Jump to content


Help, Nawest taking us to court!


MAGDA
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4358 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

Hi, I do have another old N/west thread dealing with general problems we have had for some time with N/west, but now this claim has been issued, thought it would be better to start a new thread dealing just with that:

 

Well it's finally happened. A big brown envlope dropped through the letterbox today and low and behold it contains yet more court papers. This time for the NatWest o/d (problem from around end 2003/ beginning 2004 - haven't used the account since) so now, not only have we got the fast track Asset Link case to deal with (managed to get the other three struck out/discontinued) but also this. Shakespeare Putsman are the solicitors for the case. Total of £18,000+ being claimed. The papers were issued via Birmingham county court POC are as follows:

 

1. the claimant claims against the defendant repayment of the Defendant's account no.xxxxxx together with charges.

 

2. the account is regulated under the CCA 1974

 

3. The claimant has complied with parts III and IV of the pre action conduct practice direction.

 

4. the claimant has served on the defendant notice under the CCA 1974

 

5. The claimant now claims repayment of teh amount owing in respect of the account.

 

PARTICULARS

 

to principal sum due in respect of account number;

 

xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx £18,000+

 

And the claimant claims

 

1. The sume of £18,000+

 

Statement of truth

 

the claimant believes that the facts stated in these particulars of claim are true.

I am duly authorised by the claimant to sign this statement.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

shakespeare Putsman LLP

 

Please can someone help with this please, obviously I will acknowledge service and that I intend to defend, but not sure how to proceed from there, as obviously an overdraft is not so straightforward as a credit card or loan. Guess a cpr 18/Subject Access Request is on the agenda.

 

Any chance that an O/D can be defended successfully?

 

 

Many thanks, this is all getting beyond a joke now. By the way we were making payments each month as a gesture of good will although we had placed the account in dispute regarding certain issues, but NatWest wanted us to pay more and more, which we just couldn't afford.

 

The other thing to mention is that the account was within its overdraft zone, but we also had a charge card with natwest and it had to be paid each month, which we always did, but when we started having problems, and after informing Nwest, they still debited the payment, thus taking the O/d way beyond the agreed limit. (the card was a bit like a credit card in its use, but balance couldn't be carried over) up to £12,500, well over the authorised amount of £7500. They then made another charge card payment, which they say was due, again for around £5,000 and took the balance to £17000+.

 

I have asked repeatedly for the t&c's relating to the chargecard at that time and statements from that period to prove these were valid amounts, but nothing at all provided.

 

At one point the balance was £25000+ on the overdraft, because of interest charges, but I luckily had a letter from a N'west employee saying that interest being charged was zero, and they then had to back track and refund around £7,000.

 

I don't believe N/west complied with the determination and they have confirmed that they do not have a letter any longer which would allegedly have been sent at that time to confirm details of o/d. They also can't provide the DN which they allege was sent, although my account is showing a debit for a DN of £30 at that time.

 

Unlawful charges are only for around a few hundred at most I think, although still checking, but of course there would be interest on top of that.

 

Sorry this is so long, but we also had a personal account manager and he was always trying to get us deeper and deeper in to debt, offering to lend more and more money and when I finally said that we couldn't pay any longer and were having severe financial difficulties he wanted me to go into the branch urgently and he would sort a loan out for us, which I refused.

 

Any help is very, very appreciated, I am absolutely sick of dealing with Link at the moment, so this is just the icing on the cake:evil:

 

Many thanks, Magda

Edited by MAGDA
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

You'd think Link would know you personally by now and that you know what your rights are.

 

I'm subbing this as my personal loan payment when I first went on the dmp put me overdrawn and I intend eventually to claim it back so any info I can glean from your thread hopefully will eventually help me.

 

By the way what colour icing have you put on the cake?

 

DG

I have no legal training my knowledge comes from my personal life experiences

Please help keep the forum alive by making a donation

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DG, Hope the thread will help us all in this situation. The icing is puce, very suitable for a bank/dca as the literal meaning is flea and they are certainly hopping all over me at the moment:) Might send them a slice, although I'd prefer to rub it in their face really.

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Magda,

There is a thread similar to yours with some really sound advice off some of the site team and advanced caggers.

