Hi All. Brief description so far: Letter one sent requestuing return of unfair charges Standard get lost letter recieved Letter 2 sent, 14 days before court action Standard, 'passed to our internal financial ombudsman associate department' letter recieved. MCOL filed Notice served Letter recieved from Nationwide, saying 'We have now returned to you a portion of the money originally requested, and include your £50.00 costs' Money went into bank (no negotiation, or offer, decline, counter-offer etc...) Letter recieved from Nationwide, telling me 'you now have 28 days, and then we are closing your account' Can anyone tell me..... How on earth is this legal or right?? We were requesting return of £388.46, they returned £111.00 ??? MCOL states defence filed?? Please help before I scream!

Many thanks indeed for this, Apologies for delay, work work work work!!! Will keep all posted....

Which standard letter am I meant to be sending to Cobbetts? Is this the standard letter you suggested informing cobbetts that the court can ask me for further information, not them??

Michael, many thanks for your swift reply, YES it looks damn scary, (not too sure who's more scared, myself or the good lady!) However, I am a little confused still. I am happy to omit from the N150 the statement as you suggested, but some basic and frank information is realkly whats needed here at the moment.......

Can anyone help???? Myself and my partner have recieved a defense submitted to the court by the now infamous Cobbetts. This is what we did: 1) Preliminary letter requesting return of charges over 6 years 2) standard 'get lost' letter recieved from Natwest. 3) Letter before action sent to Natwest. 4) standard 'tough luck, forwarded to lawyers and litigation dept' letter recieved 5) MCOL claim registered 6) Notification recieved by Court of served date. 7) defense papers rcvd from Cobbetts on behalf of Natwest CPR 18 included (please read entire defense below) 8)N150 questionnaire rcvd from court. The bottom line is this, we are confused a little beyond belief, and quite concerned also.. We have filed for £4757.00 plus interest taking us to £5584.69. National Westwinster Bank PLC Defense: 1) This defense is filed and served without prejudice to the defendants case that the particulars of claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the claimant to recover the bank charges(and interest thereon) referred to in the particulars of claim or any other sum(s). in the event that the claimant does not properly particularise his claim then the defendant will apply to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgement in respect of the same. 2) Without prejudice to the non-admission set out in the foregoing paragraph, if and to the extent that the claimant proves the allegation that the defendant debited charges to his bank account, in so far as such charges were debited on a date or dates more than six years prior to the issue of this claim, 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 this aspect of the claim and/or for summary judgment. 3) No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the claimants bank account. 4) The claimant referrs, under paragraph 3 of the particulars of claim to having provided the defendant with a copy of his list of charges. the defendant has not yet recieved a copy of this list. the claimant is therefore put to strict proof of each and every charge (a) the date the same was debited, (b) the amount of the same and © the description applied to the charge. 5) In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are unenforceable by virtue of the unfair contract terms act 1977 (UCTA 1977), and/or the unfair contract terms in consumer regulations 1999 (the regulations), and/or the common law, the claimant is required to identify: 5.1) (a) the section(s) of the unfair contract terms act 1977 (UCTA 1977) (b) the regulations of the unfair contract terms in consumer regulations 1999 (the regulations); and © the principles of common law relied upon by the claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable; and 5.2) the cantractual provisions that the claimant allege are invalid by reference to UCTA 1977 and/or the regulations Until such a time as these sections/regulations/provisions are identified the defendant cannot (save as appears below) plead to the allegations referred to in paragraph 5 above. The defendant therefore reserves tits right to plead further to the allegation once (and if) the claimant identifies the relevant contractual information. 