Stumbled on this forum thanks to Martin Lewis' website - what an eye opener.

Anyway ... have gone back over my RBS statements since I opened my account with them in October 2001 and entered the amounts on the very useful spreadsheet.

I have had various charges refunded over the course of the last 4.5 years - it is helpful to note them in the spreadsheet as a negative figure - the spreadsheet accordingly reduces any interest charges by a similar negative figure.

I calculate the sum owed to me by RBS is £924.15 - preliminary letter sent to my local branch today.

Fingers crossed!

Hi,

Good luck. As an additional note, the interest calculated at 8% APR is ONLY to be used if/when you raise your claim in court - if you entered this on your preliminary letter, then ensure that when you send your second letter (LBA) you indicate that this will be applied if further action is required, and that you are not seeking it at this point in time.

Thanks! Fortunately I didn't include the interest calculation yet - I used to work in litigation departments for various solicitors across the country - I'm extremely well acquainted with the County Court Rules Act 1984 - might be worth noting that if people do have to issue claims in England/Wales that you have to claim interest not only up until the date of the claim being issued, but you can claim interest at an equivalent daily rate at the same interest from the date of issue until Judgment or sooner payment.

I have received a response from the branch manager:

"Thank you for your letter of 29th April 2006 and I apologise for any dissatisfactoin 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 satisfaied 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.

Against that background, we must differ to the views expressed in your letter. Accordingly, the charges that have been applied to your account must stand.

However, thank you again for taking the trouble to write."

Obviously, I'm not going to let this matter rest. Because I have not received a positive response, I am now going to submit my letter before action today.

I've had no reply to my letter before action from the RBS, so tomorrow I am going to present my claim to the local County Court - £924.15 plus interest of £236.72.

DNA,

It looks like the RBS reply you received is their standard letter - I received an almost identical one on 21/4 but had the additional statement that " The OFT is currently in contact with us and 7 other major credit card companies to discuss the level of charges on credit cards. It is important to emphasise that these discussions are limited to credit cards only."

In other words... "go away and stop bothering us about bank accounts - we have your money and we're keeping it!"

Oh you think so! over the last 4 years I calculated over £2500 in charges on my account - this will not be allowed to slide!

Latest update - submitted my claim to Salford County Court a few weeks ago because I was applying for exemption from the Court fee because I receive Incapacity Benefit - my income only exceeds my expenditure by £19 per month and the Court have had the cheek to say that I have to pay £40 for the Court fee rather than grant me the full exemption - they say they have based it on County Court guidelines (which I have asked for a copy) - and then we'll see how it goes from there.

Sorry for the delay in updating folks about my progress. My claim was issued in the Salford County Court, an Acknowledgment of Service was filed by the RBS solicitors, Cobbetts of Manchester (round the corner from the firm of solicitors I work for!) and today I have received their Defence, as follows:

1. This Defence is filed and served wtihout prejudice to the right of the Defendant to apply for summary judgment in respect of and/or to strike out the Particulars of Claim.

2. The Defendant is embarrassed by the lack of particularity pleaded in the Particulars of Claim to the extent that the Particulars of Claim fail to disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the Defendant. In particular:

2.1 The Particulars of Claim, although they set out the facts indicating what the claim is about, they do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the Defendant.

3. The Defendant invites the Claimant to remedy the above. In the event that the Claimant fails to do so within 14 days of the service of the Defendant then the Defendant will apply to the Court for an Order striking out the Particulars of Claim.

4. The Defendant reserves the right to plead further to the Particulars of Claim once and if the Claimant properly particularises the same. In the meantime, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief whether as pleaded or at all.

See my next post for my Particulars of Claim.

My Particulars of Claim:

1. The Claimant had a current Royalties Gold account number xxxxxxxx ("the Account") with the Defendant, which was opened on or around xxxxxxxx.

2. During the period in which the Account had been operating, the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of conrtact on the part of the Claimant and also charged intrest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

3. A list of the charges applied to the Account up to around May 2003 is attached to these Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has only been able to compile a list of the charges up to May 2003 because he does not have any bank statements from the Defendant after this date. The Claimant puts the Defendant to strict proof that no further charges were applied to the Account since May 2003. If it is the case that further charges were applied to the Account after May 2003, the Claimant reserves the right to amend his claim to include the further charges applied together with a claim for interest accrued from the time the further charges were applied.