A lot people have suggested different approaches to the problem and it seems the laws are different to o/d. I think you will be happy when you have read the advice given on that thread but even if you just sub to it you should get the required info quicker. Also if you read the thread and think that a particular member has offered advice which is pertinent to your case then you could send them a PM maybe if they are happy to do that

Here's the link....good luck....exasp

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/217605-halifax-current-account-defective-post2415421.html#post2415421

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Magda,

There is a thread similar to yours with some really sound advice off some of the site team and advanced caggers.

A lot people have suggested different approaches to the problem and it seems the laws are different to o/d. I think you will be happy when you have read the advice given on that thread but even if you just sub to it you should get the required info quicker. Also if you read the thread and think that a particular member has offered advice which is pertinent to your case then you could send them a PM maybe if they are happy to do that

Here's the link....good luck....exasp

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/217605-halifax-current-account-defective-post2415421.html#post2415421

 

Hi Exasperated, many thanks for the link - that's great. Going to have a look now, so much appreciated. Will post back as and when I have some news/updates. Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a quick read of the thread kindly supplied by exasperated. I alread knew that the bank does not have to provide a credit agreement as they are exempt from part V, but there is a lot of really helpful stuff on the thread which will be really useful. for example, they should, at the end of three months and seven days from the o/d exceeding its limit provide in writing details of the interest rate and charges (courtesy of Dad) if not, they will not have complied with the Determination and an agreement will be needed for the amount by which the o/d has been exceeded, in my case £5,000+. I have checked the statements they sent some time ago in response to a SAR I did and they have not shown anything attaching a charge for a letter sent out at this time, because I odn't believe they did. The only reference is made to a charge for DN sent at the end of March 2004 - this is almost four months (give or take a couple of days) after the account exceeded the credit zone. I know Andy orch explained that DN's do not apply to O/Ds on the Halifax thread, rather you would be sent a termination notice, which I had also understood to be the case, so I'm certainly not disagreeing with this at all. However, Nwest clearly shown on the statement that a DN was issued (whether or not this was actually the case is something else)

 

I have been in touch with Nwest many times in the past couple of years and they have either ignored my letters (even those sent by recorded0 claiming not to have received them, or answered saying they do not have a letter that would have been sent (at inception of the o/d) complying with the Determination, and they do not have any DN.

 

Maybe this gives me a lot more ammunition to fire than I had previously thought, so many thanks again for the link posted as it has really helped so far.

 

Any other advice greatly appreciated.

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

One other thing, can I take it that if a notice was not served under Sections 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA 1974., necessary to cease/modify an o/d, then they do not have the right to state that the overdraft facility was stopped and the right to claim the monies allegedly due in court? Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, just done the cpr18 request, so will get that sent off. Just getting the AoS form ready to go as well, as they issued the claim through Birmingham CC, can't do any of it online.

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Magda,

Good luck with it, as you probably know it would be wise to have every eventuallity covered because they will more than likely become more aggressive once they are aware you know what you are doing.

I would suggest you bump the thread a few times if no-one offers any really good advice as there are people on here who could get this debt seriously reduced for you but unfortunately I am not educated enough in such matters to assist you further

Exasp

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Magda,

Good luck with it, as you probably know it would be wise to have every eventuallity covered because they will more than likely become more aggressive once they are aware you know what you are doing.

I would suggest you bump the thread a few times if no-one offers any really good advice as there are people on here who could get this debt seriously reduced for you but unfortunately I am not educated enough in such matters to assist you further

Exasp

 

Many thanks exasperated, your advice is much appreciated.

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to wish you good luck. I personally find this bank useless - they never responded to any letter which were sent from CAB or myself. They make me laugh with their slogan "Helpful Banking" they only seem to help themselves.

 

On one of my statements there was a default charge, but at no point did I receive a default notice, and I don't honestly believe that they every issued it. I hope to be challenging this in the not to distant future.

 

I'm sure you'll get all the help you need, so that one day you'll get the opportunity to rub that cake in their face:p

 

All the best

Joemay

Link to post
Share on other sites

Magda,

 

Hi there. I am the author of the Halifax thread referred to in this one and just wanted to say thanks for your message.

