Hello All,

I sent the standard letter to the Nationwide last week.The Manager sent a very polite f off letter the following day.The main point in his letter was that I accepted the terms and conditions when I opened the account.

I am about to fill in the small claims form and will keep you all posted.

Dave.

Letter before action first.

The first letter I sent did not have list of charges in it because I went into my branch to get the 6 years worth of statements

I think that your letter before action should detail what it is you are threatening them about - unless they have refused to send you the info - in which case they have started a different ball-game

The last paragraph in my letter "respectfully"requested them to return all charges made on the account in the last 6 years within 7 days by way of a personal cheque.

I have all statements,I went into the branch in Bedford to get them.

Then lay out all of the charges which you want refunded plus interest they have charged and total it. You'll need to do that at some point anyway.

You must appear to the court to be reasonable in the way you litigate.

Send them the schedule and give them a deadline.

If you issue the Good News at the Court Office, you can even attach the schedule to the claim as part of the particulars and that will save you time.

THANKS FOR THAT I FORGOT ABOUT THE INTEREST THEY CHARGED.

When I fill in the form and claim for 1 The sum of £766, 2 A declaration that the contract term relating to the charges levied by the defendant is unenforceable. 3 Costs. 4 Interest. How do I go about proving point 2 ?

This is defineatly the line they will go down as in their reply to the standard letter I sent they said"You did,after all,accept this(as part of the terms and conditions) when you opened your account."

When I fill in the form and claim for 1 The sum of £766, 2 A declaration that the contract term relating to the charges levied by the defendant is unenforceable. 3 Costs. 4 Interest. How do I go about proving point 2 ?

This is defineatly the line they will go down as in their reply to the standard letter I sent they said"You did,after all,accept this(as part of the terms and conditions) when you opened your account."

Its a matter of evidence. Just because the right to charge is part of the contract does not make the charges reasonable. The Bank saying that "but you agreed to the T&C" misses the point.

What you are saying is that the charges are so high and so unconnected to any proper assessment of loss suffered by the Bank that the term allowing the bank to impose such charges at those levels cannot be enforced because of UTCCR 1999, case law and UCTA 1977.

Here's examples of the sorts of evidence that you would put in your witness statement (if there was a defence entered and the matter proceeded to a small claims trial):

1.You pay youer credit card bill 3 days late. You do not hear from the Bank at all but on your next statement there is a £20 charge. The Bank did nothing - what is their loss? If the Bank say the cost is reasonable they have to prove it.

2.You go over your overdraft limit by a few pounds. Your bank charges you £28 and all it has done is send you an automated computer generated letter. How does that cost £28 for each letter - sometimes 2 or 3 x£28 at the same moment?

3. The charges are imposed immediately by computer, automatically. There is no investigation of and/or assessment of the loss in respect of each breach and the payment is just an arbitrary figure decided upon by the Bank with no attemtp to justify the actual cost to them of you being in breach of your contract with them from time to time.

4. Look at the library and the voice files and the post (I can't recall where) about the Select Commitee interviews - they variously describe the charges as a) a way of subsidising free banking for other customers b) a way of paying for the Bank's whole debt collection and recovery operations - so your £35 actually pays towardds the copst of pursuing other customers to court etc. c) that the charges are a deterrent d) that the banks confirm that the charges formed part of the Banks' profits. If they covered losses why is there a profit?

5. So you argue that it is more likely than not, which is the burden of proof in civil courts,that the charges must be levied by the Bank with a view to profit.

The facts will be different for each case but there will be some uniformity between the way in which the case is argued.

It may be better to leave out the application for a declaration since this is implied in the request for the money back and with it out you can continue to use Money Claim Online and the case might stay looking like a simple money claim rather than a claim with potentially very widespread consequences that the Bank would be bound to appeal.

Its a matter of evidence. Just because the right to charge is part of the contract does not make the charges reasonable. The Bank saying that "but you agreed to the T&C" misses the point.

What you are saying is that the charges are so high and so unconnected to any proper assessment of loss suffered by the Bank that the term allowing the bank to impose such charges at those levels cannot be enforced because of UTCCR 1999, case law and UCTA 1977.

Here's examples of the sorts of evidence that you would put in your witness statement (if there was a defence entered and the matter proceeded to a small claims trial):

1.You pay youer credit card bill 3 days late. You do not hear from the Bank at all but on your next statement there is a £20 charge. The Bank did nothing - what is their loss? If the Bank say the cost is reasonable they have to prove it.

2.You go over your overdraft limit by a few pounds. Your bank charges you £28 and all it has done is send you an automated computer generated letter. How does that cost £28 for each letter - sometimes 2 or 3 x£28 at the same moment?

3. The charges are imposed immediately by computer, automatically. There is no investigation of and/or assessment of the loss in respect of each breach and the payment is just an arbitrary figure decided upon by the Bank with no attemtp to justify the actual cost to them of you being in breach of your contract with them from time to time.

4. Look at the library and the voice files and the post (I can't recall where) about the Select Commitee interviews - they variously describe the charges as a) a way of subsidising free banking for other customers b) a way of paying for the Bank's whole debt collection and recovery operations - so your £35 actually pays towardds the copst of pursuing other customers to court etc. c) that the charges are a deterrent d) that the banks confirm that the charges formed part of the Banks' profits. If they covered losses why is there a profit?

5. So you argue that it is more likely than not, which is the burden of proof in civil courts,that the charges must be levied by the Bank with a view to profit.

