Ok - im no legal eagle but have had a stab at a response to their defence over the weekend - never had to do one before so any help would be greatly appreciated - feel free to pull it apart say its no good etc etc I just dont want to screw things up anycase here goes:

In response to point 1

No comment - At least I dont think there is??

In response to point 2

The date 22/01/1990 to 15/11/2006 appertains to the complete time fame of the claim, 15/11/2006 being the date of issue. The schedule of charges shows in detail each individual charge and the date they were applied to the account being from 22/01/1990 to 31/08/1995. Copies of schedule attached see Appendix A.

The defendant quotes that the charges are barred by the operation of the Limitation Act 1980 under no particular section. The Claimant denies this and makes particular reference to The Limitation Act 1980 s.32 (1)©:

The action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;

1. The period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.

2. For the purposes of subsection (1) above, deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty.

The Claimant seeks permission to proceed with the claim under s.32 (1) (c.) Limitations Act 1980 on the ground that the payments were conceded on the mistaken presumption that the said charges and interest thereon did not amount to penalties and that the Claimant would not reasonably have discovered the said mistakes before the report of the OFT was published on 05/04/2006.

In response to point 3

The Claimant is claiming the return of money taken by Defendant in charges during the time the claimant has had the account with the Defendant. The Defendant's charges are a disproportionate penalty and are therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law. They are also invalid under the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 s4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.Para.8 and sch.2.1.e. In the event that the court finds that the charges are not a penalty then they are unreasonable within the meaning of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15.

On 2 occasions the Claimant tried to enter into dialogue with the Defendant regarding these charges, copies of these letters are attached in Appendix B and C but only received one response, Appendix D. The Defendant quoted that they do not accept the OFT findings yet it is publically known that the Defendant, upon not gaining confidentiality, settled before court on many cases in order not to disclose their true costs. This left the Claimant with no choice but to issue proceedings.

In response to point 4

The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from the date of each individual charge and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment should the Claimant be successful.

In response to point 5

The Claimant denies that there is no legal basis for this case to proceed. The Defendant, in point 2 of their defence, uses the Limitations Act 1980 as a blanket reason for the claim to be time barred, but the Claimant has shown that specifically under claim under s.32 (1) (c.) of the said same Act that the action does hold a legal basis and therefore does not constitute unreasonable behaviour.

The Claimant would also like it noted that they are a litigant in person with little means and considers point (5.2) as intimidation towards the Claimant not to proceed with the case.

Appendix A – Schedule of charges form 22nd January 1990 to 31st August 1995

Appendix B – Letter to National Westminster Bank dated 12th October 2006

Appendix C – Letter to National Westminster Bank dated 21st October 2006

Appendix D – Letter from National Westminster Bank 20th October 2006

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this statement are true.

Just subscribing great work so far guys

Thank you - where are you with your case?

Im in court 14th Feb

I'd leave it that they want to claim their train fares:D

yeah i will do dont want to attract more expences/costs than is totally necessary just incase the case goes against me

do you think they've made a mistake and intended to quote 27.14(2)(g)?

With some of the tricks the banks pull now a days would have been more understandable I guess - ill keep (d) thanks

As far as I am aware nothing - I certainly have done nothing, you didnt agree to the amount as full and final settlement so as far as your case is concerned nothing changes.

I could be wrong but thats the way I see it unless anyone see's differently

Well, I am now really confused and hope someone can help.

 

Filed MCOL for £710 plus interest £161.76 and costs £80 on 02/11/06 and they have sent in a defence which I received from the Court dated 24/11/2006. I have sent my AQ back.

 

Today I received a statement and there is an item on it for a credit of £326 noted as a "late fee reversal". I have had no correspondence or notification of this.

 

Help!!!!!

Hi

I had similar happen to me if you have had your defence from Citi read it carefully - on mine they state that they acknowledge the OFT report blah blah and then credit you back the difference between the £12 and the actual cost of the charge. They then just apply it to your account without any notification.

Hope this helps

Heres another in the 6+ club.

NatWest hit me with a court claim for £0000's going back 10 years!!

I have filed a defence and now they have to show how they came about the alleged amount (not even sure if it was loan/overdraft).

When/if I receive this lot I will be counterclaiming.

 

Watch your thread with interest,

 

SHERLOCK

Wow good luck Sherlock - hope you get chance to hit them where it hurts

I Will be watching this.

 

Really WIZARD stuff, Michael.

 

Hey, Tommy - this guy sure plays a mean pinball !!

Dont he just lol

RBoS have failed to comply with my CCA request and as today they are now committing a criminal offence - not sure how I am going to tackle this one but am awaiting for a call from my local trading standrads hehehe

Morning a bit of advice - sorry for jumping on thread - I have today had 3 company's go into criminal offence with failing to supplu CCA within the time limit - whats the best course of action?

Morning Bong yes it was £1800 charges + 8% of £2000 basically just under 4k

Checking in wow i like your style nice letters and nice PoC's got everything crossed for you.