 

I simply can't get my head around why a DN does not apparently apply to an overdraft as andyorch suggests.

I can only assume I am just thick!

 

I have two overdrafts, one with the Abbey and one with the Halifax, and both have been defaulted under section 87(1) of the CCA 1974.

 

The Halifax, on the face of it, seem to have cocked up with their DN and I was obviously relying on that fact!!

 

I have read and re-read the CCA 1974 and can't find anything other than the Part V issue that separates an overdraft from any other form of regulated credit agreement. As you are aware, Part V deals with the making of an agreement, and not the termination of it, as in our cases.

 

I did find this in another thread which seems to support the fact that an overdraft is a regulated agreement.

(See below in red)

 

It also contains the OFT determination dated 01/02/90 in respect of Section 74(1)(b) which is the part about 3 months and 7 days and they should provide a credit agreement etc...

 

I hope it is of some help, as in your circumstances they appear to have not complied with it?

 

My opinion of your matter is that they possibly used a 'right of set off' when they continued to pay your charge card from your overdraft.

This would probably have been in the T&C of the chargecard.

 

As soon as your overdraft went over the limit as a result, they created a 'tacit' agreement to provide the overdraft portion that was over and above the limit.

 

As such, they should have provided a 'credit agreement' within 3 months and seven days for the excess under Section 74(1)(b).

 

Regards,

 

3tea

 

THE ACT

It is common ground:

 

 

(a) that the agreement for an overdraft of £2,000 in the terms of Coutts' letter dated 5 April 2002 was a regulated debtor-creditor agreement within the meaning of sections 8 and 13© of the Act, providing for 'running-account credit' within the meaning of section 10(1)(a) of the Act (in effect, a revolving credit within the agreed credit limit of £2,000); and

 

 

(b) that, as such, it was subject to the requirements of Part V of the Act (including the requirements as to documentation set out in sections 57 to 63 of the Act) save and in so far as it was excluded or exempted from such requirements.

 

Section 65 in Part V of the Act provides that an "improperly executed" regulated agreement is unenforceable by the creditor without a court order. It is common ground that a regulated agreement is "improperly executed" for this purpose if the requirements of sections 57 to 63 have not been complied with.

 

Section 74 of the Act provides for the exclusion of certain agreements from Part V. It provides as follows (so far as material):

 

"74. – (1) This part …. does not apply to –

 

(a) ….

(b) a debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, …

© ….

(2) ….

(3) Subsection 1(b) … applies only where the OFT so determines, and such a determination –

(a) may be made subject to such conditions as the OFT thinks fit …

(b) ….

(3A) …. in relation to a debtor-creditor agreement under which the creditor is …. a bank …. the OFT shall make a determination that subsection 1(b) above applies unless it considers that it would be against the public interest to do so.

(4) …."

Part VI of the Act relates to matters arising during the currency of credit agreements. Section 82 in Part VI, which is headed 'Variation of Agreements', provides as follows (so far as material):

"82. – (1) ….

 

(2) Where an agreement (a "modifying agreement") varies or supplements an earlier agreement, the modifying agreement shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as –

 

 

(a) revoking the earlier agreement, and

(b) containing provisions reproducing the combined effect of the two agreements,

and obligations outstanding in relation to the earlier agreement shall accordingly be treated as outstanding instead in relation to the modifying agreement.

 

 

(3) ….

(4) If the earlier agreement is a regulated agreement for running-account credit, and by the modifying agreement the creditor allows the credit limit to be exceeded but intends the excess to be merely temporary, Part V …. shall not apply to the modifying agreement.

(5) ….

 

(6) ….

(7) …."

 

 

THE DETERMINATION

 

The Determination (which is signed by the Director of Fair Trading) is made under section 74(3) of the Act. I set it out in full:

"1. Under the powers conferred upon me by Sections 74(3) and (3A) and 133 of the Consumer Credit 1974, I, the Director General, being satisfied that it would not be against the public interest to do so, hereby revoke with effect from 1st February 1990 the Determination made by me in respect of Section 74(1)(b) and dated 3 November 1983 and now determine that with effect from 1st February 1990 Section 74(1)(b) shall apply to every debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, under which the creditor is a bank.