4. The Claimant contends that:

a. The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature;

b. Are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant;

c. Exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and

d. Are not intended to represent or relate to any alleged actual loss, but interest unduly enrich the Defendant, which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

a. The return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £924.15 and any interest charged thereon;

b. The return of the amounts debited in respect of charges after May 2003 and any interest charged thereon (as claimed in paragraph 3 of these Particulars of Claim);

c. A declaration from this Honourable Court that the term of the contract leading to the application of the charges is unenforceable; and

d. Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 as set out on the attached list of charges or at such rate and for such period as the Court deems just.

This thread may be of interest, virtually identical:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/14896-exmonkey-nw-2.html

Thanks Michael, very interesting indeed!

Today I hand delivered to Cobbetts the following Amended Particulars of Claim (I did not sign them) inviting them to agree to my amendments failing which I will make an application to the Court at the same time as my allocation questionnaire is filed to get the Court's permission to amend:

1. The Claimant had a current Royalties Gold account number xxxxxxxx (“the Account”) with the Defendant, which was opened on or around xxxxxxxx.

2. During the period in which the Account had been operating, the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

3. A list of the charges applied to the Account up to around May 2003 is attached to these Amended Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has only been able to compile a list of the charges up to May 2003 because he does not have any bank statements from the Defendant after this date. The Claimant puts the Defendant to strict proof that no further charges were applied to the Account since May 2003. If it is the case that further charges were applied to the Account after May 2003, the Claimant reserves the right to amend his claim to include the further charges applied together with a claim for interest accrued from the time the further charges were applied.

4. The Claimant contends that:

a. the charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature;

b. are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant;

c. exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and

d. are not intended to represent or relate to any alleged actual loss, but interest instead unduly enrich the Defendant, which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

5. The Claimant claims that the Defendant’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 s4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 para 8 and sch2(1)(e).

6. Alternatively, 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 s15. The Claimant by its letters to the Defendant dated 29 April 2006 (attached) and 6 May 2006 (attached) asked the Defendant to justify their charges but the Defendant has declined to do so.

7. Accordingly, the Claimant claims:

a. the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £924.15 and any interest charged thereon;

b. the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges after May 2003 and any interest charged thereon (as claimed in paragraph 3 of these Amended Particulars of Claim);

c. a declaration from this Honourable Court that the term of the contract leading to the application of the charges is unenforceable because the charges are a disproportionate penalty and unenforceable contrary to common law and/or invalid and/or unreasonable;

d. interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 as set out on the attached list of charges or at such rate and for such period as the Court deems just.

It will be interesting to see whether Cobbets agree to these amendments, since your POC are now virtually identical to Exmonkey's, which Cobbetts are threatening to have struck out

I will keep everyone posted on what response I get - thanks for taking the time to read my thread.

I just filled my fee remission form and my outgoings are £200 more a month than my incoming at the moment, I wonder if they still make me pay, it's annoying having to wait five days for a decision as well. but my N1 is £150! so it will be worth the wait.

good luck

DNA.....can you explain to me why your claim is taking so long? you sent out your prelim letter at the end of April, that's nearly 5 months.....have you had a Court date yet?

Wxx

I had a wrangle with Salford County Court over two claims I started with them - one for the RBS and an unrelated matter - they managed to issue the claim for the unrelated matter in the name of the RBS matter and forward the RBS proceedings to the other company ... I also had a wrangle with them over my fees exemption form - all sorted now, and 20 September was the date the Defendant had to file a Defence (which they did).

Incidentally, those of you who have received a Defence from Cobbetts and not from the Court - District Judges tends to favour Defences filed even a day late rather than consider requests for Judgment - well, they do in Manchester and Salford!

Received my Allocation Questionnaire from Salford County Court this morning - it has to be in by 9 October 2006. So that's how long Cobbetts have got to consent to my amendments to my Particulars of Claim otherwise I will submit my application for permission to amend when the AQ is filed.

A week goes by and no reply from Miss B ... I wonder if she's too busy replying to the rest of us or perhaps her computer has given up the ghost from processing too many template letters/defences/requests/etc ... I'm away on holiday from next Friday so I'll have to get my AQ (and possibly my application to amend) to Salford County Court by then.

Hi, DNA, just wanted to ask how did you name the Defendant (RBS) on the N1 form ? Did you put "RBS trading as..." I will be needing this info soon!! Also, isn't the RBS a Scottish registered company ? Do they also have an English registration ? Do you have to do anything different for a Scottish registered company ?

Thanks.

I named them as "The Royal Bank of Scotland plc", quoted the registered address in Scotland - added this paragraph:

'I state that the High Court of England and Wales has power under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 to hear this claim and that no proceedings are pending between the parties in Scotland, Northern Ireland or another Convention territory of any contracting state as defined by section 1(3) of the Act.'

