Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim. 1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 24/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • AMEX and TSB the 2 Creditors who you need to worry about the least, ever!  Just stop paying them and forget about it, ignore all their threat o gram letters.  Only if, and with these 2 it's a massive if, you end up with a claim form you need to respond, and there will be plenty of help here.
    • No, nothing from Barclays. Turns out i have 2 accounts on here, and i posted originally on the other one. Sorry about that.  
    • Always send with proof of posting from your Post Office, so there is a trail. Conversations , are designed to intimidate into paying, Emails are designed as another way of bombarding. Only EVER communicate in writing, by post.  
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Natwest business account


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5739 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Sent this to them :

In conclusion, I look forward to :

 

 

  • Why the fees I have detailed in my request and schedule are considered non-refundable.

 

  • For what type of activity is a ‘cheque return fee’ and ‘excess borrowing fee’ applied to the account and what exactly is this fee for.
  • For what type of activity is an ‘unarranged borrowing fee’ and ‘paid referral fee’ and ‘unpaid fee’ applied to the account and what exactly is this fee for.
  • For what type of activity is an ‘interest or monthly packaged account fee’ applied to the account and what exactly is this fee for.
  • A full breakdown of how each charge or fee was applied to the account and its exact calculation to arrive at the amount charged.
  • An investigation into how and why my account was put on hold and why my letters and telephone calls were ignored at the time.
  • Compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by putting my claim on hold and the 8 months that passed.
  • A true copy of the credit agreement that applied to this account and any overdraft, together with any documents mentioned in it, including the Terms and Conditions applicable at that time.
  • A payment of £X,XXX or £X,XXX or another sum and a full explanation of how this amount is arrived at.
  • A full statement showing all charges and fees applied to the account as ‘cheque return fee’ and ‘excess borrowing fee’ or any other charge or fee.
  • A copy of the relevant section and clause used when each charge or fee was applied to the account.
  • Any other information which may be useful in this investigation and my claim.
  • This list is not exhaustive but an indication of what needs investigating and responding

Edited by tifo
Link to post
Share on other sites

as you know yourbank, my statements say 'cheque return fee' at £30 each and 'excess borrowing fee' at £3.50 per day instead of 'unpaid item' and 'unarranged borrowing fee', so the bank say there are no valid charges to refund. This is a play on words and i can ask them why they have not used the appropriate terms in my statements.

 

So in my follow up schedule i have used the words above.

 

Hope they don't get confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They may reply,(cos those scottish ones that took NatWest over do appear to be a bit dim on the old bank charges) that was the old NatWest Group Terminolgy.

I do hope they don't tempt me to point out which process manual(internal) that they are located in cos that would mean I would have to get the trusty steed out again that has been grazing for months. I look forward to the response you get tifo.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tifo, as a young whippersnapper on CAG, I remembered I had looked at business charges. I know banks views these forums so, for RBS Retail Regulatory Risk, I have something for you to read.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/40151-natwest-business-charges-guide.html?highlight=natwest+charges+guide

 

Sadly, I never got round to finishing that guide.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

got the same offer again as i did last year, i.e. less than 50% of the charges for returned cheques and being overlimit that i am claiming.

 

they still insist there are no charges to be refunded of the type i am asking for, but i only got this offer again because of the complaint letter i sent to Chief Exec, who's office haven't responded to any of the points i raised.

 

so basically, they offered me this money last year, put my account on hold for 9 months, say they're sorry about that and offer me the same again, still insisting there are no charges to refund, and i say my statements detail 'cheque return fee' at £30 each and totalling over £800, plus around £200 of 'excess borrowing fee' at £3.50 per day.

 

do they really think there are no penalty charges on the account and the statements are wrong or are they hoping i'll go away?

 

Chief Exec's office sent a letter saying they'll investigate and get back to me, after i sent the second letter i detailed above. I'm hoping they'll accept my points and make a higher offer more in line with the amount of charges, otherwise it will be court soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this weekend I will re look at that business charges thread. THe bank are wrong, £3.50 excess borrowing fee is the antecedent to Unarranged borrowing and then Maintenance charge(I have to say I was sure UBF was from 2000 but will do some research on it). The cheque return fee is what it says on the tin.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

THe bank are wrong, £3.50 excess borrowing fee is the antecedent to Unarranged borrowing ...... The cheque return fee is what it says on the tin.

 

I know it is what it says, but they're saying it's not that, it's a legitimate business fee and they only return 'unpaid fee' or 'paid referral fee', which is what it may be called now. So they're saying it's not a charge for returning a cheque, even though it says 'cheque return fee'! Are they mad?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I say that is a load of billhooks(I am sure you have seen the "Fork Handles" sketch!!)

