstrate that perhaps the policy of only restricting your claim to 6 years icon

is not the best way.

Any comments/warnings?

Thank you to Bankfodder - as I have used his posts to help me

Matilda

**cowlie** · 2nd July 2006 17:41

That is very interesting - let us know how it goes. Cheers.

**jonni2bad** · 3rd July 2006 09:51

Originally Posted by matilda153

Hi Jonni

I would be most grateful if you would provide me with your views on my situation.

In summary….

I have a Judgement against RBoS & I now have a hearing date of the 4th August for set aside icon

.

Cobbetts have offered me £2670 of my £3250 claim, they have reduced it due to some being outside the 6 year period.

Interestingly they are stating that the claim period is from 18 May 2000 to 18 May 2006 – 18 May being the date I made my action – NOT the very first communication with RBOS. (this makes a difference of £100)

What would you do?

Accept payment (£2670) and proceed with another claim for the rest.
Decline the offer stating that I think the limitation Act section 32 applies (concealment).

Are you aware of any other successes with Cobbetts or not where beyond 6 years icon

have been paid.

Many Thanks
Matilda

Hi Matilda

It is my view that the 6 years rule does not apply, since you could not have been reasonably expected to have known this money was reclaimable. The OFT investigation, whilst not concentrating on bank charges, is most likely to be seen as a point at which the issue of penalty charges became 'public knowledge'.

I think the other thing to bear in mind is the fact that a bank does not want to appear in court to explain it's charging system (i.e. actual cost) and so I think it very unlikely that they would really contest the case.

It's my opinion that they must try to appear to be defending, without actually defending, otherwise they would consider that they are opening the floodgates.

Again, in my opinion, should you proceed to court for the whole sum - which I think you should - and if the bank do indeed attend court, then even if the judge agrees with them about the charges over 6 years, your claim for the charges inside the period would still be valid and payable, and that a judge would not consider you to have acted unreasonably in bringing about the action.

I am aware of at least 1 other case where monies outside of 6 years have been repaid, although not with this company.

We recently amended our Data Protection Act request letter so that it does not mention charges for 6 years, simply charges in the banking history.

**BigCol** · 3rd July 2006 11:10

Jonni2bad,
does the 6 year thing not only apply to their having to hold information under the DPA. If the Bank have given the statements going back that far (and I agree that they are just flannelling to try and minimise their costs - although one has to wonder what Cobbetts are charging the RBS icon

, my Solicitor charges £120 +VAT an hour and she's in Lincoln), then surely you are within you rights to claim as you have documentary evidence? As the information has been provided by the Bank then surely it is admissible as evidence?

**matilda153** · 3rd July 2006 11:22

Thank you so much.....I just needed some encouragement to go the extra mile (well....£650!)

I will be rejecting Cobbetts offer today......

I hope to report some good news very soon!

Matilda

**stacymason** · 3rd July 2006 18:00

Good luck Matilda, Hopefully you'll get a nice big cheque soon!

Thread: Matilda v RBOS SETTLED IN FULL

Thread Tools