Jump to content

mickpercy

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

4 Neutral
  1. This topic was closed on 10 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  2. Absolutely. Merry Christmas to you too.
  3. Latest update: We have had to do CPR Part 18 Request and still further letter clarifying our claim. We think we're nearly there, but here's a taster and hopefully this will help us to win and give you confidence even at the event of getting some heavy letters from the Judge and delay tactics from the Bank... Keep going you will all win. CPR Part 18 - We've had to do one at the request of the judge. There were further requests as NatWest felt we weren't being very clear, so we wrote a letter claiming it was simply a matter of just how disproportionate these charges were... and something we could never easily ascertain as the bank would not release this information. Here's the Judge's request after he recieved that letter: The papers in this claim were considered by Judge ***** who allocated the Claim to the Small Claims Track to be heard. He also went on to say... The Following Direections Apply To This Claim: 1. The Claimant shall within 28 days of service of this order send to the Defendant and to the Court: a) A schedule setting out each charge repayment of which is sought, showing the date, amount, and reason given (if any) for that charge being made; b) Copies of any statement or other document relied upon as showing that each and everry charge has been made; c) A statement of evidence of all matters relied upon as tending to show that the charges are irrecoverable as penalties or otherwise; d) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon. If the Claimant fails to comply with this order, the claim will be struck out without further order. Sounds pretty tough, but we think we have all the answers to these questions... Interestingly the Court order continues... 2. The Defendant (NatWest Bank) shall within 28 days thereafter file and serve a response to the Claimant's schedule, stating in respect of each item claimed; a) Pursuant to what contractual provision such charge was made, producing a copy of the contractual document relied upon; b) Whether such charge is accepted to be a penalty, and if not why not; c) If such charge is alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions (whether or not such action is treated as a breach of contract between the parties), all facts and matters intended to be relied upon as showing that such proper estimate of such loss, and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to what the true cost of dealing with the matter was. d) Any witness statements. e) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon. If the Defendant fails to comply with this order, the Defence will be struck out without further order. So you see, at worst fellow CAB' ers, answer the four questions above and you will win your case. We're not there yet but, we know we will be and wish to impart this knowledge to anyone worrying about CPR Part 18 Requests. For this case to get to the courtroom, NatWest will have to give a detailed breakdown of costs to them appertaining to each charge levvied. Will they do it. No, as if the lose (very likely) this will set a precident, which means everyone can claim back their charges simply and quickly. Hope this is useful Cheers and good luck everyone
  4. CPR Part 18 - We've had to do one at the request of the judge. There were further requests as Natwest felt we weren't being very clear, so we wrote a letter claiming it was simply a matter of just how disproportionate these charges were... and something we could never easily ascertain as the bank would not release this information. Here's the Judge's request after he recieved that letter: The papers in this claim were considered by Judge ***** who allocated the Claim to the Small Claims Track to be heard. He also went on to say... The Following Direections Apply To This Claim: 1. The Claimant shall within 28 days of service of this order send to the Defendant and to the Court: a) A schedule setting out each charge repayment of which is sought, showing the date, amount, and reason given (if any) for that charge being made; b) Copies of any statement or other document relied upon as showing that each and everry charge has been made; c) A statement of evidence of all matters relied upon as tending to show that the charges are irrecoverable as penalties or otherwise; d) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon. If the Claimant fails to comply with this order, the claim will be struck out without further order. Sounds pretty tough, but we think we have all the answers to these questions... Interestingly the Court order continues... 