my letter of offer said that if I accepted the banks first offer I was not to tell ANYONE about it, especially not you lot! Must have been the The Consumer Action Group sticker they did not like! The offer was a joke anyway. I'm a bit miffed as Deller1 got offered more and can still talk to you! - Did Deller1 not use the stickers?

Help required, I have received another letter from COBBETTS today. They are making am an offer against my £2,351.07 with interest = £3,362.81. The offer is for £1,250 on condition that I agree to a) not tell you lot about it and b) withrdraw my claim from court. A part of the letter says that my claim times-barred for six years PRIOR TO FILING CLAIM FORM N1 ON 3RD NOVEMBER. In all of my years of working we have operated under the 6 year clock starting from the date we first made a defendant aware of our claim, otherwise, the defendant could sit on a situation for the relevant time period until the whole claim was time-barred! Just want some one who has read and understands section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 to tell me I am correct.

Where did the price £2.50 to £4.50 com from? If that is at todays rate then it should have been less 6 years ago?

I have complained plus contacted the Law Society but they will not act against Cobbetts (NATWEST) because they are not my solicitors. Will only accept complaints against a solicitor acting under my instruction. Why am I not surprised? What other job makes and enforces their own rules? How many jobs are there where you cannot be sacked for being crap or useless and not have to retire? Answer - solicitors and judges!

I received the exact same letter and have used your reply. I have also used another template from this site to complain to the law society about ms Burgoyne and have forwarded her correspondance to the court and written to the ombudsman about natwest. The more the merrier! Bring out the big guns, the little men are fighting back!

Ive read on this site that judges have alowed banks to lodge defence after the deadline when the case should have been won by default. How can judges allow the banks, with all of their vast resources at their disposal, to file a defence AFTER the deadline? Surely that defeats the object of having a deadline? What would happen if the situation were reversed? Have those concerned lodged a formal complaint to the relevant authorities? Does this prove that because judges and solicitors have higher paid jobs than the average working person, they are more likely to have investments associated with the performance of the banks, and therefore have a vested interest in ruling in the banks favour? Linsey Clare Burgoyne of messrs Cobbetts of Manchester acting for National Westminster Bank plc appears to believe that because a claimant has had financial difficulties in the past they are going to be of ‘lower standing’ socially and, therefore, easily intimidated by requests for CPR Part 18 completions (she is working on the assumption that we will not have any idea what it is, thank goodness for the internet and the Consumer Action Group web site). She also try’s to put up a smoke screen by implying that even if the court agrees the claim, much of it will be time-barred if it is dated 6 years before the date of issuing the small claims action. This in not correct. The date is 6 years from when you first made you request to the bank for reimbursement. If she has written such a letter to you, join me in complaining to your court about Ms Burgoyne’s intimidation and stalling tactics and to the law society sighting Ms Burgoyne’s conduct in your case. Send a letter of complaint to the ombudsman about NatWest unlawfully applying default charges in excess of their costs. As the law states that a bank can only re-claim it costs when an account is in default then it is up to the bank to prove that its cost are exactly what it has charges us. If we were to believe the bank’s first letter of response where they say that they have acting within the parameters of the law, then why do they refuse to provide a breakdown and then instigate these intimidatory strategies? Any one else agree? A simple “no, you have it wrong, here is what it cost us” would save both sides a lot of time, trouble and money. I can only assume by their behaviour and refusal to disclose their expenses that we are correct and the banks have been knowingly acting unlawfully for years. I say knowingly because with their legal retainers they have know excuse for pleading ignorance, plus, I have always been told that ignorance is no defence under the law. It would also appear that banks are now under investigation over the selling of mortgage protection insurance to cover loss of earnings if involved in an accident, long-term sick or redundancy. Apparently they are selling products that do not deliver what they promise. Surprise, surprise. We purchased such a mortgage protection cover a few years ago for an up-front payment of £6,000. You will not be surprised to learn that when my husband was made redundant from a company owned by his father, the insurance company would not pay out because my husband ‘should have known what was happening’. Eventually we recovered £3,000 back but I will keep my eye on this investigation and maybe claim our remaining £3,000 later.

