Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

wehavetheright

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About wehavetheright

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Actually thanks for that. I just noticed the confidentiality bit - which of course I do not agree to. You can't force somebody to agree to something like this by saying "acceptance of this cheque is only on this basis" - they can't make such conditions, and as such I do not accept them. They're trying to imply that somehow by accepting the cheque, I am accepting a confidentiality clause - what a piece of disingenuous arm twisting! Do they really think we are that stupid?!! I am accepting this cheque on the basis that I won't proceed with my legal case against them!
  2. My claim included the normal interest & statutory interest ...
  3. Ladeez and Gentlemen, I have a very pleasing announcement to make. I just received a recorded delivery letter from Cobblers this morning. In it lo and behold was a cheque for the full amount of the claim. Finally they have seen some sense. My response to the court was due on Tuesday so it seems they have saved me the trouble (which I was more than prepared to do). It's just ridiculous for them to have taken it this far, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble and just settled back much earlier. I hope they do start to settle much earlier in the process. I think if everyone mentions that they are members of The Bank Action Group then they will realise that we are all serious and will take it right to Court if necessary - that way this whole 'bluffing - how far will they go?' tactic should hopefully stop. I am very pleased this whole ridiculous charade has come to a successful conclusion - and to everyone else out there in the process: HANG IN THERE, VICTORY WILL BE YOURS VERY SOON. DO NOT BE INTIMIDATED AND STICK TO YOUR GUNS!! mod: Although the Cheque has not technically cleared, I'm sure there will be no problem - so please shift my thread to "Natwest Successes"! Thanks. A donation will be on it's way once it's cleared my Natwest overdraft!
  4. thanks Karnevil! Actually, just having had a quick look at that thread (it's been a while!) - I've realised that the Judge has accepted my Draft order for directions - as this is what I included in my AQ! So it is working! Shall send back what is mentioned in the posts --- cheers!
  5. OK, so my thread appears to have been hijacked by other threads?! That's okay, but I will now give an update on my case. Have received the Order from the judge after having sent the AQ. He has ordered: 1. Allocate claim to small claims track.... 2. The Claimant do by XXX date clairfy the claim by filing in court and serving on the Defendant the following information; a) copies of any statement or other document relied upon as showing that each and every charge has been made. b) a statement of evidence of all matters relied upon as tending to show that the charges are irrecoverable as penalties or otherwise. c) copies of any decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon. and if the Claimant fails to comply with this order the Claim will stand struck out without further order. 3. Subject to the Claimant complying with paragraph 2 the Defendant do by XXXX date clairfy the Defence by filing in court and serving on the Defendant the following information; a) pursuant to what contractural provision each charge identified in paragraph 2 was made. 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 beach of contract between the parties) all facts and matters intended to be relied upon as showing that such was a 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) if such charge is not alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions the facts and matters relied upon showing the basis upon which the charge was calculated and all evidence to be adduced at trial to show that the charge was fair and reasonable. e) the statements of any witnesses whose evidence is to be relied upon at the hearing. f) copies of any decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon. and if the Defendant fails to comply with this order the Defence will stand struck out without further order and judgement be entered for the Claimant for the sum claimed. 4. Any party affected by this order may apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed provided that any such application is made to the Court in writing nomore than seven days after the date on which this order was served on that party. 5. The court is of the view that this matter ought to be settled by sensible negotiation or mediation and will take into account the failure of either party to follow such a course when dealing with the question of costs. So there you have it. It seems Natwest are scre&&£**d - so long as I do my part of course! I understand 2a - bank statements, but what about 2b and 2c - not sure if this is the court bundle stuff or what. Any advice greatfully appreciated as I have to get this stuff to court before the Easter break! I can smell victory in the air already... getting closer and closer now! Thanks in advance to all those who offer guidance and words of wisdom... your help is all greatfully appreciated!!!
  6. Hi Libbi - whatever you do don't take no for an answer!! You are the customer, you are in the driving seat, it is your information. Do you have any bank statments during this period from other banks that you transferred money to or anything - that way you would have a record of the actual account number. What about direct debits from utility companies - is there any bank account information on your old bills? Anyway, I'm sure someone will post here a better person to call at NatWest... perhaps natweststaffmember can help? But whatever you do don't give up!! Hang in there! Is it the credit card that you say you don't have any account information? Do you have any receipts that may have the credit card number on it, any transaction records that you can find...??
  7. Wow what a ledg you are Westy! Thanks for this...
  8. Hi Dolly, looks like we're in the exact same time line - I just got the exact same defence dated 01 Feb 07 -- see my thread here and the very helpful responses - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/63220-wehavetheright-natwest-defence-filed.html#post536450
  9. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/63220-wehavetheright-natwest-defence-filed.html#post536450 This should be the one!! (Oh yes it is!!)
  10. Thanks everyone for your replies. I filed the POC as part of an N1 and of course they have the full schedule of charges. I will await the Allocation Questionnaire and respond accordingly!! Anyone know the exact provisions of the Act we are relying on? I will research it further on the site, but if anyone has anything to add here would be much appreciated! Maybe I should go by the shorter name of "Righty??" or something!!! Thanks again everyone, always supportive and helpful!!