2. The Defendant (Natwest Bank) shall within 28 days thereafter file and serve a response to the Claimant's schedule, stating in respect of each item claimed; a) Pursuant to what contractual provision such charge was made, producing a copy of the contractual document relied upon; b) Whether such charge is accepted to be a penalty, and if not why not; c) If such charge is alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions (whether or not such action is treated as a breach of contract between the parties), all facts and matters intended to be relied upon as showing that such proper estimate of such loss, and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to what the true cost of dealing with the matter was. d) Any witness statements. e) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon. If the Defendant fails to comply with this order, the Defence will be struck out without further order. So you see, at worst fellow CAB' ers, answer the four questions above and you will win your case. We're not there yet but, we know we will be and wish to impart this knowledge to anyone worrying about CPR Part 18 Requests. For this case to get to the courtroom, Natwest will have to give a detailed breakdown of costs to them appertaining to each charge levvied. Will they do it. No, as if the lose (very likely) this will set a precident, which means everyone can claim back their charges simply and quickly. Hope this is useful Cheers and good luck everyone
  5. Issue 1. Our claim against Natwest for failing to supply statements as per SAR - We won. We asked for £1200 and got it, a day before the court date Issue 2. My dad's business account (dealt with seperately to keep in the small claims track) - We won. Have recieved just under £5,000. The full amount plus 8% interest. Issue 3. We have been asked by the judge to fill out a CPR Part 18 form and have done so. They returned with insufficient details, sent letter claiming that we have (see response earlier in this thread). The latest is that the court seems to agree and have asked Natwest to supply a breakdown of their costs, as well as asking us for more details. Will post actual letter later today. Won 2. Nearly there with the third and are in mid-process taking Vanquis, Capital One, and barlclays to court. Win, Won, Win. Thank you to all who have helped and will be glad to share my experiences and will be donating to help the upkeep of this great site. thanks CAG you're wonderful and are a modern day Robin Hood.
  6. Have had similar problems and the court have asked us to fill out a CPR Part 18 Request (which also costs an extra £100). In it they seem to be asking what reason do we think we have been overcharged amongst other things. I have written a response based on research into the template letters on this site and various threads appertaining to these issues. Here's the letter: Either it will help or someone will come back and suggest we have done the wrong thing... Either way will people please respond Cobbetts LLP Ship Canal House King Street Manchester M2 4WB ********** 2006 In Response to a Request For Further Information pursuant to a CPR Part 18 Request Dear Sir, In response to your request for further information and clarification as requested for by Cobbetts acting on behalf of Natwest Bank PLC, pursuant to your CPR Part 18 Request, dated *********** 2006. The information you request has been provided previously in the schedules attached to each letter of correspondence to yourself and Natwest Bank at every stage of this claim. However, to clarify further I offer a more comprehensive breakdown of the claim’s finer details. As to part 1 of the request, whereupon you query as to ’what account’ we are dealing with, surely this is clear. All account details are on the attached schedule, and have been provided consistently with each letter of correspondence. Is there really still doubt over which account and branch this claim appertains to? As to Part 2 of the request, whereupon you ask me to identify the date, amount and reason of each charge, once again the attached schedule lists the finer details of all the above. As to Part 3 of the request, whereupon you ask why we are contesting the charges and why we should not have been charged each amount, the answer is again clear. We contest the legality of your client’s charges and need to see a breakdown of your client’s charge structure to ascertain exactly what level of disproportionate charging has taken place. However, this request has been ignored throughout this claim. This information, which Natwest appears reluctant to offer is the matter of contention in this case. If you were to offer a full breakdown of the costs incurred to Natwest Bank PLC where there has been a charge, then and only then could we come to a clear understanding whether such a high charge is disproportionate or not. It is my belief that they are disproportionate and as such contrary to common law and consumer regulations. If you could supply us and the courts with this information we would clearly understand exactly how disproportionate or otherwise they are. However, you have consistently been reluctant to share with myself or the courts a breakdown of such costs appertaining to each charge. Therefore, for further clarification, I raise the following points and ask for a more detailed response from yourselves to help us settle this matter. If Natwest Bank PLC are claiming their charges are ‘fair and reasonable‘, I contest this. Moreover, I believe they exceed each transgression and are disproportionate contrary to common law and consumer legislation. Without the benefit of a detailed breakdown of your costs, here’s why I believe the charges are disproportionate to offer further clarification of my claim number: ******* Natwest claim their charges are ’fair and reasonable’. However, their method of charging its customers is an automated process. As such and being that the process operates many thousands of times each day and millions each year, it is fair to assume that the cost of it is spread over this