WOW...FAN N N N TASTIC

so did the judge say that the application was not to be treated as an agreement.

NatWest Try To Get Charges Case Thrown Out - UK News Headlines At the Mayor and City of London County Court today, Ben Pilling, counsel for NatWest, said: "Mr Brennan bought a claim to recover bank charges which had been applied to his current account, and which he believes are unfair. "The defendant [NatWest] does not accept that its charges are unfair. "The amount of money that has been repaid to Mr Brennan is well in excess of the amount of money claimed. "Mr Brennan wants the case to go to trial because he sees it as a test case and want to establish a principle. To that aim, he wants to introduce a number of elements, namely exemplary and aggravated damages. "In my submission these elements of Mr Brennan's claim are contrived. The court ought not to entertain his proposition that this case ought to continue as a test case. "It is not for Mr Brennan to set himself up as a consumer champion. Parliament has created a statutory body to safeguard the interests of consumers. "Of critical relevance is that the OFT is engaged at the moment in an investigation of the charges that Mr Brennan finds exceptional. "It would serve no useful purpose either for Mr Brennan or other consumers for Mr Brennan's case to be allowed to continue. In fact it would be a very expensive waste of time and resources." Mr Pilling argued there was no legal basis to support Mr Brennan's assertion that the bank should pay exemplary damages, which are payable when one party deliberately inflicts harm on another, or aggravated damages, which relate to the manner in which harm is done. Mr Brennan will put his side of the argument this afternoon. The hearing continues

toddle2u First of all they can't (perhaps I should I used the word shouldn't) issue SD for these kind of debts unless they have obtained a CCJ against you. Its an abuse of process. BUt you would have argued all the same anyway, I am not here to score points. I will let you take over.

If you know that he is owed monies by this comapny you can apply for a, I thinks its a garnishee order, you would than have a hearing and at the hearing make this order absolute and they will have to pay you. This is quite a common practice

First of why wait a month before enforcing a CCJ, 1 month is only for individuals and not for company debts, a ccj against a company is payable forthwith. Secondly I would not agree to an ex-parte application for a judgement to be set aside, I would go to the hearing and tell the judge that the bank has no propsect of defending this claim, if the bank argues that they have challenge them and ask them to quote you one instance where they have defended and been successful.

The only statute I am aware of in respect of 6 year rule is that in regards to the accounting records for companies/traders/partnerships. Trading companies are supposed to keep the accounting records for a minimum period of 6 years. It would make business sense for any business that has ongoing agreements with anyone to keep the records until at least 6 years after the relationship has ended (to atleast comply with the revenue requirements)

GO FOR IT Don't know if you just want to add the bit about I do not acknowledge the debt

First of all they can't issue SD for these kind of debts unless they have obtained a CCJ against you. Its an abuse of process. Secondly once you reply to them within the 18 days listing your grievences/disputes they will have no choice but to address them before proceeding any further. IN the unlikely event it goes to a hearing and you can convince the judges that there is a dispute/triable issue, the judge will set this aside. SD should only be issued for debts like Rates, Revenue, Rent or when a CCJ has already been obtained

Well they can't hide behind the 'National Security' interest on this one, can they, this is more like national fraud.

There's lot of discussions on DCA's not having enough paperwork to pursue a debt and they seem to be holding on D of A as a way of proving debt. In some cases there are people who have clearly paid their debts off but are still being chased, IMO this is nothing short of defrauding people of money. If enough people make representation to the SFO they might look at it.

Has anyone considered approaching the SFO as a group since they will investigate if you meet the following criteria, particularly when the lenders come up with a cooked up agreement (CCA) Factors considered: does the value of the alleged fraud exceed £1 million? is there a significant international dimension? is the case likely to be of widespread public concern? does the case require highly specialised knowledge, e.g. of financial markets? is there a need to use the SFO's special powers, such as Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act?

They might have to goto 100 different departments, thats their problem, cancelling a policy is just a press of button. These companies fail to realise that their business is to issue and cancel policies, its part of their business all the rest of the fees/charges is just a way of extra revenue. Surely that will not have to do overtime just because you cancelled your policy to justify the charge, its just part and parcel of their job.

any more success stories

WOW tell us more

Dave was it a without prejudice letter

Did you ask him why it will take him 14 days to decide, frankly if the defendant don't show up then thats their problem not yours.

most insurance companies are doing this now, i have heard of companies charging an equivalent of 1 months premium. Now if you have a monthly premium of £200 then your cancellation is £200, if its £15 then its £15, I dont't see any fairness in that. BTW was this 45 equivalent to 1 months premium.

IMO, If there is no agreement, then the D of A would be null and void, they wouldn't be able to prove anything.

I'd check your credit file incase they got 61 accounts registered on there LOL

this is where the term COOKING THE BOOKS come into play, when the debt is realised then it becomes the receipt of CF (E) LTD when there is a dispute it is referred back to the original lender. This way they ensure that the trading company is not at a disadvantage from any lawsuit.

Therefore they have been lying under oath all the time in their defence when contesting the claims

the only reason could be as follows: The company that buys the debt is a non trading company(or call it dormant if you like), if you at a future date decide to sue this company and were successful, you get nothing it a company with no assets.

can you sue the bank for the distress its caused you trying to sort this out, sleepless nights, shattered dreams etc

assuming you have vaild reason to have the CCJ set aside, then the action reopens again and you would be invited to follow the direction that leads to a final hearing.