 

 

2. This Determination is made subject to the following conditions:-

 

 

(a) that the creditor shall have informed my Office in writing of his general intention to enter into agreements to which the Determination will apply;

(b) that where there is an agreement between a creditor and a debtor for the granting of credit in the form of an advance on a current account, the debtor shall be informed at the time or before the agreement is concluded:

- of the credit limit, if any,

- of the annual rate of interest and the charges applicable from the time the agreement is concluded and the conditions under which these may be amended,

of the procedure for terminating the agreement;

and this information shall be confirmed in writing.

© that where a debtor overdraws his current account with the tacit agreement of the creditor and that account remains overdrawn for more than 3 months, the creditor must inform the debtor in writing not later than 7 days after the end of that 3 month period of the annual rate of interest and charges applicable.

3. In this Determination the terms 'creditor' and 'debtor' shall have the meanings assigned to them respectively by Section 189 of [the Act]. The term 'bank' includes the Bank of England and banks within the meaning of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 as amended."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to wish you good luck. I personally find this bank useless - they never responded to any letter which were sent from CAB or myself. They make me laugh with their slogan "Helpful Banking" they only seem to help themselves.

 

On one of my statements there was a default charge, but at no point did I receive a default notice, and I don't honestly believe that they every issued it. I hope to be challenging this in the not to distant future.

 

I'm sure you'll get all the help you need, so that one day you'll get the opportunity to rub that cake in their face:p

 

All the best

Joemay

 

Many thanks joemay, your support is really appreciated. I would just love to be able to rub a nice gooey cake in their faces, that would really make it all worthwhile:D As you say, Natwest and helpful are a contradiction in terms.

 

Magda

 

Magda,

 

Hi there. I am the author of the Halifax thread referred to in this one and just wanted to say thanks for your message.

 

I simply can't get my head around why a DN does not apparently apply to an overdraft as andyorch suggests.

I can only assume I am just thick!

 

I have two overdrafts, one with the Abbey and one with the Halifax, and both have been defaulted under section 87(1) of the CCA 1974.

 

The Halifax, on the face of it, seem to have cocked up with their DN and I was obviously relying on that fact!!

 

I have read and re-read the CCA 1974 and can't find anything other than the Part V issue that separates an overdraft from any other form of regulated credit agreement. As you are aware, Part V deals with the making of an agreement, and not the termination of it, as in our cases.

 

I did find this in another thread which seems to support the fact that an overdraft is a regulated agreement.

(See below in red)

 

It also contains the OFT determination dated 01/02/90 in respect of Section 74(1)(b) which is the part about 3 months and 7 days and they should provide a credit agreement etc...

 

I hope it is of some help, as in your circumstances they appear to have not complied with it?

 

My opinion of your matter is that they possibly used a 'right of set off' when they continued to pay your charge card from your overdraft.

This would probably have been in the T&C of the chargecard.

 

As soon as your overdraft went over the limit as a result, they created a 'tacit' agreement to provide the overdraft portion that was over and above the limit.

 

As such, they should have provided a 'credit agreement' within 3 months and seven days for the excess under Section 74(1)(b).

 

Regards,

 

3tea

 

THE ACT

It is common ground:

 

 

(a) that the agreement for an overdraft of £2,000 in the terms of Coutts' letter dated 5 April 2002 was a regulated debtor-creditor agreement within the meaning of sections 8 and 13© of the Act, providing for 'running-account credit' within the meaning of section 10(1)(a) of the Act (in effect, a revolving credit within the agreed credit limit of £2,000); and

 

 

(b) that, as such, it was subject to the requirements of Part V of the Act (including the requirements as to documentation set out in sections 57 to 63 of the Act) save and in so far as it was excluded or exempted from such requirements.

 

Section 65 in Part V of the Act provides that an "improperly executed" regulated agreement is unenforceable by the creditor without a court order. It is common ground that a regulated agreement is "improperly executed" for this purpose if the requirements of sections 57 to 63 have not been complied with.

 

Section 74 of the Act provides for the exclusion of certain agreements from Part V. It provides as follows (so far as material):

 

"74. – (1) This part …. does not apply to –

 

(a) ….

