for some reason the RBS seem to be victimising me and making a real fight on my claim! Some people just seem to be paid up but oh no - pick on the woman thats 8 months pregnant with twins, she is sure to cave in...... is that it?

I filed my AQ with full info on my claim etc as follows:

"PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

1. The Claimant has an account 1003**** ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened in or around 2001.

2. During the period in which the Account has 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 is attached to these particulars of claim.

4. The Claimant contends that:

a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.

c) The Claimant respectfully submits that the law relating to contractual penalties is long established so the success or otherwise of the claim depends on the Defendant’s justification that each charge was proportionate to its loss and was a genuine pre-estimate. The Claimant therefore believes that the unresolved issues involved in the claim are principally of fact not law and so respectfully requests that the claim be allocated to the small claims track, and estimates that the hearing of the claim should last no longer than one hour.

The Claimant believes that this claim can proceed most expeditiously if the Defendant was directed to provide the information which is central to the claim and which the Defendant has withheld from the Claimant to date; namely evidence that its charges were (in the Defendant’s view) proportionate to its loss and a genuine pre-estimate.

Finally, the Claimant wishes to bring the Court’s attention a General Form of Judgment or Order in a similar case (6QZ84736) at Lincoln County Court where it was ordered (28 December 2006) that “The Court of its own motion is considering striking the Defence out as an abuse of process on the basis that it has settled all previous claims of this nature. If the Defendant objects to this course of action it is to file at Court within 14 days, a Schedule setting out a list of all claims it has pursued to trial and all claims it has settled.” Although this was in relation to another Defendant (Lloyds TSB), it concerned the same issue of Default Charges, and the Claimant is aware that the Defendant in this case has previously settled claims prior to Court.

5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £2156

b) Court costs;

I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true

1. Between the dates of 25th October 2002 and 26th October 2006 the Defendant applied numerous default charges to the Claimant’s bank account.

2. The charges applied constitute an unfair penalty under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, which state: “A term is unfair if it requires any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation”. The amount charged does not reflect the cost of the breach.

3. Under the law of penalties, the charges are an unlawful ‘extravagant’ penalty. Referring to the case of 1896, Wilson v Love, a charge is a penalty if it does not reflect an item’s true cost.

4. The Claimant therefore asks the court to enter judgment in their favour for the sum of £2156 plus all court fees."

and this morning received this letter from Cobbetts that they have sent to the court:

"We refer to the claimants letter to you dated 12th February 2007, a copy of which was received by us.

We write to inform the court that the defendant would object to the making of any such order in this case. The order referenced in the claimants letter appears to be predicated on the basis that the Defence that the defendant filed in that action is somehow and abuse of process. It can not be an abuse of proces to file a defence, in compliance with court rules, and at the same time to seek compromise that action. If the court were minded to grant such an order the defendant would wish to be heard and to make detailed submissions as to why this form of order is misconcieved. We look forward to hearing from the court in this regard"

Any ideas 1) what they are talking about and 2) do I need to worry about this?

Any help or advice gratefully received!

any mods?

If I had any idea what you meant I would tell you!

c allan is asking for mod to help you dorisandthehoff

ah ha! Sorry! Must be the hormones!

for some reason the RBS seem to be victimising me and making a real fight on my claim! Some people just seem to be paid up but oh no - pick on the woman thats 8 months pregnant with twins, she is sure to cave in...... is that it?

 

I filed my AQ with full info on my claim etc as follows:

 

"PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

1. The Claimant has an account 1003**** ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened in or around 2001.

 

2. During the period in which the Account has 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 is attached to these particulars of claim.

 

4. The Claimant contends that:

 

a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

 

b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.

 

c) The Claimant respectfully submits that the law relating to contractual penalties is long established so the success or otherwise of the claim depends on the Defendant’s justification that each charge was proportionate to its loss and was a genuine pre-estimate. The Claimant therefore believes that the unresolved issues involved in the claim are principally of fact not law and so respectfully requests that the claim be allocated to the small claims track, and estimates that the hearing of the claim should last no longer than one hour.

 

The Claimant believes that this claim can proceed most expeditiously if the Defendant was directed to provide the information which is central to the claim and which the Defendant has withheld from the Claimant to date; namely evidence that its charges were (in the Defendant’s view) proportionate to its loss and a genuine pre-estimate.

 

Finally, the Claimant wishes to bring the Court’s attention a General Form of Judgment or Order in a similar case (6QZ84736) at Lincoln County Court where it was ordered (28 December 2006) that “The Court of its own motion is considering striking the Defence out as an abuse of process on the basis that it has settled all previous claims of this nature. If the Defendant objects to this course of action it is to file at Court within 14 days, a Schedule setting out a list of all claims it has pursued to trial and all claims it has settled.” Although this was in relation to another Defendant (Lloyds TSB), it concerned the same issue of Default Charges, and the Claimant is aware that the Defendant in this case has previously settled claims prior to Court.

 

5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

 

a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £2156

 

b) Court costs;

 

I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true

 

 

Particulars of claim number 7QZ0****

12th February 2007

 

 

 

1. Between the dates of 25th October 2002 and 26th October 2006 the Defendant applied numerous default charges to the Claimant’s bank account.

 

2. The charges applied constitute an unfair penalty under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, which state: “A term is unfair if it requires any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation”. The amount charged does not reflect the cost of the breach.

 

3. Under the law of penalties, the charges are an unlawful ‘extravagant’ penalty. Referring to the case of 1896, Wilson v Love, a charge is a penalty if it does not reflect an item’s true cost.

 

 

4. The Claimant therefore asks the court to enter judgment in their favour for the sum of £2156 plus all court fees."

 

and this morning received this letter from Cobbetts that they have sent to the court:

 

"We refer to the claimants letter to you dated 12th February 2007, a copy of which was received by us.

 

We write to inform the court that the defendant would object to the making of any such order in this case. The order referenced in the claimants letter appears to be predicated on the basis that the Defence that the defendant filed in that action is somehow and abuse of process. It can not be an abuse of proces to file a defence, in compliance with court rules, and at the same time to seek compromise that action. If the court were minded to grant such an order the defendant would wish to be heard and to make detailed submissions as to why this form of order is misconcieved. We look forward to hearing from the court in this regard"

 

Any ideas 1) what they are talking about and 2) do I need to worry about this?

 

Any help or advice gratefully received!

I think Cobbetts are basically asking the court to allow a defence to be submitted, i don't think it gives any cause for concern.

Paul