BankHater Business v Natwest

[steven4064]

I have some 2001 business T&Cs for Nat West here.

[steven4064]

They also refuse to pay ANY interest, but have made a 'goodwill Offer' to refund charges only.

 

Why is common law okay for a business, but not for a consumer account?

Two points: We had the same thing with GE Money - godwill offer of charges but flat refusal to pay interest. So we just poressed on with LBA and court and guess waht? THey paid up the interest too.

 

Secondly, the common law applies just as much to consumer accounts. It is just that, for business accounts, that's all there is. For consumer accounts you have (for the time being at least) the UTCCR 1999 as well.

[steven4064]

Hi all

 

I now have to complete the allocation questionairre but am unsure which road to go down, the judge said it will be a multitrack claim due to size 17k, so shall I attach the standard terms of disclosure or should I try the new strategy (which mainly seems to be based around personal accounts & smaller claims)?

Also should I be attaching anything else?

 

I'm a bit confused and don't want to make a mistake.

 

thanks in advance

 

Bambers:rolleyes:

Hi Bambers

 

The 'new' strategy, as you say, is for small claims and is actually based on standard disclosure. That is, it is trying to get the judge to effectively order standard disclosure (or at least the information you would get from standard disclosure) for a small claims hearing.

 

You have various options: Yes, you should include standard terms of disclosure.

You might also consider a draft order for the banks defence to be struck out for taking the p*$$. In that case, in section G of the AQ (Section H if is a N150) youcould put something like

Please find the following documents attached to this allocation questionnaire;

1A) Section G (H) - other information

1B) List of settled cases

1C) Text of order made by Lincoln County Court

1D) Mullen -v- Hackney BC (1997)2 A11ER 906

2A) Draft Order for directions

 

 

This allocation questionnaire and its attachments were sent to the defendant on xx/xx/xx

then attach something like this

1A) Section G or H* – Other Information

 

The Claimant respectfully requests that an order may be made as follows;

 

1. That the Defence is struck out as an abuse of process, pursuant to rule 3.4(2)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

On the basis that the Defendant has filed a template defence then subsequently settled each and every other claim of this nature.

 

Since May 2006, I am aware of over 100 claims of this nature in which the Defendant has filed an acknowledgement of service, then a Defence, then an allocation questionnaire, then has breached the order for pre-hearing directions, then has finally settled without liability shortly in advance of the hearing or trial. A sample list of these claims, including their claim numbers, is attached (attachment 1B).

 

It is submitted that the defendant’s litigation strategy is flagrantly abusive of the public resource, and further, contrary to almost all of the Overriding Objective’s of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is respectfully submitted that the Defendant will continue to conduct litigation in this manner for as long as it is allowed to do so with impunity.

 

Please find attached a copy of an order made by LincolnCounty court (attachment 1C) in at least 10 cases similar to my own involving various high street banks. The court considered the authority of Mullen-v-Hackney London Borough Council (1997)2 A11ER 906 to be relevant. If this honourable court also considers this authority relevant, I would respectfully request that the court applies its special knowledge of the defendant’s notorious and well established conduct in similar cases when considering order in the present case. Please find attached the case to which I refer (attachment 1D)

 

2. In the alternative, should the court not be minded to strike out the defence and if the claim is to proceed to allocation, the Claimant respectfully suggests that directions may be made for standard disclosure as per the attached draft order (attachment 2A).

 

I believe the proposed directions will further the Overriding Objectives in that they identify the most fundamental issues in dispute and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously.

 

I would aver that if the Defendant has the serious intention of defending this claim at trial, as is indicated by its defence, that it is incumbent upon it to disclose such information.

 

As the law relating to contractual penalties is long established, I believe that the outstanding issues are of fact. Accordingly, I respectfully would estimate that the hearing of the claim should last no longer than one hour.

 

(* Section G in N149, H in N150 AQ)

The settled cases and case law are available on this site. If you can't find them, I'll point out where they are. Or, you could just go with standard disclosure.

[steven4064]

Here are the attachments:

 

1A) In my previous post

1B) List of settled cases

1C) Text of order made by Lincoln County Court

1D) Mullen -v- Hackney BC (1997)2 A11ER 906

2A) Draft Order for directions - You already have this (standard disclosure)

[steven4064]

That's what I did - ticked 'yes' (and 'no' for agreed with other parties)

 

Just a bit of extra detail. Our section H for our NatWest claim actually had 3 options:

 

1) order to stirke out for taking the P*$$

2) order to comply with CPR 18 request (sent earlier)

3) order for 'new' directions (this was a personal account)

 

the court actually went with option 3. And NW then caved in - which is the intention of all 3 options of course.

[steven4064]

You could write to the court and remind them that the saty was lifted by the previous judge and all the stuff about the test cae not applying to business accounts because it only relates to the UTCCR, etc. You could even attach the OFT PoC.

 

Ask if it is a mistake. See if that does anything.

[steven4064]

Presumambly, if they 'make a diceision' then they have to have a meeting to do it. AS the meeting is about you, you have a right to the minutes under the DPA. Yeh, right! The 'decision' is taken by a computer in about 2 microseconds.

[steven4064]

And like I said, the decision is made by computer not people and cost absolutely nothing.

[steven4064]

I think all you have to do is to produce last week's T&Cs and preferrably those form a couple of years ago and compare them wit the new ones. It will be clear to everyone that they have just chanegd them to hide the fact that they are unlawful penalties. The fact that they have changed the words is irrelevant - a disguised penalty is a disguised penalty (however 'clever' the disguise).

[steven4064]

Tdoes anybody else have any other theories why Cobbetts suddenly pulled out?

All I can say is that you can be sure they haven't done it out of the goodness of their hearts or to help you