(b) a debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, …

© ….

(2) ….

(3) Subsection 1(b) … applies only where the OFT so determines, and such a determination –

(a) may be made subject to such conditions as the OFT thinks fit …

(b) ….

(3A) …. in relation to a debtor-creditor agreement under which the creditor is …. a bank …. the OFT shall make a determination that subsection 1(b) above applies unless it considers that it would be against the public interest to do so.

(4) …."

Part VI of the Act relates to matters arising during the currency of credit agreements. Section 82 in Part VI, which is headed 'Variation of Agreements', provides as follows (so far as material):

"82. – (1) ….

 

(2) Where an agreement (a "modifying agreement") varies or supplements an earlier agreement, the modifying agreement shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as –

 

 

(a) revoking the earlier agreement, and

(b) containing provisions reproducing the combined effect of the two agreements,

and obligations outstanding in relation to the earlier agreement shall accordingly be treated as outstanding instead in relation to the modifying agreement.

 

 

(3) ….

(4) If the earlier agreement is a regulated agreement for running-account credit, and by the modifying agreement the creditor allows the credit limit to be exceeded but intends the excess to be merely temporary, Part V …. shall not apply to the modifying agreement.

(5) ….

 

(6) ….

(7) …."

 

 

THE DETERMINATION

 

The Determination (which is signed by the Director of Fair Trading) is made under section 74(3) of the Act. I set it out in full:

"1. Under the powers conferred upon me by Sections 74(3) and (3A) and 133 of the Consumer Credit 1974, I, the Director General, being satisfied that it would not be against the public interest to do so, hereby revoke with effect from 1st February 1990 the Determination made by me in respect of Section 74(1)(b) and dated 3 November 1983 and now determine that with effect from 1st February 1990 Section 74(1)(b) shall apply to every debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, under which the creditor is a bank.

 

 

2. This Determination is made subject to the following conditions:-

 

 

(a) that the creditor shall have informed my Office in writing of his general intention to enter into agreements to which the Determination will apply;

(b) that where there is an agreement between a creditor and a debtor for the granting of credit in the form of an advance on a current account, the debtor shall be informed at the time or before the agreement is concluded:

- of the credit limit, if any,

- of the annual rate of interest and the charges applicable from the time the agreement is concluded and the conditions under which these may be amended,

of the procedure for terminating the agreement;

and this information shall be confirmed in writing.

© that where a debtor overdraws his current account with the tacit agreement of the creditor and that account remains overdrawn for more than 3 months, the creditor must inform the debtor in writing not later than 7 days after the end of that 3 month period of the annual rate of interest and charges applicable.

3. In this Determination the terms 'creditor' and 'debtor' shall have the meanings assigned to them respectively by Section 189 of [the Act]. The term 'bank' includes the Bank of England and banks within the meaning of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 as amended."

 

 

Hi 3tea, It is all very confusing, you certainly aren't thick, your thread is really informative and has really helped a lot. It is strange how they appear to send DN's out, but apparently that isn't the norm with an o/d, it should be a termination notice? N/west has admitted in the past that they don't have any letter (or any proof of it being sent) that should have been sent when the o/d was taken out, and theydon't seem to be able to provide a copy of the DN either, although it is mentioned on one of the statements with a charge of £30. They also didn't send anything within the three months and 7 days period as far as I can tell.

 

I sent a cpr 18 request today and in it also requested copies of the chargecard statements (to prove the amounts added to my overdraft) and the t&c's relevant when the card was taken out, been asking for these for ages, but nothing so far, so be interesting to see what they come up with...