Cheers

Helen

Fantastic wish you luck with that claim, I will track your thread down to sub to it - nice little +6 club building here lol

Thanks Michael certainly does

Just started putting together a response to their defence obviously yes point 2 is argued re section 32.

Also point 4 re section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984

Never done one of these responses before and keep looking at the defence thinking that there is something hidden in the wording im not reading but I guess not if you read it too lol.

Bong is doing hers in the next couple of days so would should hopefully be able to share notes hehehe

May come back for more help form you too if you dont mind - more the merrier

Hi guys

There are no charges less than 6 years so there no need to answer that was a little slip in my POC although the schedule is correct (hope that dont come back to bite me in the bum lol)

To be fair I hadnt on reading it taken it as intimidating but I guess when you read it could be but not bothered about that. Infact my first impression was what a crap defence especially with the ones I had recieved from other banks (that I won against I might add). Maybe they feel confident that the part of the Limitations Act they quote covers them but they fail to note the part of the Act that I (Bong to truthfull and great they were) quote so in essence they cherry picked what they liked but I feel section 32 overrides this so.....

I know the MOD's are probably busy at mo so when they get chance any input greatly appreciated.

Thanks Bong will definatley take a look when your reply is posted will start thinking about mine too.

After reading both defences now to be honest I feel even more confident that this is a possibility guess its all down to the Judge. I have done a little reading ref CPR 27.14 (2)(d) and the costs that are quoted there are limited (unless I read wrong) so onwards on upwards

Hi - this is just my opinion but I claimed for a business account with HSBC (partnership no ltd) and used the standard MCOL POC's and they paid out no problem just thought I would let you know.

Good luck with your claim

Ok defence recieved at it is as follows:

1. This Defencie is filed and served without prejudice to the right of the Defendant to apply for summary judgement in respect of and/or to strike out the Particulars of Claim.

2 The Claimant claims return of £XXXXX taken by the Defendant in charges between 22/01/1990 and 15/11/2006. The schedule of charges attacked to the Claim Form details charges from 22/01/1990. Such charges were debited on dates more than six years prior to the issue of the claim, and any remedy in respect of the same, whether damages, restitution or otherwise, is barred by the operation of the Limitation Act 1980 and/or the doctrine of laches and the Defendant will apply to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgement.

3. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to relief claimed or any relief whether as pleaded or at all.

4. The claim to the principal sum being denied, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to interest.

5. By reason of foregoing facts and matters, it is the Defendant's case that the claim is misguided and if it is allowed to proceed as presntly constituted or at all, the Defendant will submit that:

5.1 the Claimant is by service of this Defendant put on notice of the same;and

5.2 for the Claimant to pursue a claim which (to its knowledge) has no legal basis and no prospect of success whatsoever constitutes unreasonable behaviour within the meaning of CPR 27.14 (2)(d) and in the event that the claim is allocated to the small claims track, the Defendant reserves the right to make such application for costs against the Claimant on the foregoing basis as it considers appropriate.

Signed (well not actually) by Lynsey Clare Burgoyne.

Any thoughts?

No nothing at moment they have acknowledged just waiting for their defence.

Goodluck Delfos. I am claiming on my NatWest Business Account, however it is a limited company so slightly different, so far their responce has been 'terms & conditions on a business account are different from a personal account'

I can't see what difference it makes as I am not disputing the terms & conditions only the level of their penalty charges.

Hi just to let you know I claimed against HSBC on a business account alot less though £2k and they paid out no problem so good luck to you both.

lol woohoo see your a special case and highly priviledged someone had to copy and paste a whole 2 para's to yours - that was a hard days work for someone lol

Wow I expected something much different than that lol hehehehe with all the amount of cases they have in at the moment maybe they didnt notice the dates LOL well here is hoping - nothing in the post for me this morning only 2 more posty runs to go

Section 78

(4) Where running-account credit is provided under a regulated agreement, the

creditor shall give the debtor statements in the prescribed form, and with the

prescribed content

(a) showing according to the information to which it is practicable for him to

refer, the state of the account at regular intervals of not more than twelve

months, and

(b) where the agreement provides, in relation to specified periods, for the

making of payments by the debtor, or the charging against him of interest

or any other sum, showing according to the information to which it is

practicable for him to refer the state of the account at the end of each of

those periods during which there is any movement in the account.

Would you know whether this is applicable when a default has been placed on an account or does things change then?

It is totally unethical its more like kids in the playground stuff - I dont think reporting it to the ombudsman would hurt they need to know what childish acts banks are pulling.

Unfortunatley I believe yes they can thats why in the guidlines about claiming it is recomended to open a parachute account.

Hi Bong

Just wondered if you had heard anything else as we are both running similar time lines - natwest filed acknowledgement on the last possible day grrr and now there defence is due this Friday and not heard a thing - just wondered if your defence had come through yet, will be interesting to compare defences as same POC's used on N1's.