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I say that is a load of billhooks(I am sure you have seen the "Fork Handles" sketch!!)

 

From the Two Ronnies !

 

You mean Four Candles sketch don't you? :)

 

Yeah, they're playing on words.

 

Don't know how they're going to convince a judge it's not a 'cheque return fee', i.e. it wasn't charged for returning a cheque, your honour, it just says that. He actually paid a fee for us to refer it back to the payee !

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is in Plain and Intelligible Language. Excess Borrowing fee(what could that mean :rolleyes: )

 

Yeah, and i wonder what 'cheque return fee' means?

 

Well, i've asked them to tell me exactly what kind of activity the £30 and £3.50 per day was for and to provide a breakdown of their costs involved.

 

I'm still expecting the same kind of waffle i've already had.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

interesting development, though confusing ...

 

they offered £420 before, now they've offered £700. It's not clear if the offer is in addition to the £420 or including it, as the letter says 'this is in addition to the refund agreed' but then states 'revised offer'. So it says both and 'final offer'. It also says they 'cannot locate any overdraft agreements'. Does this mean they cannot claim the £1400 overdraft on the account, which would be wiped out anyway if they pay me what i am asking for?

 

Then, i've received a settlement letter of £700 for my personal account i hold with RBS and the letter says the offer is 'in light of my financial situation and background info' though test case is ongoing and my acceptance 'does not prevent me from benefiting if the findings are more advantageous to me'. The RBS account number and ref number is used and the settlement form does not say 'full and final', only 'accept your goodwill offer'. They've previously put my claim on hold re test case.

 

To recap, i have an offer of £420 on my NatWest business claim and a letter stating an offer of £700 will be sent. I have received an offer on my RBS personal current account of £700.

 

Looks like they've got confused but my letters always use the correct account and reference numbers for my Natwest business account and i've not wrote to them regarding my RBS personal account since it was put on hold.

 

What to do? I could accept £420 on Natwest and £700 on RBS and wait for an offer of £700 from Natwest. But then they might claim a mistake and take the money back from my personal account, even though it's from the same bank to the same person, just different accounts within the group.

Edited by tifo
Link to post
Share on other sites

It also says they 'cannot locate any overdraft agreements'. Does this mean they cannot claim the £1400 overdraft on the account, which would be wiped out anyway if they pay me what i am asking for?

 

By paying £700 into my personal account, there will be nothing going towards the business account, except maybe the £420 offer they have sent me, which i will ask them to pay into my personal account. Then, i may receive an offer of £700 from NatWest as the RBS offer is for different reasons, they say. It's confusing.

 

I've been paying £2.00 a month towards my business overdraft which they've been paying back into my personal account, which makes me think they're confused somewhere. Now they've said there is no overdraft agreement. I hope they mean the business account because i have no overdraft on my personal account.

Edited by tifo
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'm going to accept their offer of £700 charges refund and £250 compensation for putting account on hold, to be paid into my personal account so at least it doesn't get swallowed into the business overdraft, for which they've admitted they have no agreement.

 

They'll send me a full set of statements to confirm all charges have been paid, so at least I have some comeback if it turns out they've paid me less.

 

The £250 makes up for the interest they're not paying.

 

So i've got £950 and a £1,400 overdraft still remains which they've never chased for years anyway, as i've been paying a nominal amount towards it. No default exists for this.

 

Makes sense to write to the Chief Exec's Office if anyone has RBS group complaints.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tifo,

 

Have you seen lancasterchelseas great Business account claim win ?

 

Just shows that Business claims are very much back on track !!

 

 

PM

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/business-claims-bank-charges/110522-lancasterchelsea-lloyds-business-1995-a-3.html#post1662503

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not wanting to pour cold water, but I thing there were special features in lancasterchelsea's win. The judge caused confusion by splitting the limitation issue and taking that first.

 

If he had decided to do it the other way round - ie unlawful charges first and then the limitations issue, Lloyds could have applied for the charges case to be dismissed under CPR 3.4(2) on the grounds that there is not sufficient cause of action (OFT case saus they are not penalties - although there is still the issue of historic terms I suppose but I don't hold out much hope there) and then had the limitations issue dropped as irrelevant.

 

By going the way round he did, the judge prevented this line of attack - they would have had to go to court (which we know they won't do) and argue the limitations issue in isolation - hence the cave in.

 

Of course, I may be wrong.

 

This line of attack could be used by others but it would rely on getting a judge who would respond in the same way - 50-50 at best IMHO.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Natwest business account
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...