Hi, Lucid You mean 'added CI' rather than debit interest, as per yesterday's Camp David Accord? Not at all sure that's the case, if you read this thread. As I read it, rogue was looking to have charges plus authorised interest. You have offered a choice: no need to bring the redundant discussion over here, though!!! W

Hi, Ropey First of all, CONGRATULATIONS!!! Excellent result! Second, what really teed me off was NatWest's behaviour with a cheque I got from the US. It was in US Dollars (not the world's least tradeable currency - rather the opposite), drawn on Citibank, by an established and stable Western government agency. They told me (repeatedly) that it would take between 5&10 days to clear. On the 10th day, I got a letter full of mumbo-jumbo. The upshot was - it was going to take 6 WEEKS!!!!! Had to cancel holiday, got hit with more charges, etc, etc. The amount, when converted to £ Sterling, was £1165. I wonder how much they made on that over the 6 weeks? Anyway, I decided impotent rage wasn't going to do any good - it hadn't in the past - and went looking for a way to gt even. And now I have - and got much, much more than they would have earned through p*ss*ng me off!! I love a happy ending!

Hi, Rogue This is what I finished my POCs with. If you want the rest (which run to three pages) let me know by PM and I'll send them. "Accordingly the Claimant claims: a) the return of the amounts debited to the Claimant’s account in respect of charges in the sum of £xxxxx (xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Pounds Sterling) and any interest charged thereon, detailed in the attached Schedule and amounting to £xxxx (xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx Pounds and xxxxx Pence) as at [date of claim] and accumulating at 17.95 per centum per annum (the Defendant’s current advertised ‘authorised overdraft rate’), calculated daily; b) Court costs; c) administrative costs and other costs incurred in the course of researching, preparing, presenting and pursuing the claim; d) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act as set out on the attached list of charges or at such rate and for such periods as the Court deems just." Amend to suit your requirements. Best wishes

I already have! Four pints of the Manglewurzle's Spring Frolicker. The Bentley's gonna have to wait. :D:D Westy

Hi, Yankeeruinx Reply to the offer, using the standard letter, refusing it as full and final settlement and reminding them of how much you're claiming. For the POCs, try this, adapted to your own needs: Accordingly the Claimant claims: a) the return of the amounts debited to the Claimant’s account in respect of charges in the sum of £xxxxx (xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Pounds Sterling) and any interest charged thereon, detailed in the attached Schedule and amounting to £xxxx (xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx Pounds and xxxxx Pence) as at [date of claim] and accumulating at 27.5 per centum per annum (the Defendant’s current advertised ‘unauthorised overdraft rate’), calculated daily; b) Court costs; c) administrative costs and other costs incurred in the course of researching, preparing, presenting and pursuing the claim; d) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act as set out on the attached list of charges or at such rate and for such periods as the Court deems just. Hope that helps

Hi, Sally That thread of Bong's you highlighted, with the post from 'dad' (whoever he may be!) does look very interesting - at the very least, it adds a second string to the 'limitations' bow. You're right to leave the defence to query 6 years, if they notice and/or decide to try and use it. It's their issue to raise - you don't want to give them ammunition. But now you have two very strong lines of response/rebuttal: Dad's idea that Bong has brought to the fore, and the bit of S32 that deals with didn't notice the error (part 2 c, off the top of my head but don't quote me). "claiming compound contractual, right?" We've moved away from using the term 'contractual' because it had become confusing and meant different thing to different people!! Are you looking for debited interest - what they have charged you - or additional CI? " Wonder what effect any ruling in April will have on all bank charges." It will probably reduce them for the future BUT, if the same thing happens as with the credit cards, the OFT will probably say something along the lines of 'anything over £12 will be automatically deemed unlawful'. That won't mean that £12 is lawful - they will still have to justify their charges in relation to costs, if challenged. And it won't make a blind bit of difference to the cases already ongoing. How was Anglesey?

Very interesting, Bong, and a nice additional string to the bow. Westy

I finally got round to checking that Lottery ticket I bought last Wednesday, when everything was going so well.... I won! I'm going to buy a Bentley!!! A toy one, which I saw in the shop. The win was £10. Still, better than kick in the arras.

I'm finding Cobbetts increasingly pleasant people to deal with. So long as you keep it 'nothing personal - only business', they're cool. the bonuses probably help, though! W

Hi, Peed 'orf Slight difference. Add this to your POCs Accordingly the Claimant claims: a) the return of the amounts debited to the Claimant’s account in respect of charges in the sum of £xxxx (amount in words Pounds Sterling) and any interest charged thereon, detailed in the attached Schedule and amounting to £xxxx (amount in words Pounds and eight-five Pence) as at [claim date] and accumulating at 17.95 per centum per annum (the Defendant’s current advertised ‘authorised overdraft rate’), calculated daily; b) Court costs; c) administrative costs and other costs incurred in the course of researching and preparing the claim; use this only if it's fast track, i.e., over £5K d) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act as set out on the attached list of charges or at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just. NB - this is to claim for DEBITED interest plus statutory, not added CI. I'm not sure you'll be able to fit full POCs on an MCOL claim form. Have you considered using the N1 and filing through your local court? You'll be able to get all the bits and bobs in at outset, so you won't have any of those irritating 'claimant has not fully particularised their claim' letters. You can find my brief(!) POCs on page thre of my thread (see sig below) and, if you wish, I can send you the full monty. Though I know you've been down this road before!! Best

Peed 'orf Well, it's the thought that counts, innit? Westy

Ever the optimitht!

