£25,400 penalty charges claimed by NatWest

[caro]

A couple of things strike me, reading this thread.

 

1. I understood that SARs could only be used by private individuals, and not for business accounts, so I'm a little confused by you having a response to a SAR - or did you guarantee the account as an individual?

 

2. If Nat West have twice failed to follow the courts direction by revealing their actual costs, perhaps it would be worth submitting draft directions to have the claim struck out. Your counterclaim is a seperate issue and would still stand, so you could still push for disclosure, and your money back.

 

Did previous court directions state what would happen in the event that either party failed to comply?

[underdog13]

Just want to wish you luck for the 28th, askl:)

[askl]

Thanks all,

 

As Caro, the SAR only revealed information held on me as an individual, this includes notes of phone calls, letters exchanged and their summary of the case progression.

 

I issued a Part 18 Request for Information in tandem with the SAR - that resulted in the data held on the company.

 

The wording in the two orders was a little loose;

"Permission to the Claimant to file and serve by 25th April 2008 amended particulars of claim to include a breakdown of the Claimant’s charges for administering Defendant’s unpaid cheques and the daily charge for unauthorised overdraft as well as details of the contract giving use to the contractual rate of interest claimed."

 

The Claimant has just listed each time it charged the me.

 

------------------------------------

How might a draft directive look, e.g.,

------------------------------------

"Permission to the Claimant to file and serve by 11th February 2009 amended particulars of claim to include a breakdown of the Claimant’s costs charged onto the Defendant for unpaid cheques and the daily charge for an unauthorised overdraft. The Claim will be struck out if the Claimant fails to comply with this order."

[caro]

See if you think you may be able to adapt this to suit you. Obviously you'd need to word it with the bank as claimant and you as defendant, but it may start you off on the wording.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/53570-new-strategy-allocation-questionnaires.html#post482191

[askl]

Hi,

 

This afternoon's Direction Hearing went well in that the Judge agreed to make the previous Court Order clearer – from my notes;

 

The Claimant shall provide answers to the following by 4pm 28 February 2009;

a) the method of calculation, or breakdown that give rise to the Cheque Return Fees being claimed in the £30 per item,

b) the method of calculation, or breakdown that give rise to the sum claimed against the defendant as Excess Borrowing.

 

 

ASKL

[caro]

I think you can be quite confident now. Did he give any indication of what would happen if (when;)) they fail to comply.

[underdog13]

Glad it went well for you, askl. Best of luck for 28th February.

[askl]

Hi,

 

The Judge was clearly very simpathetic to me, whereas he treated NatWest's barrister as unprepared.

 

However he was not prepared to place a sanction on the Bank should they not follow the order because of the ambiguous wording in the orginal order.

 

When I asked about sanctions, he said that he imagined the Bank would provide the answers, if they don't then I should write to the court asking it to........... here I didn't note the actual term he used, it wasn't strike-out but something that implied that their claim would then automatically fail. [Can anyone supply the correct term].

Edited January 29, 2009 by askl

[citizenB]

This is looking very positive isnt it?.

[sammysausage]

Is there any update on this claim?

Just been reading through and it's like the last page of a book is missing - I want to know the ending!!

[gandolfi]

Is there any update on this claim?

Just been reading through and it's like the last page of a book is missing - I want to know the ending!!

 

Me too askl!!

I've been away from CAG for a while, but have just caught up with your case....you have done amazingly well! What happened after 28th Feb? Did they settle? This obviously has implications for my own case http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/business-claims-bank-charges/81525-gandolfi-natwest-9.html which is quite similar - I'm eager to get moving again and it would be great to hear from you and to find out what has happened.....

All very best

Gandolfi

[askl]

Update;

 

In January the Court Ordered;

1) The Claim shall be stayed pending;

a) resolution of the OFT/Abbey Litigation, or,

b) upon the Claimant's application that the foregoing litigation is not relevant to this claim,

2) Subject to Paragraph (1) permission to either party to lift the stay or seek further directions.

3) The Claimant shall serve in writing in upon the defendant's answer to the following by 4pm on 28th February 2009;

a) the method of calculation, or the break-down, that gives rise to "cheque return fees" being claimed in the sum of £30.00 per item;

b) the method of calculation, or the break-down, that gives rise to the sums claimed against the defendant as "excess borrowing"."

 

 

Update 1

No answer from NatWest, so in March I applied to the court to stike out the Claim on the basis that the Bank hadn't provided the answers to 3 a & b above and that this was fundamental because Mr Justice Andrew Smith conclusion on 21/01/2009 that NatWest 2001 conditions were capable of being penalties.