 

Thanks for the info you have provided (in red) I can do with all the help I can get at the moment. Will keep an eye on your thread and see how it goes and wishing you well with it. Many thanks again,

 

Magda:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi, well the fourteen days is up today for a response to my CPR 18 request. Seems Shakespeare Putsman are in no hurry to reply and I think I will have to submit a holding defence at the last minute if I don't get anything by the deadline. I was reading on another thread (someone who managed to win against First Direct - they had a loan which was offset against their o/d and it was the o/d debt that was subject to the court claim) that if an overdraft is made up of for example a loan, or CC, which was offset, thus increasing the o/d, then the bank would need to prove that the loan (or whatever) was enforceable in the first place by providing a copy of the agreement relating to that account. I have been asking Nwest for a long time now to provide the details relating to the chargecard and statements to prove the debt they claim was oustanding and which they have added to the overdraft debt. Nothing at all, they keep stating that the account was cleared with zero balance and cannot now provide anything. The amount of chargecard debt was allegedly around £11,000+ and this took me over the agreed overdraft zone, which then caused the problems I now have. So, going to keep pushing to get this info from Nwest/Shakespeare Putsman, as obviously it must be relevant.

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been looking through the paperwork sent by the bank in response to my queries some time ago. They ignored a lot of my correspondence, and although it was sent by recorded, claimed (and I had proof of signature) not to have received anything. One of their responses (received in 2007) after much persuasion from me was:

 

"You requested confirmation of the letter sent to you when you converted your account to an Advantage premier. Regrettably, due to the passage of time, (this request was made in 2007, account changed in 2002 - so they legally should have retained this information)this document is no longer available. The bank switched to a new computer system in 2002 and messages applicable to the interest rate were printed on the covering information sheet issued with the statements." Hmmm nothing to explain the conditions of the o/d though, or how to terminate, etc, which I beleive should be a requirement if they wish to be exempt from part V.

 

A further letter from the bank from 2008 states:

 

"I regret due to the passage of time the bank is unable to supply you with a copy of the leaflet detailed in the enclosed letter."

 

the enclosed letter they refer to is basically a blank letter "setting out the terms and conditions of your overdraft facility." In other words, a generic document which they claim would have been sent at that time. However, as far as I am aware (and the bank seem unable to prove otherwise) the overdraft was not confirmed in writing in this manner, which clearly should have been the case.

 

We had a personal account manager at this time and the only thing he helped in was getting us further and further in to debt, without providing any clear information as to what we were entering into.

 

Has anyone else had this problem with Nwest? or having problems with their Nwest overdraft?

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi magda

just subbing really but as u know im going thru the same thing myself with a SJ hearing this week.

havent read rite thru but thought it may be useful clarify the issues of termination of the O/D (whilst its fresh in my head;)). apologies if this goes over old ground but this is my understanding.

as u know DNs do not apply as an overdraft has no predetermined agreement (unlike a CA for CC or loan) for repayment and therefore makes a default of that agreement impossible as there is nothing to be in default of. every time they agree to pay smth from the acount to further the O/D they are agreeing that u can do so in effect.

s.76(1) & s.98(1) allow the legal termination of an account where no default exists. s.76 for the warning so to speak and s.98 (duty to give notice of termination (non-default cases)) for the formal demand of repayment.

also notice part 3 of both sections regarding being in the prescribed form. a DN does not fulfill this and is therefore an unlawful termination of this type of credit.

 

my point here is i think u would need to mention this in any defence/WS/etc from the off so u can rely on it later.

 

s.76:

Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c. 39) - Statute Law Database

s.98:

Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c. 39) - Statute Law Database

 

if u havent got em already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi magda

just subbing really but as u know im going thru the same thing myself with a SJ hearing this week.

havent read rite thru but thought it may be useful clarify the issues of termination of the O/D (whilst its fresh in my head;)). apologies if this goes over old ground but this is my understanding.

as u know DNs do not apply as an overdraft has no predetermined agreement (unlike a CA for CC or loan) for repayment and therefore makes a default of that agreement impossible as there is nothing to be in default of. every time they agree to pay smth from the acount to further the O/D they are agreeing that u can do so in effect.

s.76(1) & s.98(1) allow the legal termination of an account where no default exists. s.76 for the warning so to speak and s.98 (duty to give notice of termination (non-default cases)) for the formal demand of repayment.

also notice part 3 of both sections regarding being in the prescribed form. a DN does not fulfill this and is therefore an unlawful termination of this type of credit.

 

my point here is i think u would need to mention this in any defence/WS/etc from the off so u can rely on it later.

 

s.76:

Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c. 39) - Statute Law Database

s.98:

Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c. 39) - Statute Law Database

 

if u havent got em already.

