Enron vs NAT WEST Business Account OD Charges ** OFFER MADE

[Enron]

Just had Nat West contact me this morning, opening the envelope I fully believed it to be a written justification of their charges.... which unsurprisingly was there.

 

However included along with this was an offer in full & final settlement of my claim.

 

This wasn't a partial offer, but an offer for the whole thing - well minus 50p but I can live with that.

 

So think that Nat West might be softenning on their stance.

[photoman]

Well, well, well ?

 

Very interesting.

 

Wonder if their a bit nervous about the imminent announcement upon historic terms, and/or if there will be anything more specific raised with regards the penalty aspect upon Business accounts ?

 

What rate of interest did you apply ?

 

PM

[Enron]

Spreadsheet had 8% on it, however this hasnt even been filed via the N1 yet - hence my surprise. That was gonna happen in a couple of days time.

[lancasterchelsea]

Brilliant well done

[zootscoot]

Congratulations Enron! Nice result!!!!!

[photoman]

I've been musing over recent events in regards to Business claims, and had the following thoughts/ theory.

 

It is curios that despite all the blustering and feather ruffling on behalf of the banks they have often consciously chosen to still deal with and settle a fair number of business claims, despite being so happy to keep all personal account claims held up in the system.

 

This is curious, because the main aspects of the OFT case dealing with the UTCCR do not apply to Business accounts anyway. So they can't be choosing to settle Business claims in some effort to pre-empt the (now more likely) possibility that the verdict under UTCCR may not ultimately go in the Banks favour?

If so, they would surely be choosing to cut their losses more effectively by doing the same with the vastly greater number of personal account claims.

 

Also, early signs from the recent ruling seem to indicate that the penalty under common law aspect do not apply to currents T&C's.

So this just leaves the possibility that the Banks are nervous (or perhaps maybe even believe they've little chance of success) regards the courts ruling regards all or some of the other historic terms.

 

This leads me to a couple of conclusions;

Firstly, that the Banks may not be so sure about winning the 'penalty under common law' argument all the across the board. Some terms (both personal and Business) may still actually be deemed as making such charges penalties under common law.

However, they probably figure, that even if some of the historic terms for personal accounts are actually deemed to make them penalties under common law, that most personal account claimants would not be too bothered to use it anyway (given that they can just more easily just claim using the less messy and less contentious statute of the UTCCR).

Secondly, I also think that if some (or even all) historic Business account terms are ultimately deemed as making the charges penalties under common law, they are worried that they could be left with a backlog of Business claims brought under common law. These could also include some hefty interest claims, especially as such a ruling could also open the door for claiming commercial compounded rates (and Business claimants are just the kind of people who would probably more readily fight for such).

 

 

In short Enron, perhaps they are choosing to settle now and pay 8%, rather than face the possibility that the door could still be flung open for some claims brought under common law, and this could then lead to Business claimants then also going for CCI too.

[Enron]

Didnt get the 8% as they have settled before I have filed paper - but they are settling for 50p short of what I was asking for.

 

My thoughts are that their is case law present that relates to penalty charges in the form of dunlop etc.

 

There is the likelihood that they don't want a big payout to hit the headlines, which would alert businesses to the prospect of claiming - as they are more likely to do so than the individual if such an event was to occur.

[photoman]

How long have they given you to decide to accept or not ?

 

How much would the 8% come to if you got it?

Would that be more or less than the court costs they would have to pay if you actually filed?

 

Ultimately the decision is your own to make, and should be based upon if you find the figure acceptable, how much you want/need to the money, personal circumstances, and whether or not your prepared to take any further possible risk.

 

I know what I would perhaps do, I would maybe consider If the deadline for acceptance encompasses the date that the next announcements may be made regards historic terms, so maybe wait and see if it goes in our favour. Otherwise, perhaps press them to agree to 8%, under threat that you would file anyway, and so ultimately costing them more.

But, I do only say perhaps, and this possibility is easy for me to offer, as my own Business claim was settled prior to the OFT case announcement.

At the time the common law aspects seemed more solid (they may still be, who knows, and who know what will happen with the next announcement). So, all in, circumstances at the time of my own case allowed me to put on pressure and push for and get the charges plus the 8% interest as an out of court settlement.

 

Whether the same leverage is available now is the golden question.

 

It is ultimately up to you what to decide.

 

 

Good luck, and whatever you do decide have no regrets.

[Enron]

I'm probably inclined to accept.

 

My initial approaches have been outlined that in offerring to settle before a deadline they wont have to pay court fees or interest.

 

As such think it might appear poorly against me if I was to go back on what I earlier outlined. Shame because it's £214 interest.... but i'm more inclined to accept because of the ambigous nature of business claims at present, and think it's a fair result because of this.

[zootscoot]

I'm probably inclined to accept.

 

My initial approaches have been outlined that in offerring to settle before a deadline they wont have to pay court fees or interest.

 

As such think it might appear poorly against me if I was to go back on what I earlier outlined. Shame because it's £214 interest.... but i'm more inclined to accept because of the ambigous nature of business claims at present, and think it's a fair result because of this.