Issued my claim in the normal way and then read Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and allowed them 21 days from date of service of the proceedings instead of the usual 14 days to acknowledge the proceedings (which they did) and then a further 14 days to file the defence (which they did).

It's not that different to issuing against someone in England/Wales - just have to allow an extra week for requesting judgments, etc.

I have today received a letter from Cobbetts - I am stunned by the reply! I wrote asking for permission to amend my Particulars of Claim in the form attached above, together with pleading that their client had failed to prove that no charges had been applied since May 2003. This is the exact reply:

"We refer to your letter dated 22 September 2006 and we apologise for the delay in responding. This is due to the fact that the writer has been away from the office on annual leave.

We confirm that a copy of the Defendant's pleadings was filed at Court on 20 September 2006 by way of fax.

We note the contents of your second paragraph. We confirm that our client is in the process of requesting bank statements from May 2003 to today's date and we will forward a copy of these to you in due course.

We note that you wish to amend your Particulars of Claim and our client will consent to the amendments provided in the draft copy of the Particulars attached to your letter of 22 September 2006."

So I've got consent to my amendments, I still have not received or been threatened with a Part 18 Request, and I've got them to send three years' worth of bank statements to me for free.

Of course, once I file my Amended Particulars of Claim at Court, they will file an Amended Defence - the Allocation Questionnaires are due to be filed by next Monday - I see no reason why this matter will not be allocated to the small claims track and for the matter to proceed to a small claims hearing in due course, possibly some time early next year.

Again, I'll keep everyone updated.

It will be interesting to see whether Cobbets agree to these amendments, since your POC are now virtually identical to Exmonkey's, which Cobbetts are threatening to have struck out

The amendments have been agreed - see above.

Thanks DNA, much appreciated!

Been away on holiday to come back to this letter from Cobbetts:

"We refer to the above matter.

Our client considers that your challenges to its charges would fail in Court. Our client believes that its charges are fair, reasonable and transparent. It considers that the amounts debited to your account have been applied strictly in accordance with your agreement with it and its published tariff, which it is satisfied complies with all applicable laws and regulations. Our client is also committed to ensuring the transparency of the information that it gives to its customers about the operation of its products. As such, our client does not believe that your claim has any prospect of succeeding.

However, as a gesture of goodwill and strictly on the basis that our client rejects any liability to you, it is willing to offer you a goodwill payment of £700.

Acceptance by you of this goodwill payment will be in full and final settlement of your claim against our client and strictly on the basis that:-

1. you agree not to disclose to any third party the fact of, or any details relating to, this payment:

2. you write to the Court withdrawing your claim.

Whilst this letter is written without prejudice save as to costs, in the event that you decline this offer, we will draw this letter to the Court's attention on the basis that we hold the firm view that this offer is entirely reasonable in the circumstances. This offer will remain open for 7 days until Thursday, 19 October 2006.

We look forward to hearing from you."

The letter is dated 11 October 2006.

Now for my initial views:

1. I've still not received the remainder of the bank statements promised so I can see whether I incurred any charges after May 2003 to date.

2. My claim has still not been allocated to the small claims track, although I expect a difficulty in that I have a claim against Nationwide Building Society and I have been ordered:

"To inform the Court and the Defendant whether he intends to pursue his claim for a declaration as to the validity of the Defendant's terms and conditions. In the event that he does so intend, the Court may decide to allocate the claim to the Multi Track because the effect of the Court's decision may affect other persons who are not parties (rule 26.8(1)(g) Civil Procedure Rules 1998)."

I have not read this rule yet but will do so tomorrow (I am shattered!) but my claim against RBS includes a claim for the same declaration.

3. I'm not sure whether the offer I have been made could be classed as a Part 36 offer because it is framed as a "gesture of goodwill" - again, I will need to look into this.

Anyone's help/opinion/suggestion as to how I should reply would be appreciated. I already intend to reply asking for a few further days to reply because I have been away for a week.

My initial thought is to accept the £700 as a part-payment and sue for the rest at the final hearing of my claim, which stands at a little over £900 plus the 8% interest - not counting any further claim I may have for any charges incurred after May 2003.

This is CPR 26.8(1)(g):

"When deciding the track for a claim, the matters to which the court shall have regard include the importance of the claim to persons who are not parties to the proceedings."

The amount of the claim in this case becomes irrelevant if the outcome could affect other people making similar claims. I think I am going to have a rethink about amending my RBS claim to remove the claim for a declaration, etc as you can read from my Particulars of Claim.