huge number of transactions and is shared equally between them. Without a clear breakdown of your client‘s costs, one can only assume this cost. As it is automated and spread across a wide range of customers I assess that this cost is most probably less than 50p per transaction. Unless you can clearly offer evidence to the contrary, why should it cost any more? If Natwest Bank PLC do not contest this issue and are instead claiming that their charges are the price of a contractual service, then I claim that their price exceeds what is reasonable as required by S.15, Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. In it, S.15 says that where no price is agreed at the time the contract is made, that a reasonable price will be implied. I believe this not to be the case when charging £35 per automated refusal? A bank is a High Street business. Normal mark-ups on the High Street businesses are 100%. It would not be reasonable for Banks to mark up significantly higher than this without a full and detailed explanation to their customers. I hope this response has covered all aspects of your request for further information satisfactorily? For a fair and reasonable hearing I would expect you on behalf of Natwest to offer a detailed summary of how their costs appertain to each charge as listed, or offer a settlement in full for my claim. Yours sincerely ********* CC ******* County Court How does this sound and if good use it yourselves and add/take away where you think necessary. If not please let me know? Yours ready to kick Asswest's Nat Mickpercy
  7. hello everyone. Thanks for all the info. We are part way through two claims and have won one already (still holding back the furore until the current one wins). I have sent off the letter (as per your template above) and they still refuse to accept it claiming they need further information otherwise they will ask the court to rule against the claim? Any ideas on what to do next? Yours hopefully Mickpercy
  8. don't worry if they don't respond. So long as you have verifiable reciepts and proof of receipt/delivery just carry on to the next stage and take 'em to court. N1 awaits and is the next course. Good luck, you probably have them on the ropes... remember that no response is no defence, and judging by mine and most other people's experiences responses tend to be delay or scare tactics anyway:oops:
  9. UPdate: 10 days to go awaiting their defence for failing to comply with SAR, claiming £1200 in damages 28 days to go. Awaiting their defence on bank charges claiming for nearly £5000 next claim for a further £3000 pending and awaiting outcome of two previous claims (wish us luck). Even if we don't win, getting to this stage is a real confidence boost for my parents who have suffered greatly through the stress of financial difficulkty (as many have) and gives us a sense that justice might concievably prevail thanks to everyone involved in running this fantastic site. Many thanks everyone and good luck to all and everyone in theior own battles. X
  10. Good point Caro, although Mr Pell mentions our case history rather than 'fair and reasonable'. What is completely fascinating is that he's made this assessment based on the records of my dad's accounts and yet, as yet we have failed to recieve our SAR. It's nearly 90 days since we sent it off and we're awaiting a court date. It made me a little cross so I have sent him a letter back as if I had to read it out in court... It reads as follows: Dear Sir, Thank you for your letter dated xx July 2006 whereupon you acknowledge receiving a number of letters and communications regarding my accounts and my dissatisfaction at the levy of charges . I believe you have been made aware of my plight through the fact that I have written, phoned and met in person various members of Natwest’s staff in an attempt to achieve a sense of fair play and a justification of the charges you employ. Indeed, given that you have had access to all the information available on my accounts, I am a little surprised and slightly at odds. There is a county court case pending presently whereby I am taking you to court because you have failed to supply me with the same information you appear to have at your very fingertips? This is in direct contradiction of the Data Protection Act 1998 and I have yet to share the same privilege. As to your raised offer of £2009, I will accept any offers you make including this one, and have done so in the past. However, the sticking point always seems to be that I won’t accept them under your terms: ‘as full and final settlement‘. If you were to offer a ‘full’ settlement, only then would I consider it ‘final‘. Yours sincerely Px*"X**d off Natwest victim I guess I'm getting a little self indulgent, but hopefully it might be of benefit to someone else in a similar position, or I might be advised this is going too far?!! cheers Caro:-)
  11. Just a quickie, too. The last letter sent by Gordon F. Pell, interestingly didn't have WITHOUT PREJUDICE emblazoned on the top. It's the first letter they've sent us without those words (which mean they are usually inadmissible in a court of law, unless requested by the judge). I wonder, as a result, could we use it in court as a sign of their ongoing attempts to buy us out? In the letter, they clearly state their offer is now £2008. I wonder if have they inadvertently accepted some sort of guilt? What do you think?