 

I think that is a wise decision in the present circumstances. I know someone with a Barclays business claim who has been asked to withdraw their claim otherwise Barclays will pursue them for costs for continuing to pursue a worthless claim. The interest would be nice but I don't think its worth taking the risk. Lets just hope yours is not the last business pay out!

[Enron]

Here you go, Nat Wests offer:

 

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/telso/citi/333.jpg

[zootscoot]

I've been musing over recent events in regards to Business claims, and had the following thoughts/ theory.

 

It is curios that despite all the blustering and feather ruffling on behalf of the banks they have often consciously chosen to still deal with and settle a fair number of business claims, despite being so happy to keep all personal account claims held up in the system.

 

This is curious, because the main aspects of the OFT case dealing with the UTCCR do not apply to Business accounts anyway. So they can't be choosing to settle Business claims in some effort to pre-empt the (now more likely) possibility that the verdict under UTCCR may not ultimately go in the Banks favour?

If so, they would surely be choosing to cut their losses more effectively by doing the same with the vastly greater number of personal account claims.

 

Also, early signs from the recent ruling seem to indicate that the penalty under common law aspect do not apply to currents T&C's.

So this just leaves the possibility that the Banks are nervous (or perhaps maybe even believe they've little chance of success) regards the courts ruling regards all or some of the other historic terms.

 

This leads me to a couple of conclusions;

Firstly, that the Banks may not be so sure about winning the 'penalty under common law' argument all the across the board. Some terms (both personal and Business) may still actually be deemed as making such charges penalties under common law.

However, they probably figure, that even if some of the historic terms for personal accounts are actually deemed to make them penalties under common law, that most personal account claimants would not be too bothered to use it anyway (given that they can just more easily just claim using the less messy and less contentious statute of the UTCCR).

Secondly, I also think that if some (or even all) historic Business account terms are ultimately deemed as making the charges penalties under common law, they are worried that they could be left with a backlog of Business claims brought under common law. These could also include some hefty interest claims, especially as such a ruling could also open the door for claiming commercial compounded rates (and Business claimants are just the kind of people who would probably more readily fight for such).

 

 

In short Enron, perhaps they are choosing to settle now and pay 8%, rather than face the possibility that the door could still be flung open for some claims brought under common law, and this could then lead to Business claimants then also going for CCI too.

 

Interesting points PM although it could possibly just be the fact that it is a small claim and the costs of defending would outweigh the cost of paying out.

[photoman]

I agree Zoot, the no costs rule in SCT may be playing a part in influencing their decision regards the economic viability of continuing.

However, I do also sniff a touch of uneasiness in their camp, especially when I've also heard of some recent Business claims that would quite likely have ended up in fast or multi also being settled being settled post OFT?

 

It will be very interesting to see what happens next all round for everyone ?

 

Enron, I am pleased for you.

You have got a result, and in these uncertain times that is good, and also perhaps more than the zero you had perhaps at times envisaged becoming a real possibility in light of recent events.

I'm sure you have done ample work to get this, so deserve it, but you've also managed to avoid a lot more stress and hassle than it could have been.

 

As I said earlier, have no regrets.

 

Enjoy.

 

PM.

[Enron]

Have been through the process start to finish beforehand with Citi, and was willing to do so once again.

 

At the end of the day, if the claim wasnt won it would be £100 or so pound out of pocket with no possability of costs going against me, whereas if won the benefit of getting my money back plus interest would be £1120ish.

 

Getting back what I requested is a fair deal considerring that they have been relatively reasonable. Though obviously not happy that they still protest that their charges are fair.

[steven4064]

Well done Enron

[kashfat]

Hi im trying to put a letter together for the courts to ask for my stay to be lifted for a small business account to be lifted, can anyone help or if there is a template available??

[steven4064]

kashfat - see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/business-claims-bank-charges/68191-claiming-business-account-lets-66.html#post1567590

[kashfat]

Thanks, i had a look on that, but the thing is i had got to the stage where bailliffs had actually gone in and its at that point, the banks applied for a stay. Its now id like to write to the judge and say business accounts need not be put on hold, (if im right),

[steven4064]

We believe you are right - the OFT case is based on the UNfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, which do not apply to business accounts.

[Enron]

Got Nat West/RBS now playing funny wotsits over the signature on the account.

[slick132]

Hi Enron.

 

Great news on the settlement offer and looked forward to hearing that you've been paid.

 

[kashfat]

Hi guys, just wondering if someone could help me putting a letter together for a n244 just to ask the judge to lift a stay on a business account

[slick132]

Hi Kash,

 

Have a look here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/business-claims-bank-charges/119558-barclays-business-personal-bank.html#post1224450

 

and here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/business-claims-bank-charges/119558-barclays-business-personal-bank-2.html#post1378762

 

Adapt either ltr to suit your case and delete any reference to PENALTY CHARGES.

Edited June 21, 2008 by slick132
typo

[photoman]

Enron, Any news on what happened with the signature problems you were having ?

Everything sorted, and maybe got your settlement yet ?

 

PM

[Enron]

Finally got funds through on 1st July 2008.

 

Resent the second sheet after getting signature resubmitted for the account at the bank, made the signature and my agreement to their full & final settlement conditional on that payment was made within month of sending the second signed document..... just in case they decided to play games.