Photoman - I'm not AWARE of any reason why you can't nominate a court local to your branch, or one near you, or one anywhere else in England but you may have to give a reason. the normal one is that, as a litigant in person, you'd appreciate the hearing being at a court convenient to yourself. But you want one not convenient to yourself;). I have every confidence you'll think of something! W

You're welcome. Anything else I can help with, let me know. W (PS - My siggie has changed a bit in light of discussions elsewhere, which need not detain us here!)

Not quite a Smiley but very accceptable, Bill! BTW - is theleft hand taking money from the right? And knoweth not the right hand what the left ith doingth? W

Hi, dwarren "Will send a standard "thanks as a part settlement..." I think that's absolutely the right thing to do. "...but do you think it would be good to draft something else to highlight the fact that it appears that Natwest aren't even speaking with their solicitors as there is absolutely no mention in this letter asking me to withdraw my court action against them." Whether they talk to their solicitors or not is their problem, not yours. You could include a sentence along the lines of "This matter is the subject of a legal claim that was filed at Moneyclaim online (MCOL) on [date]. I will be happy to withdraw that action on receipt of full settlement of my claim, which stands at £xxxxx." I'd think that would be sufficient. Westy

Ah, well. Actually, I should have been more generous about this: "I think it definitely needs to be recorded in the FAQ or as a "Sticky" at the top of the forum to refer people to." It's a good idea and I'm sure it will help matters. Thank you for coming up with it. W

Wow! If you want to separate the pre- and post-2001 stuff, feel free but I don't think you'll gain anything in particular. In fact, there's an argument for keeping them together because you'll just have one court fee, one AQ fee and one set of correspondence to follow. And, in the very unlikely event that the Limitations Act was deemed to apply - well, you'd only lose the bit you were worried about in the first place, not the whole lot. You may wish to consider lumping the loan a/c charges and the current a/c charges together as a single claim, because they're with the same institution and probably related - but there's nothing saying you have to. You can maybe do the current a/c first, get the feel of things, get confident and then the loan. The PPI is a separate issue, I think, and there is a forum devoted to it. Best wishes

Better make sure our spelling & punctuation's up to scratch, then. I don't care if they're watching or not. Was a Hitchcock movie any the less frightening because you knew who'd done it from the start? Are their charges any more lawful because they know we're coming after them? Is the UTCCR, UCTA, DPA, CCA, various precedents and the principle of common law any weaker because they know we're going to use them? I don't think so. They should be the more worried because there are people who know, or suspect, that someone is engaged in monitoring this site, like some kind of deranged communist party overseer with no social life and personal hygiene problems, and are continuing on with confidence anyway. No matter how many people watch, it doesn't matter. A properly-prepared case will win - and thousands have already gone down that winning path. Any watchers out there would be better employed thinking about how they can make their systems more efficient. Sucking-up suggestions like that will be handy to have on your CV if any cost-cutting redundancies are called for. JMHO

Hi Jon, After reading carefully through your post and checking for meaningful content which has not been resolved satisfactorily earlier today, I was left with the following: Check the earlier posts and exchanges between me, Lucid and Glen for further details.

Stick to your timetable. If they don't come back with an acceptable offer by 8 March (14 days after your LBA), move to the court stage. W

I don't have one either. They collect a great deal of info, those cards do, and use it to target sales right atcha...sorry, improve customer service to a personalised level. They have helped Tescos to dominate the supermarket sector and greatly improve efficiencies in its supply chain...but I still don't want them knowing when and where I buy my smokes, nor how often I top up my mouthwash! (and yes, it can get that precise). Josa, if they were looking that closely, I think they would have come up with a better strategy by now!! Like rolling over and coughing up the cash straightaway, to save money!:D Westy

Do we have a smiley for a handshake?

I can live with that - quite happily, in fact. W

I concur with your final sentence. Yes, I think the size of the claim does have a bearing, which is why I've mentioned the £2000 figure so often. At the lower end, I think it's realistic to accept that the banks will pay out because it's completely uneconomic for them to chase and defend all the way through to the bitter end. In that respect, I'm surprised Lucid & Mindzai's claim went on so long - but, then again, they began in March last year and the snowball had barely begun to roll, at that time. When you get to more substantial amounts - and £2000 is an arbitrary figure - I expect they'll be more prepared to defend. Those that zoom up into lots of digits they will (IMHO) be certain to resist. Not the whole claim: I expect they'll try and find some way to peel the interest issue away from the core, which is costs and charges. I expect they'll do that because its worth their while, even in the current situation, with loads of claims coming in like a tsunami. And, once they've found a way (and there are already hints on the site that some are actively doing so) the practice will find its way further back down the scale. As I pointed out above, both definitions were included in the famous Post 40 of the other thread. So yes, an agreed definition, one that will be readily recognisable to those with less experience of this debate, would be a good idea. I still caution strongly against 'contractual', in the way you and the others who have been active on the other thread mean it, because it means 'relating to contract'. Well, everything relates to contract, what has been called 'debited interest' included, so the term itself is misleading and confusing. In my opinion, it would be better to get away from it completely. After all, anyone who's new to the site, or is at an early stage, would have to plough through an awful lot of debate (heated and otherwise) to understand exactly what is being talked about. I've suggested double-decked but recognise there may be some resistance to it because of the history. Whatever it is, so long as it doesn't contain 'contractual', I'm prepared to go along with. To forestall the possible suggestions, 'call debited interest debited interest and [double-decked/insert term here] contractual interest' would not solve the problem, because the confusion remains. If anyone, fully understanding the issues, risks, potential pitfalls and likely time to be taken in the process, with no guarantee of success, wishes to pursue [double-decked/insert term here] then I won't stand in their way. I still think it is very, very risky, especially in more substantial claims, and will continue to hold to that position. FYI, my claim was for over £11,000 (charges, [debited] contractual interest and SI), and I won - in 3&1/2 months. A bit slack, but I was busy. Next time will be quicker! Westy