Jump to content

askl

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About askl

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I think my case was that special situation, as the NatWest Card had caused the overdraft and was charged a penalty, but I didn't want to find out I was wrong, so I settled.....
  2. I settled for less than the amount first being claimed in 2003. Irronically just after settling, the Court emailed to say they had lost the file and would have to delay the hearing. Good luck Gandolfi, ASKL
  3. Hi, I've been reworking the above section, any help would be appreciated; The High Court on 21 January 2009 concluded that NatWest’s contract was unique amongst bank contracts in that it was capable of being penal. Specifically; “You must not use your Card to go overdrawn on your Account unless we have previously agreed this with you”. For example as can be seen on page 25 to the Claimant’s Second Witness Statement, on the 24 October 2000 the account stood at £657.42 when I understood that the bank had agreed to extend £19,000 additional credit finance in exchange for the £19,000 guarant
  4. Thanks, Andrew Smith says "14. I consider first the NatWest 2001 conditions. The Relevant Term is the words that I have underlined in the following provision, which is included against the side-note “Using your Card”: “You must only use your Card in accordance with these Conditions of Use and any operating instructions including the User Guide which we or our agents give you at any time. Such instructions form part of the contract between you and the Bank … You must not use your Card to go overdrawn on your Account unless we have previously agreed this with you. If you do go overdrawn
  5. Sorry guys, since Supreme Court's conclusion I've been focusing on my arguments ahead of a hearing on 15 Jan were I have applied to strike out the Claim and the Claimant has applied to have my defence and counterclaim struck out. Below is my draft Second Witness Statement which should fill in most of the gaps. Any suggestions are appreciated - however I need to file the statement 7 days before the hearing. SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT OF I will state as follows:- I am the Defendant at the above address and I make this Witness Statement believing the information is true a
  6. Apologies but I found more legal input at; "Legal Beagls" sic - unfortunately the link won't paste. www.legalbeagls.info/forums/showthread.php?p=128554#post128554 with the missing "e" in seagulls
  7. Gandolfi, Hi you may remember my thread; £25,400 penalty charges claimed by NatWest I'm back in court on 15 January '10 for a hearing to strike out NatWest's Claim for £3.5k bank charges from 2001, and about £25k interest thereon. I'm going to be looking for help after Xmas festivities have died down ....
  8. The Order came through today; 1. Unless the Claimant do by 4.00pm on Tuesday 04 August 2009 file and serve a Witness Statement explaining the method of calculation of all the individual charges made herein, the Claim for such charges and all interest there-on do stand struck out. 2. No order for costs.
  9. It wasn't for want of trying, but the previous judge refused to order a strike-out. This judge said he would......
  10. The claim will be struck out unless NatWest provide the method of calculation of all the individual charges by 4 August - I'll post the exact wording once I've received the order that will follow today's hearing. Overall the Claimant's representative was far brighter and better prepared and than previous incumbents. Once again she used the old, "a list of the charges is the same as a break down of charges" and since the order offered the Claimant to provide either "the method of calculation, or the break-down". The judge disagreed. And she used the Penalties bit from the OFT, ho
  11. Caro, Yes the hearing I asked for, to strike out the Bank's Claim is set for 7 July. Last week NatWest applied to use this same hearing to strike out my defence "because the Defendant has no real prospects of successfully defending this claim". I can't quite make sence of this as the Bank after two years of its claiming one thing has radically amended the claim out of the blue. While I have not been ordered to amend my defence in the light of this amended claim. ASKL
  12. Gandolfi, I have an update with my thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/145837-25-400-penalty-charges-2.html#post1943881. In January the Court Ordered; 1) The Claim shall be stayed pending; a) resolution of the OFT/Abbey Litigation, or, b) upon the Claimant's application that the foregoing litigation is not relevant to this claim, 2) Subject to Paragraph (1) permission to either party to lift the stay or seek further directions. 3) The Claimant shall serve in writing in upon the defendant's answer to the following by 4pm on 28th February 2009; a)
  13. Update; In January the Court Ordered; 1) The Claim shall be stayed pending; a) resolution of the OFT/Abbey Litigation, or, b) upon the Claimant's application that the foregoing litigation is not relevant to this claim, 2) Subject to Paragraph (1) permission to either party to lift the stay or seek further directions. 3) The Claimant shall serve in writing in upon the defendant's answer to the following by 4pm on 28th February 2009; a) the method of calculation, or the break-down, that gives rise to "cheque return fees" being claimed in the sum of £30.00 per item; b) the meth
  14. Photoman, I agree, there are wider implications, businesses will have to be much clearer upfront at the time of agreeing any contract on all the terms, or expect loaded charges to be challenged in court. ASKL
×
×
  • Create New...