  12. I hope so Caro, I really hope so. I suppose, in the end all we can now lose is the £120 in court costs?
  13. thanks for your continued support caro. Have recieved another letter dated 31st July 2006. In it someone called Gordon F. Pell says he has taken over from Sir Fred Goodwin, as he is away from the office, and refers to a previous letter addressed to Mr Abid. He goes on to inform us he is executing these affairs. He gives the usual blah, blah and has obviously looked at the individual circumstances to my Father's account details. Originally I wrote a letter on claiming charges were illegal and they were immoral and commiting financial abuse. I asked for his years charges back of £4000. Then I found this wonderful website. I immediately changed my tactics and followed the well worn path. In his letter he refers to that original letter and a subsequent one where I lumped all the accounts together. In my LBA I'm only asking for charges back from his business accounts, even though they are responding to not just that letter, but all the previous. He has made us an offer of £2008 as full and finalk settlement. He goes on to suggest this £850 increase (from their first offer of £1159) is generous.!!!!! and goes on to say if unacceptable, we should go down the Obudsman route. THE OMBUDSMAN ROUTE!! This is really laughable and certainly not the route we will follow. Spoke to a solicitor friend and he made it clear that more often than not Ombudsman liase and lean towards the bank's interests and are equally difficult and unrealistic as the rotten banks are to deal with. To cut a long story short, we are sending our N1 claim form today asking for charges for my Dad's 2 business accounts. This works out around £4,300 (not including 8% interest). Thanks for allowing me to ramble. Mickpercy - dedicated to kicking Asswest's Nat!!!
  14. Sorry to keep posting stuff but it helps me get in my own head what's going on and there is always some great advice or encouragement that comes back. This post is about our second action, for simplicity sake called our ISSUE 2. ISSUE 2 refers to our first claim for my dad's business accounts. We sent a preliminary letter asking for full repayment of the charges from all three accounts, then split the accounts into business and personal to ensure smalls calims track, but in response to our LBA, they've lumped them together as per our peliminary letter. We might have messed up a little, but are sure we will only go for business accounts (£4,300) and once that is dealt with we will claim for our personal account (£2,000). The letter we've recieved back is as follows: It is addressed from their Group Customer Relations department on the 12th Floor, 280 Bishopsgate, London and signed by a Mr Mike Guest Dear Mr xxxxxx Thank you for you letter of 16th July addressed to Mr Abid (he's the guy who responded to our letter sent to Sir Fred Goodwin), following your earlier letter to Sir Fred Goodwin of 27th June 2006. (Notice they have ignored our LBA and are referring to this earlier letter) You have asked the bank to review the charges on your three accounts for the last six years as you consider them to have been unfairly applied. In order to ensure a full investigation, copy statements were ordered and background information had to be obtained from your Business Manager. Responses to our requests have now been recieved and the accounts are currently being reviewed. A response will then be formulated and I would ask you to bear with us and await our response before taking further action. thank you in advance for your consideration. We are going to ignore this letter as it is not in any way a positive response and seems to have completely ignored our LBA and simply referred to our earlier letter. Will fill in a claim form on Monday and take them to court for the two business accounts and claim for just under £5,000. Will keep you all posted and guarantee to pay 5% towards the upkeep of this fantastic site. Feeling very positive...
  15. Hiya Sm03art. I don't know the answer myself but I just read some info on the same subject in a thread on this main page. Check our seanf's thread titled: NatWest Submitted Defence - CPR Part 16 PD I think this will help point you in the direction. And good luck:)
×
×
  • Create New...