The hearing is set for 7 July.

 

 

Update 2

NatWest have just applied to have heard at the same hearing on 7 July;

1) To lift the stay of proceedings "because the case is not affected by the OFT Test case in relation to charges",

2) Summary judgement against me "because the Defendant has no real prospects of successfully defending this claim",

 

 

It appears NatWest accept that the case is no longer part of the OFT case as NatWest 2001 charges have already been concluded by Mr Jutice Andrew Smith as capable of being penalties, and are trying a final bully in the hope that I will capitulate.

 

Any thoughts, fears, tactics or suggestions would be appreciated.

 

ASKL

[yourbank]

Hi.

 

I recently received back a responce to a Subject Access Request a few weeks ago, which reveal less than I thought it would do, suggesting either information has been deleted or they have kept less documentation on me than I imagined.

 

I had all the statements previously but was missing a couple of bounced cheque notifications, which NatWest have declined to provide.

More importantly they have declined to provide the breakdown of their costs charged onto me for unpaid cheques and administering an account deemed over its limit - subject to two Court Orders.

I am becoming quite an expert on natwest data, so can you tell me how much data on charges that you were provided with?

[caro]

Is the hearing on 7th July for the strike out application?

[Sparkie1723]

The Bill of Rights Act of 1689, which is the third most imortant Constitutional Statute in UK law, which cannot ever be repealed and has been deemed so by the Commercial Court, states that

" No man shall be fined or penalised, nor any of his goods or chattells be removed, unless judged so by his peers".

 

Which means in fact if these charges are penalties only a judge can order that you must pay them,.

It is because of this Bill of Rights that they have had to introduce legislation for fines to be collected for parking and speeding tickets etc, and bailiffs must have a court order to take your goods away.......... as there is no statute that says a bank can fine you under the law, they cannot penalise you. with penalty charges

That's my view ;)and its time this is pointed out to these Banks and the Courts are reminded of this Bill of Rights, which is what the American constitution is based on.

 

sparkie

[bedlington83]

The Bill of Rights Act of 1689, which is the third most imortant Constitutional Statute in UK law, which cannot ever be repealed and has been deemed so by the Commercial Court, states that

" No man shall be fined or penalised, nor any of his goods or chattells be removed, unless judged so by his peers".

How come its legal to have trials without juries then? Until fairly recently you used to be able to elect being tried by a jury but that right was taken away for certain offences

[Sparkie1723]

How come its legal to have trials without juries then? Until fairly recently you used to be able to elect being tried by a jury but that right was taken away for certain offences

 

 

Because a County Court Judge is cited to be "one of your peers"....

 

sparkie

[askl]

Caro,

 

Yes the hearing I asked for, to strike out the Bank's Claim is set for 7 July.

 

Last week NatWest applied to use this same hearing to strike out my defence "because the Defendant has no real prospects of successfully defending this claim".

I can't quite make sence of this as the Bank after two years of its claiming one thing has radically amended the claim out of the blue. While I have not been ordered to amend my defence in the light of this amended claim.

 

 

 

ASKL

[gandolfi]

Hi askl

You're doing brilliantly so far! Keep going and good luck for 7th July!!

 

So, they allow the stay to be imposed because of the test case and then decide that actually it isn't relevant....? It seems to me that NatWest have constantly shown an inability or unwillingness to cooperate fully by providing the information you have requested that will enable you to support your case (same frustrations in my own case).

 

They are denying you the opportunity to fully particularise your defence and counterclaim by refusing to supply vital information that is pertinent to your case (i.e. a detailed breakdown of how their charges are calculated etc).

 

Have you requested T&Cs from them and have they supplied them?

 

Have you worked out your argument regarding Smith's judgement on penalties and how this may be relevant? Need to be able to anticipate their approach and have arguments ready to undermine it.

 

I wish I could offer some help. Your case is similar to mine, but I'm not quite as far ahead as you and I'm not at all qualified to make confident recommendations about the finer points. GaryH has been a great help to me with his advice here, so it might be worth letting him look over your case before the hearing if he isn't already aware.

 

Stay strong! All best,

Gandolfi

[gandolfi]

askl,

Just wanted to wish you the best of luck tomorrow!

Keeping everything crossed for you!!!

Gandolfi

Edited July 6, 2009 by gandolfi
spelling

[caro]

Good luck from me too.

[underdog13]

and from me - best of luck:)

[askl]

Thanks guys.

[FlyboyAgain]

I've just read this for the first time.

 

I wish you all the best against these crooks!

[The GodMother]

Any news.

 

Sorry i have been a silent watcher u see.