  11. Hi gys, I haven't received any request for a CPR part 18 - but I have received this rather curious Defence filed by Cobblers on 1st Feb 07 --- see my thread - here (I'm not sure how to link to threads but it's headed as -- wehavetheright VS Natwest Defence filed Any comments greatly appreciated!!
  12. Hi guys, this is my first posting of my court claim issued against Natwest. So far it's been smooth(ish) going despite the pathetic attempts at Cobblers to delay the process. After having filed my claim - Natwest came to me offering £3,000 odd, (basically the full amount of the claim, less interest). However my claim is around £4,200 and I of course have duly rejected this offer and sent the usual letter etc. At the same time Green & Co which is their in house solicitors based in Kendal Court, Telford have been trying to recover the amount of my overdrawn account - which of course is comprised solely of the amount of charges I am reclaiming (basically my account is overdrawn by £4,200 which is exactly what I am claiming back in unlawful charges. It's quite obvious of course what they are trying to do. I have written back to them saying of course you are quite aware this account is in dispute and I have issued a County Court claim for these charges, and that in fact I don't owe Natwest anything, rather they owe me £4,200! I am enjoying all this it is quite hilarious. However, since I've sent this letter off, I received a letter from Moorcroft their debt collectors saying I had 7 days to pay the full amount or they would start litigation proceedings. Oh hilarious. I have written back to them informing them that this account is already in dispute and until it is resolved they are not able to proceed with any legal action. I have further pointed out to them that this matter is already before the courts, and that Natwest are the Defendants!! I am not in any way intimidated by these people they are pathetic. Now, since my letter to Natwest rejecting their "kind" offer, I have received in the post a service of the Defendant's Defence from Cobblers. So far there has been no mention of CPR Pt 18, and I have had a good look at the thread regarding this. I am aware of the stalling tactics employed by Cobblers, but I wanted to post the full Defence here so that everyone might have a look - I'm trying to deciphere the legal diaorrhea and to see also if anyone else has received this particular Defence. I didn't file my claim MCOL rather as an N1 so perhaps that's why I haven't recieved a CPR request, or maybe that's on it's way!! Anyway - here it is in all it's ridiculous entirety - 1. This Defence is filed and served without prejudice to the Defendant's 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 Claim is not properly particularised then the Defendant will apply to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgement in respect of the same. 2. On allocation the Defendant invites the Court to direct that there be a case management conference in order for the Court to consider the making of appropriate orders to give the Claimant the opportunity to properly particularise the claim. 3. No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the Claimant's bank account. 4. In relation to the allegation that the contractural provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfaire Contract Terms Act 1977 ("UTCS 1997") and/or the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 ("the Regulations") and/or the commonlaw, the Claimant is required to identify: 4.1 a the sections of the unfair contract terms act 1977 b the regulations of the unfair contract terms in consumer regulations and c the principles of comon law relied upon by the Claimant inalleging tha tthe contractural provision(s) referred to are unenforaceable; and 4.2 the contactural provision(s) that the Claimant allege are invalid by reference to the UCTA 1977 and/or the Regulations. Until such time as these sections/regulations/provisons are identified the Defendant cannot (save as appears below) plead to the allegation referred to in paragraph 4 above. The Defendant therefore reserves its right to plead further to the allegation once (and if) the Claimant identifies the relevant contractural information. 5. 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 Services Act 1982 ("SGSA") the Defendant pleads as follows: 5.1 The Claimant is required to please 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 the Claimant pay a reasonable charge for service under the contract. 5.2 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 by the Claimant in support of this case and c) what charges would have been reasonable. (!!!) 5.3 In the circumstances no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the Defendant has acted in breach of SGSA section 15. 5.4 In the circumstances (save as appears below) the Defendant is unablel to plead to this 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 this allegation once (and if) the defects in the pleaded case referred to in paragraphs 5.1-5.3 above are addressed. 5.5 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) the consideration for 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. 6. Save as hereinbefore appears the Defendant joins issue with the Claimant on the claim(s) and denies that it is liable to the Claimant as alleged or at all. ----------------- Well I haven't digested the full extent of the defence but it seems to be saying that - I haven't properly particularised the claim in the POC - which is absolute rubbish and is a known Cobblers tactic, that I must state exactly what acts or law I am relying on - which of course they are fully aware of it's in the POC and they state it themselves, the most amusing defence is the bit where they seem to be saying in 5.2 that it is me that is required to prove that the charges are unreasonable!!!! IT is of course up to them to prove that the charges are reasonable - and in fact I must ask them to disclose exactly what charges they actually do incurr... Anyway if anyone could shed any further light on this it would be most appreciated. It's interesting that Cobblers have sent this to me direct - I would expect the Court would send this to me in due course. I consider it an intimidatory tactic by them to send it to me first. Basically any correspondence they send to me I do not acknowledge or respond to - I will only respond and deal with the Court - it is them that have the power not the Defendant's Solicitors!!! Has anyone else received this particular Defence? Will let you know what happens in the next step!! Thanks all and POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!
  13. Hi, I got a letter from Rachel Tomlinson dated yesterday 02 Jan of course it could have been sent out on her behalf, as it was just signed "DG Solicitors".
×
×
  • Create New...