orfoster vs Natwest

[orfoster]

Had a letter from the courts;

It is ordered that.

 

Although the courts appreciates that the claimant is a litigant in person, the defendants part 18 request is reasonable and the claimant is ordered to file at court and save a reply on the defendant by 14th Decemeber 2006

 

 

HELP!!

[GaryH]

It should'nt really apply to small claims track cases, but if the court has ordered it you'll have to comply.

 

Have a look here, if you don't find what you need, let me know.

[orfoster]

Hi Gary,

 

thanks for your reply. Have a look where?? Yeh thats what i thought but i haven't seen this happen before with the court saying the a CPR18 is valid.

[kateandpete]

Here is my response - should be pretty similar

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/9222-kateandpete-natwest-3.html#post306623

 

 

Have fun!

[GaryH]

Oops, sorry for some reason I did'nt post the link I was supposed to, either that or it has'nt appeared:confused:

 

Looks as though your sorted now anyway;).

[MARTIN3030]

IN THE .............................. COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO.

 

BETWEEN

 

Claimants

-and-

NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC Defendant

 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR FUTHER INFORMATION AND CLARIFICATION

 

NOTE- IMPORTANT

 

 

1. This response is served pursuit to CPR 18

 

The Response

2. In response to Para 2.1 and 2.2 (a)(© of defendants request please find herewith (attached Schedule one) a break down of the charges applied to the claimants account this includes the claimants account number sort code and the dates of the charges were applied and the reason.

3. In response to Para 2.2 © of the defendants request, the claimant has already explained why the charges should not have been applied but for the avoidance of doubt the claimant alleges that the charges are Penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor co Ltd [1915] AC 79.along with Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963 It was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses.

4. In response to Para 2.3(a) Yes, the claimant should not have been charged an amount above the true administrate cost incured by the respondents, ( the claimant should not have been charges for reason out lined in Para 2. © the claimant should have been charged the true administrative cost,

5. In response to Para 2.3(d) The Respondents have asked what the claimant should have been charged, to answer this the claimant will need a break down of the administrative cost incured by the defendant in applying the said charges.

6. In response to the further question made by the defendant the claimant will not be able to responded to these until the claimant has disclosure and inspection of documents as the claimant will be requiring a copy of his contract with the respondents

7. If the defendant requires any further information, the claimant will be happy to provide this once the discloser of documents/information has been dealt with by the court

 

 

 

 

current accounts

[MARTIN3030]

IN THE .............................. COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO.

 

BETWEEN

 

Claimants

-and-

NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC Defendant

 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR FUTHER INFORMATION AND CLARIFICATION

 

NOTE- IMPORTANT

 

 

1. This response is served pursuit to CPR 18

 

The Response

2. In response to Para 2.1 and 2.2 (a)(© of defendants request please find herewith (attached Schedule one) a break down of the charges applied to the claimants account this includes the claimants account number sort code and the dates of the charges were applied and the reason.

3. In response to Para 2.2 © of the defendants request, the claimant has already explained why the charges should not have been applied but for the avoidance of doubt the claimant alleges that the charges are Penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor co Ltd [1915] AC 79.along with Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963 It was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses.

4. In response to Para 2.3(a) Yes, the claimant should not have been charged an amount above the true administrate cost incured by the respondents, ( the claimant should not have been charges for reason out lined in Para 2. © the claimant should have been charged the true administrative cost,

5. In response to Para 2.3(d) The Respondents have asked what the claimant should have been charged, to answer this the claimant will need a break down of the administrative cost incured by the defendant in applying the said charges.

6. In response to the further question made by the defendant the claimant will not be able to responded to these until the claimant has disclosure and inspection of documents as the claimant will be requiring a copy of his contract with the respondents

7. If the defendant requires any further information, the claimant will be happy to provide this once the discloser of documents/information has been dealt with by the court

 

 

Business accounts

[goforit]

I'm not sure on this one because MCOL state that you can claim 8% once you file

 

That assumes that you don't have a rate of contractual interest which is higher than that.

 

Ignore what MCOL says with that regard, which is essentially only good as a guide on procedural rather substanstive law.

 

Just go on with contractual interest as normal. Remember to compound.

[natwesttookmymoney]

"That assumes that you don't have a rate of contractual interest which is higher than that." (Goforit)

 

Ummmmmm.....to a point.

 

If you can establish that the contractual interest is a genuine loss you have suffered - e.g., you've been in overdraft the whole time, or the bulk of it - then you can claim 8% statutory interest in addition. I believe. That's what I'm doing, anyway, because it's the effective compensation for 'loss of benefit' - i.e., you haven't had your money, they have, and they should compensate you for it.

 

If you'd suffered no interest charges at all (e.g., in a claim against a garage mechanic who'd bggrd up your car), you could still claim 8%. So it doesn't relate to interest already charged.

It's about financial loss. For most of the time, I've been in overdraft and for the rest, well, they loaned me money to pay their charges - so the interest is a loss I have suffered. I'm of the opinion that I can claim back 17.95% (current authorised overdraft rate for me) and 8% on top.

But what do I know? I'm not a lawyer.

I suppose I could claim the unauthorised rate but only for those days that it was charged - which was less than 2 weeks a month, at the very most, throughout the claim. To be honest, it's too complex for me to claim unauthorised overdraft rate on that part that represents charges, for a few days, then back to the authorised rate, then into unauthorised rate the following month, and so on for 6 years.

General guide - claim your clearly demonstrable loss. I know we want to flay them alive and sell their children into slavery but the law will be much more inclined to support reasonable and demonatrable claims.

In my humble opinion, anyway.

