Jump to content

sm03art v's NATWEST £3000

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5126 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


Start your own new thread

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



Recommended Posts

Hi all....sent prelim letter, got a lovely letter saying the charges are unlawful, ha ha, sent LBA with a copy N1 form. see if that helps. Also sent a letter to MP about these pityful charges. Ill keep you all posted! good luck to all.:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great stuff and welcome to the site :)


Start a thread in the Nat West section and keep us updated.

Please note that I am not a legal expert and all advice given is without prejudice and is purely my opinion only.


** Nationwide - £1821.15-PAID IN FULL - Aug 06 **

** Halifax Mortgage -£390 - PAID IN FULL - Nov 06 **

Lloyds TSB - MCOL issued 09/03/07 - £2953 + costs - ON HOLD....




Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

ok received my defence from cobbetts, now i know ive messed up, with claiming interest and possibly claimed the odd Avantage Gold Subs. as they where merged together


Please can somene look at this defence and post comments, really stuck now!


1. This defence is filed and served without prejudice to the defendants case that the particulars of claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the claimant to recover bank charges (and interest thereon) referred to in the particulars of claim or any other sum(s)

2. No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the claimants bank account.

3. In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are invalid pursuant to the Unfair contract terms act 1977 (UCTA 1977) and/or the Unfair contract terms in consumer regulations 1999 (the regulations) and/or section 15 supply of goods and service act 1982 (SGSA)

3.1 In relation to the case of the claimant that the contractual provisions are invalid pursuant to section 4 UCTA 1977 then it is the case of the Defendant that the section is not applicable as any contractual provision relating to charges does not relate to the defendants liability for negligence or breach of contract.

3.2 In relation to the case of the claimant that the contractual provisions are invalid pursuant to the regulations the defendant pleads as follows;

3.2.1 Schedule 2 to the Regulations is an Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair (emphasis supplied).

3.2.2 The regulations have no application because the charges amount to payment for services provided by the defendant and the adequacy (or otherwise) of consideration paid under a contract for services is not issue to be judged by reference to principles of fairness under the regulations.

3.3 In relation to the case the claimant that the charges are unreasonable within the meaning of SGSA section 15 the defendant pleads as follows;

3.3.1 The claimant is required to plead and prove the necessary factors (referred to in section 15 SGSA) concerning the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant which men that pursuant to SGSA section 15 there is an implied term that the claimant pay a reasonable charge for the service under the contract

3.3.2 Further the Claimant is required to plead and prove (a) that the bank charges which have been debited are unreasonable; (b) all facts and matters relied upon by the claimant in support of this case and © what charges would have been reasonable.

3.3.3 In the circumstances no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the defendant has acted in breach if SGSA section 15.

3.3.4 In the circumstances (save a appears below) the defendant is unable to pleaded to this allegation beyond denying that it has acted in breach of SGSA section 15 as alleged or at all. The defendant reserves its right to plead further to this allegation once (and if) the defects in the pleaded case referred to in paragraphs 3.3.1-3.3.3 above are addressed.

3.3.5 It is the case of the defendant that contracts between the claimant and the defendant does not fall within SGSA section 15 because (a) the consideration for the service would be determined by contract between the claimant and defendant and (b) was not left to be determined in a manner agreed by contract or determined by the course of dealings between the claimant and defendant.

  • The claimant’s schedule of charges refers to fees interest and debit interest The claimant is not legally entitled to recover interest on his account in conjunction with 8% interest pursuant to section 69 county courts act 1982, as the claimant is effectively claiming double recovery interest from the defendant.

5. Save as hereinbefore appears the defendant joins issue with the claimant on his claim(s) and denies that it is liable to the claimant as alleged or at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...