6) In relation to the case of the claimant that the charges are unreasonable within the meaning of section 15 of the supply of goods and service act 1982 (SGSA) the defendant please as follows: 6.1) The claimant is required to plead and prove the necessary factors (referred to in section 15 SGSA) concerning the contract between the claimant and the defendant which mean that pursuant to SGSA section 15 there is an implied term that claimant pay a reasonable charge for the service under the contract. 6.2) Further, the claimant is required to plead and prove (a) that the bank charges which have been debited are unreasonable; (b) all facts and matters relied upon the claimant in support of this case and © what charges would have been reasonable. 6.3) In the circumstance no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the defendant has acted in breach of SGSA section 15. 6.4) in circumstances (save as appears below) the defendant is unable to plead his allegation beyond denying that it has acted in breach of SGSA section 15 as alleged or at all. The defendant reserves its right to plead further to his allegation once (and if) the defects in the pleaded case referred to in paragraphs 6.1 - 6.3 above are addressed. 6.5) It is the case of the defendant that the contract between the claimant and the defendant does not fall within SGSA section 15 because a(a) the consideration of the service would be determined by the contract between the claimant and the defendant and (b) was not left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealings between the claimant and the defendant. 7) The claimants claim for the costs not being sufficiently particularised, the defendants is unable to plead and reserves the right to plead upon further particulars. 8) to assist the claimant with the proper particularisation of his claim(s) the defendant serves this defense a request made persuant to CPR 18. If the claimant fails to provide the particulars requested in time stipulated and/or the defects with the claim(s) (referred to in paragraph 1 above) remain then the defendant will apply to the court for (among other things) an order striking out the claim. 9) Pending the proper particularistaion of the claim (s) the defendant is unable to plead to the claimants claim(s) beyond at this stage denying that the defendant is liable to the claimant as alleged in the claim or at all. The defendant reserves its right to amend this defense to plead further to the claimants claims once or of the claimant properly particularises the same. Ok, so where do we go from here? How on earth do I prove, what they are asking? I have requested on the N150 form that this is referred to the small claims court, and included the following statement as found on the website : am respectfully requesting that my claim be allocated to the small claims track. This issue is not a complicated one; it is an issue of fact and not of law. The issue is only whether the money levied by the Defendant in respect of its customer’s contractual breaches exceed their actual costs incurred. I am happy to pay their actual costs and I am surprised the Defendant did not counterclaim for these, because I would have paid them without argument. However, the continuing problem is (in common with the 100s of other cases currently being brought by other bank customers) that the banks refuse to reveal the details of their penalty-charging regime. As the banks have a fiduciary duty towards their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly and in utmost good faith. Accordingly, I would respectfully ask that the court in this case, not withstanding allocation to the small claims track, order standard disclosure. I understand that it is in the courts discretion to do so. I believe this would bring a rapid end to this litigation. Any help, anyone can offer would be hugely important to us. We both work very very hard for our money in the voluntary sector, and really begrudge giving away a penny unless its to a charity..... Please can you help??