Westy

[goforit]

"That assumes that you don't have a rate of contractual interest which is higher than that." (Goforit)

 

Ummmmmm.....to a point.

 

If you can establish that the contractual interest is a genuine loss you have suffered - e.g., you've been in overdraft the whole time, or the bulk of it - then you can claim 8% statutory interest in addition. I believe. That's what I'm doing, anyway, because it's the effective compensation for 'loss of benefit' - i.e., you haven't had your money, they have, and they should compensate you for it.

 

If you'd suffered no interest charges at all (e.g., in a claim against a garage mechanic who'd bggrd up your car), you could still claim 8%. So it doesn't relate to interest already charged.

It's about financial loss. For most of the time, I've been in overdraft and for the rest, well, they loaned me money to pay their charges - so the interest is a loss I have suffered. I'm of the opinion that I can claim back 17.95% (current authorised overdraft rate for me) and 8% on top.

But what do I know? I'm not a lawyer.

I suppose I could claim the unauthorised rate but only for those days that it was charged - which was less than 2 weeks a month, at the very most, throughout the claim. To be honest, it's too complex for me to claim unauthorised overdraft rate on that part that represents charges, for a few days, then back to the authorised rate, then into unauthorised rate the following month, and so on for 6 years.

General guide - claim your clearly demonstrable loss. I know we want to flay them alive and sell their children into slavery but the law will be much more inclined to support reasonable and demonatrable claims.

In my humble opinion, anyway.

Westy

 

It's important that you understand the basis of claim.

 

When claiming contractual interest you are arguing that an implied term of contract exists allowing you, in these, circumstances to charge the Defendant their unauthorised rate. This is unrelated to whether or not you were being charged contractual interest rate on your loan.

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Goforit

 

"When claiming contractual interest you are arguing that an implied term of contract exists allowing you, in these, circumstances to charge the Defendant their unauthorised rate."

Sorry, mate, I disagree. I'm not suggesting charging them their 'unauthorised rate', essentially because it's too complex and the chances of getting it wrong - and being challenged - are, on the balance of probabilities, too high.

So I'm suggesting what they have charged, which is the authorised rate, on unlawful charges. The charges themselves, plus the authorised overdraft interest rate (contractual rate, currently 17.95%AER) is, if you've been in overdraft, demonstrably a loss. You can charge statutory interest at 8 per cent on top of the demonstrable loss - charges plus interest charged on them - from outset, i.e., the day it was charged against you.

It's nothing to do with any implied term of contract allowing me to charge anything.

Westy.

[orfoster]

Hey, thanks for all the help guys. I've printed off and will send the response to the CPR18 today. Hopefully im not too far off now.

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Orf (?)

Good stuff. You MIGHT get your settlement in time for Christmas - who knows? NW has been settling quite a few claims, lately - but I expect it will make your early New Year the more enjoyable.

Westy

[MARTIN3030]

The pattern appears to be the 50% offer first follwed by settlement within 4 weeks.

Similarly if a court date has been firmly set,there is a pattern to settle within 6 to 8 weeks of that.

However we should take nothing for granted and be prepared for all eventualities,this means preparing the court bundle as court dates draw near.

Offers do appear to have accelerated recently,but they are manipulating the situation which could persuade a claimant to take the money for Christmas.Single parent families and low income ones are particularly vulnerable to this carrot.Its down to the individual to decide if they can hold off for the full amount.......which will obviously go much further in January than December !!

[goforit]

The pattern appears to be the 50% offer first follwed by settlement within 4 weeks.

Similarly if a court date has been firmly set,there is a pattern to settle within 6 to 8 weeks of that.

However we should take nothing for granted and be prepared for all eventualities,this means preparing the court bundle as court dates draw near.

Offers do appear to have accelerated recently,but they are manipulating the situation which could persuade a claimant to take the money for Christmas.Single parent families and low income ones are particularly vulnerable to this carrot.Its down to the individual to decide if they can hold off for the full amount.......which will obviously go much further in January than December !!

 

Good point.

[orfoster]

Ok NatWest have paid up and have included the charges since my claim began. Now the only thing they didn't put in the claim was that they weren't removing the default but i think i'll call them up about that now and tell them and see what they say but i now hold in my hand a cheque for £1639.00!!!

[GaryH]

Excellent!! So that includes all the interest at the rate you claimed? Brilliant, another contractual interest victory to add to the ever growing list!

 

Congratulations, well done:D

[orfoster]

It does indeed. They sent in their letter two copies of "Notice for Discontinuance" to be sent to the court and them, half way down it says to put the name of the judge who has given permission for the discontinuance?? Do i need to take that into the court or leave it blank as the judge hasn't given me permission??

[bigmama59]

Well Done and congratulations!! Have a happy new year!

[thereshope!]

Congratulations and well done Orfoster !!

 

So it can be done.

 

Think i'm in a similar posistion as you were.

Credit zone £3150 in 2004.

Now stands at £7475.57.

 

I havent used this account since nov 04 so NW have put £4325.27 in interest and charges onto this account.

 

Keeping my fingers crossed x

[Guest NATTIE]

congratulations Orfoster, and have a Good New Year

[natwesttookmymoney]

Ditto

Westy

[orfoster]

You two look so alike, almost same names, same rep, are you both related lol. Thanks and the same to all. Have a happy New Year.

 

I wasn't too sure about the contract rate till now but it DOES work.

[Deller]

Congratulations orfoster, in good time for the New Year sales too!!

[orfoster]

Yeh thats what i thought except guess what.....NatWest have yesterday charged me another £48.94, so i'll be calling up NatWest at 10am to tell them that they are going to be paying me that back.