The facts will be different for each case but there will be some uniformity between the way in which the case is argued.

It may be better to leave out the application for a declaration since this is implied in the request for the money back and with it out you can continue to use Money Claim Online and the case might stay looking like a simple money claim rather than a claim with potentially very widespread consequences that the Bank would be bound to appeal.

When I fill in the form and claim for 1 The sum of £766, 2 A declaration that the contract term relating to the charges levied by the defendant is unenforceable. 3 Costs. 4 Interest. How do I go about proving point 2 ?

This is defineatly the line they will go down as in their reply to the standard letter I sent they said"You did,after all,accept this(as part of the terms and conditions) when you opened your account."

Firstly if you get no.1 on the basis of being a disproportionate penalty then No.2 sort of follows as a logical sequitur.

However, The standard of proof in civil cases is "on the balance of probablities" and this means merely "more likely than not" which is taken theoretically to mean the judge must feel 51% sure that you are owed the money and you win.

However the balance of probabilities is a bit of a moveable feast. Lord Scarman in an important immigration case in the early 80s (I think) made the point that the standard can become more stringent when the consequences are more serious.

If you sue for your money back - it's a one-off. Doesn't create a precedent in the County Court. Satisfies the Judge's sense of what is correct under the "overriding objective" under CPR 1 - to provide a just conclusion.

If you ask for a declaration, this has much more serious consequences. If you got it then the game would be over for the banks. The implications would be very far-reaching and there is no doubt that the Bank would muster all their forces to appeal and to snuff you out. But also, the judge would probably feel the extra gravity of the claim you are making and the "balance of probablities" would probably move up to 80% or so. Very much more difficult for you to prove and to get your money not to mention your declaration.

Don't forget that there is no direct evidence at the moment that the charges are disproportionate. All we have is consistent circumstances, reasonable conjecture and a deafening silence from the banks as to what their costs really are. Very likely not enough to get you your declaration but maybe enough to get your money back if that is all you are asking for.

Additionally there is a risk that if you ask for a declaration, the judge might refuse to allocate your case to the Small Claims track despite its value. This would put you in jeopardy as to costs.

The upshot is, go for a declaration of you want but be aware of what it means. You will be very well supported by this Group and its Users.

Don't forget that Stephen Hone has already applied for a declaration against nearly everyone in the world and his dog so it might be better to see what his case brings.

When I fill in the form and claim for 1 The sum of £766, 2 A declaration that the contract term relating to the charges levied by the defendant is unenforceable. 3 Costs. 4 Interest. How do I go about proving point 2 ?

This is defineatly the line they will go down as in their reply to the standard letter I sent they said"You did,after all,accept this(as part of the terms and conditions) when you opened your account."

Firstly if you get no.1 on the basis of being a disproportionate penalty then No.2 sort of follows as a logical sequitur.

However, The standard of proof in civil cases is "on the balance of probablities" and this means merely "more likely than not" which is taken theoretically to mean the judge must feel 51% sure that you are owed the money and you win.

However the balance of probabilities is a bit of a moveable feast. Lord Scarman in an important immigration case in the early 80s (I think) made the point that the standard can become more stringent when the consequences are more serious.

If you sue for your money back - it's a one-off. Doesn't create a precedent in the County Court. Satisfies the Judge's sense of what is correct under the "overriding objective" under CPR 1 - to provide a just conclusion.

If you ask for a declaration, this has much more serious consequences. If you got it then the game would be over for the banks. The implications would be very far-reaching and there is no doubt that the Bank would muster all their forces to appeal and to snuff you out. But also, the judge would probably feel the extra gravity of the claim you are making and the "balance of probablities" would probably move up to 80% or so. Very much more difficult for you to prove and to get your money not to mention your declaration.

Don't forget that there is no direct evidence at the moment that the charges are disproportionate. All we have is consistent circumstances, reasonable conjecture and a deafening silence from the banks as to what their costs really are. Very likely not enough to get you your declaration but maybe enough to get your money back if that is all you are asking for.

Additionally there is a risk that if you ask for a declaration, the judge might refuse to allocate your case to the Small Claims track despite its value. This would put you in jeopardy as to costs.

The upshot is, go for a declaration of you want but be aware of what it means. You will be very well supported by this Group and its Users.

Don't forget that Stephen Hone has already applied for a declaration against nearly everyone in the world and his dog so it might be better to see what his case brings.

What should I put on my claim form?

1Return of all penalty charges plus interest

2Return of all unlawful charges plus interest

3Return of all charges plus interest

Thanks

Dave.

What should I put on my claim form?

1Return of all penalty charges plus interest

2Return of all unlawful charges plus interest

3Return of all charges plus interest

Thanks

Dave.

No.3

No.3

8)

Dave

8)

Dave

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

JOHNSON V NATIONWIDE

CLAIM No. 6BE00544

BEDFORD COUNTY COURT

VALUE £830.40

DVD of ME issueing the summons on Monday

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

JOHNSON V NATIONWIDE

CLAIM No. 6BE00544

BEDFORD COUNTY COURT

VALUE £830.40

DVD of ME issueing the summons on Monday

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Sorry All,didn't have the heart to issue the claim form on video.

Hand delivered though, with a smile. :twisted:

The form required if you want the satisfaction of delivering it yourself is N.285 General form of affidavit Order 20 Rule 10

Cheers

Dave

:twisted: 8) :twisted: 8) :twisted: 8)

Have you filed a certificate of service?

very important