Can anyone help???? Myself and my partner have recieved a defense submitted to the court by the now infamous Cobbetts. This is what we did: 1) Preliminary letter requesting return of charges over 6 years 2) standard 'get lost' letter recieved from Natwest. 3) Letter before action sent to Natwest. 4) standard 'tough luck, forwarded to lawyers and litigation dept' letter recieved 5) MCOL claim registered 6) Notification recieved by Court of served date. 7) defense papers rcvd from Cobbetts on behalf of Natwest CPR 18 included (please read entire defense below) 8)N150 questionnaire rcvd from court. The bottom line is this, we are confused a little beyond belief, and quite concerned also.. We have filed for £4757.00 plus interest taking us to £5584.69. National Westwinster Bank PLC Defense: 1) This defense is filed and served without prejudice to the defendants case that the particulars of claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the claimant to recover the bank charges(and interest thereon) referred to in the particulars of claim or any other sum(s). in the event that the claimant does not properly particularise his claim then the defendant will apply to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgement in respect of the same. 2) Without prejudice to the non-admission set out in the foregoing paragraph, if and to the extent that the claimant proves the allegation that the defendant debited charges to his bank account, in so far as such charges were debited on a date or dates more than six years prior to the issue of this claim, 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 this aspect of the claim and/or for summary judgment. 3) No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the claimants bank account. 4) The claimant referrs, under paragraph 3 of the particulars of claim to having provided the defendant with a copy of his list of charges. the defendant has not yet recieved a copy of this list. the claimant is therefore put to strict proof of each and every charge (a) the date the same was debited, (b) the amount of the same and © the description applied to the charge. 5) In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are unenforceable by virtue of the unfair contract terms act 1977 (UCTA 1977), and/or the unfair contract terms in consumer regulations 1999 (the regulations), and/or the common law, the claimant is required to identify: 5.1) (a) the section(s) of the unfair contract terms act 1977 (UCTA 1977) (b) the regulations of the unfair contract terms in consumer regulations 1999 (the regulations); and © the principles of common law relied upon by the claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable; and 5.2) the cantractual provisions that the claimant allege are invalid by reference to UCTA 1977 and/or the regulations Until such a time as these sections/regulations/provisions are identified the defendant cannot (save as appears below) plead to the allegations referred to in paragraph 5 above. The defendant therefore reserves tits right to plead further to the allegation once (and if) the claimant identifies the relevant contractual information. 6) In relation to the case of the claimant that the charges are unreasonable within the meaning of section 15 of the supply of goods and service act 1982 (SGSA) the defendant please as follows: 6.1) The claimant is required to plead and prove the necessary factors (referred to in section 15 SGSA) concerning the contract between the claimant and the defendant which mean that pursuant to SGSA section 15 there is an implied term that claimant pay a reasonable charge for the service under the contract. 6.2) Further, the claimant is required to plead and prove (a) that the bank charges which have been debited are unreasonable; (b) all facts and matters relied upon the claimant in support of this case and © what charges would have been reasonable. 6.3) In the circumstance no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the defendant has acted in breach of SGSA section 15. 6.4) in circumstances (save as appears below) the defendant is unable to plead his allegation beyond denying that it has acted in breach of SGSA section 15 as alleged or at all. The defendant reserves its right to plead further to his allegation once (and if) the defects in the pleaded case referred to in paragraphs 6.1 - 6.3 above are addressed. 6.5) It is the case of the defendant that the contract between the claimant and the defendant does not fall within SGSA section 15 because a(a) the consideration of the service would be determined by the contract between the claimant and the defendant and (b) was not left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealings between the claimant and the defendant. 7) The claimants claim for the costs not being sufficiently particularised, the defendants is unable to plead and reserves the right to plead upon further particulars. 8) to assist the claimant with the proper particularisation of his claim(s) the defendant serves this defense a request made persuant to CPR 18. If the claimant fails to provide the particulars requested in time stipulated and/or the defects with the claim(s) (referred to in paragraph 1 above) remain then the defendant will apply to the court for (among other things) an order striking out the claim. 9) Pending the proper particularistaion of the claim (s) the defendant is unable to plead to the claimants claim(s) beyond at this stage denying that the defendant is liable to the claimant as alleged in the claim or at all. The defendant reserves its right to amend this defense to plead further to the claimants claims once or of the claimant properly particularises the same. Ok, so where do we go from here? How on earth do I prove, what they are asking? I have requested on the N150 form that this is referred to the small claims court, and included the following statement as found on the website : am respectfully requesting that my claim be allocated to the small claims track. This issue is not a complicated one; it is an issue of fact and not of law. The issue is only whether the money levied by the Defendant in respect of its customer’s contractual breaches exceed their actual costs incurred. I am happy to pay their actual costs and I am surprised the Defendant did not counterclaim for these, because I would have paid them without argument. However, the continuing problem is (in common with the 100s of other cases currently being brought by other bank customers) that the banks refuse to reveal the details of their penalty-charging regime. As the banks have a fiduciary duty towards their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly and in utmost good faith. Accordingly, I would respectfully ask that the court in this case, not withstanding allocation to the small claims track, order standard disclosure. I understand that it is in the courts discretion to do so. I believe this would bring a rapid end to this litigation. Any help, anyone can offer would be hugely important to us. We both work very very hard for our money in the voluntary sector, and really begrudge giving away a penny unless its to a charity..... Please can you help??