Don't forget to lodge a claim with the omnibus man. They don't belive that banks are charging so much because too few people complain. I am takinging NatWest to small claim court over our personal account and my husband is going over his business account. This web site told me that the proceedure is the same. The only problem for you is the costs as your claim is outside the scope of small claims. I am sure if you search long enough you will find the answer on this site. Also, the legal guide books sold on this site are brilliant, well worth buying as your claim is so large. I am getting better reply's to my claim than my husband is. He was told on 3rd november to do nothing until the bank wrote to him, which they said would be withing a few days and he is still waiting!

Thank you to everyone on this page. Invalueable information when doing my reply to cobbetts. I'v complained to my court, to the partner responsible for professional standards and to the law society. I have decided to not let the playground bullies to get away with it anymore. I am going to stand up to the 'big boys'. Do I have to specify to Linsey Clare Burgoyne of Messrs Cobbetts LLP the particular statue and/or regulations under Common Law and statute I am refering? Also she asks for the principles of common Law and Consumer regulations that I believe make the charges levied unlawful. Anyone help?

Report Cobbetts to the Law Society for requesting CPR Part 18 from all of us bringing a claim against NatWest for excessive bank charges. They are using intimidatory methods. Law Society of England and Wales - Error 404

Cobbetts must be sending the same letter to everyone. Mine also asks for particulars of my claim such as amounts, date taken etc as if I have not supplied it four times already. It also asks for the paragraph, section and subsections of common law stute and consumer regulations upon which I seeking to rely. Do you have the address of the law society so I can lodge my complaint?

I did get the statements first, they did supplied them after 1) telling my husband they could not because the account was with their legal department (which it was not) and 2) provided them on our second request but misses some out! The reply I got was to the first letter sent. We have now had a near identical letter concerning the business account too.

Their reply to my first letter asking for a refund of bank charges.

Natwest letter of reply says tha the bank is under no obligation to explain how its charges are calculated and they are not prepared to enter into any correspondence on the matter.

They have finally replied. Natwest consider the amounts debited to be in accordance with our agreement with them and they believe it complies with all applicable laws and regulations. Natwest considered the OFT's statement of 5/04/06 but do not accept its findings to relate to anything other than credit card fees. Natwest believe they are under no obligation to explain how its charges are calculated and are NOT prepared to enter into correspondence on this matter. They advise me to ensure that any proceedings are served on the registered office address only - 135 Bishopsgate, London EC2M 3UR. Letter before action going out tonight. Which other company would refuse to provide details of their charges to a client?:-?

Have received my letter of reply from NatWest, they say that the OFT's ruling is only for credit cards too! Natwest also believe it's charges to be reasonable and say that they are under no obligation to explain how it's charges are calculated! Letter before action going out tonight

Natwest have to be the worst. Go for them. I have two claims with them - personal and business. Be warned - they lie and bully!

My husband had a small company which he put into liquidation. It had no overdraft facility but shortly before the liquidation the bank processed payments resulting in an unauthoriesed overdraft. The bank want to recover monies from my husband but charges levied for 18 mths prior to their claim exceed this amount. The bank says only the liquidator can raise the query but he has ceased to act. If the charges were levied contrary to common law, and as they relate directly to the debt which they are asking my husband to repay, they must be relevant. Any ideas?

My husband had a business which he put into liquidation. The bank want to recover monies they are due resulting from an unauthorised overdraft which we beleive was their own error prior to the liquidator being appointed. The charges levied for 18 mths prior to the claim are in excess of the overdraft. The bank say that only the liquidator can apply to have the monies credited back but the liquidator has now ceased to act. Any ideas? If the monies were taken contrary to common law, and it effects the banks claim against my husband, surely he can bring them into question?