 

Hi r&b thanks for the above. I have been a bit confused about the whole DN issue because Natwest have shown on my bank statements that a DN was issued around four months after the account went over limit, so I think they have probably been mistaken in thinking that a DN applied whereas as you say they should have been complying with s76 and 98. I believe the bank is supposed to provide details of the amount outstanding, interest being charged, etc within 3 months and seven days, and if they fail to do this they would then need to provide a credit agreement to be signed, as they have lost the right to part V exemption. If I'm understanding this correctly?

 

Thanks for the link that is a really great help as I will have to do a holding defence within the next week - sent a cpr 18 request to Shakespeare Putsman which they have completely ignored. No surprise there:rolleyes:

 

will keep an eye on your thread and hope the SJ hearing goes well for you

 

Many thanks, Magda

Edited by MAGDA
Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks magda

id get a quick reminder out for the CPR18 rqst. give em 7 days to respond.

if the POC allow, may be worth mentioning all the (correct) termination procedure in your defence along with their reticence to provide u with the paperwork. makes it a little more substantial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks magda

id get a quick reminder out for the CPR18 rqst. give em 7 days to respond.

if the POC allow, may be worth mentioning all the (correct) termination procedure in your defence along with their reticence to provide u with the paperwork. makes it a little more substantial.

 

 

Hi r&b, yes, just got a cpr reminder off in the post today, although not holding my breath. The overdraft in my case is made up of a large debt (in addition to the o/d we already had) from a charge card, which Nwest added to the o/d. I am going to try to make them prove this debt and that it was actually enforceable (I think even though it is a chargecard it will be at least part regulated) when they added it on to the o/d. I read on another thread where someone had been successful in defending a court case involving an overdraft and they had asked the bank to prove the validity of the loan that made up a considerable part of the o/d, so seems like something worth looking at. I will definitely mention the issues re: termination of the overdraft and the bank's non-compliance, so at least I have got a few things to be going on with until I actually get all of the info I need. I was very interested in your thread, because like us, your overdraft is for a large amount and can't (I believe) be offset by bank charges, which I find is the case on a lot of threads. Will update if I get anything from Shakespeare. Good luck,

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

No response to either of the CPR 18 requests (reminder sent in follow-up) the solicitors have totally ignored it. Therefore, going to do a holding defence for the time being as it has to be in next week.

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, got my holding defence all sorted now and I'm going to ask the court if I can fax it to them tomorrow as I think the deadline is Tuesday, I would think that will be ok. Shame it wasn't done through Northampton as it can all be done online then.

 

Just have to wait and see what Nwest's next response is then.

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been looking on a lot of banks' websites and their t&c's and they definitely say something along the following lines:

 

"A Default Notice Fee will be payable if we need to serve a default notice on you (for example, if you fail to repay your overdraft on demand or we wish to enforce any security we hold). This is in addition to any other charges that may apply"

 

I can only assume that the banks themselves actually know the procedure for terminating the account, taking enforcement action, so it seems strange that they all refer (the ones I have seen) to issue of a DN. It seems therefore that s87/88 are applicable to overdrafts after all.

 

Any further advice/clarificatio on this will be more than welcome:)

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Magda,

How you getting on with this problem?

Exasp

 

Hi Exasp, I sent my defence off last week to the court and the claimant. Birmingham court don't seem to be very on the ball for acknowledging they've received anything. Had a letter from Shakespeare Putsman at long last re: my CPR 18 request which was sent over a month ago, and they say it has been forwarded to their client and they won't take any further action until they have their client's response.

 

So that's it for the moment, trying to find out what I can in case it's useful later and been following r&b's thread with interest - glad she is going to appeal.

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Exasp, I sent my defence off last week to the court and the claimant. Birmingham court don't seem to be very on the ball for acknowledging they've received anything. Had a letter from Shakespeare Putsman at long last re: my CPR 18 request which was sent over a month ago, and they say it has been forwarded to their client and they won't take any further action until they have their client's response.

 

So that's it for the moment, trying to find out what I can in case it's useful later and been following r&b's thread with interest - glad she (is a very manly HE :p) is going to appeal.

 

Magda

 

 

lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...