danmoz98 Vs Natwest. Part 2

[danmoz98]

Please delete the original thread as it's a bit of a mess and a little confusing.

 

Just to update:

 

Claiming £866 + interest and court costs

 

I filed my MCOL on back in July, Natwest acknowledged it on the 17th... their 28 days ends on Monday.

 

How 'last minute' do they actually leave it? I haven't heard anything from them since the 17th and I'm beginning to think they're cutting it a bit fine.

 

Assuming there is no response by Monday, then I can go online and begin the judgement. What happens then?

[VeryTrying]

From what I've read, they often make their move the day AFTER the 28 days, and the court lets it go through. But if you ask for judgement first, NW will just ask for it to be overturned. Still, it's nice to make waves and put them to some trouble.

[danmoz98]

I don't understand why the court would let it go through? They've been given 28 days, therefore waiting until the day after the 28th day should be seen as trying to drag things out as well as laziness on their part. There's really no excuse not to get their defense in within 28 days.

 

It also makes a mockery of things and makes it all rather pointless if they can just sit idly waiting till the 28 days has passed and then file their defense.

[Isobel Daly]

Its all tactics to scare you off and keep their money for as long as they can!

[danmoz98]

Bah. Cobbetts defence arrived this morning.

 

The usual letter by the looks of it, mentioning I haven't particularised my claim (despite sending a list of charges to Stuart Higley twice) and the CPR 18 request.

 

What's the best way to deal with this? Reply with a list of charges and a letter saying I do not need to reply to the CPR18 request?

 

My reply so far:

 

"In response to your defense and CPR18 request dated 11th August please find enclosed a list of unlawful charges applied to my account between 2001 and 2006. I have sent this list to Stuart Higley at Natwest twice (16th June and 26th June) whose final response was that he would be notifying Natwests lawyers and litigation department of my intentions to pursue this through the court. I assumed he would have provided you with this information already and if not, Natwest have full access to my past statements and could have provided a list of charges themselves no doubt, if they had so wished. I feel this, along with your decision to leave filing your defense to the very last day a poor excuse to drag things out longer than necessary.

In reference to the CPR Part 18 Request, well, I’m sure you already know that this does not apply to the small claims track and it is not necessary to respond, this inquiry is nothing more than an intimidatory tactic of which I will bring to the notice of the court."

Anything else I can add to this?

[orfoster]

I haven't got as far as you but i do surf an awful lot on here, looks like you have it pretty much set out there. Good luck, i would send away my friend.

[danmoz98]

I haven't got as far as you but i do surf an awful lot on here, looks like you have it pretty much set out there. Good luck, i would send away my friend.

 

Thanks, are there any points I can add? I want to pad it out a bit so they know I'm serious. Perhaps mention something along the lines of if they wish to pursue their CPR18 request then I'll issue my own CPR18 requesting full details of how their charges are drawn up, costs incured, etc,etc?

[danmoz98]

Well I'm going to send it tomorrow as it currently is. If it's wrong, it's wrong.

 

To the three people that took a moment to reply, thanks for your input.

[VeryTrying]

At the very end would you like to add something like "but, of course, if the court orders me to provide this information in the form you require I will not hesitate to meet their requirements."

 

However, I'm not sure it really matter what anybody says in their letters. I'm not sure they even get read. Cobbetts are just going through the motions and delaying things as long as possible, hoping that some of us fall by the wayside.

 

Do you need to copy the court in your correspondence? Good luck.

[danmoz98]

At the very end would you like to add something like "but, of course, if the court orders me to provide this information in the form you require I will not hesitate to meet their requirements."

 

However, I'm not sure it really matter what anybody says in their letters. I'm not sure they even get read. Cobbetts are just going through the motions and delaying things as long as possible, hoping that some of us fall by the wayside.

 

Do you need to copy the court in your correspondence? Good luck.

 

 

Ah, that sounds like a good idea, I shall add that.

 

Not sure if I need to provide the court with a copy or not, I've asked but someone has yet to clarify this.

[danmoz98]

Here's what I went with in the end:

 

I response to you defense and CPR18 request dated 11th August 2006 please find enclosed a list of unlawful charges applied to my account between 2001 and 2006. My calculations have been taken directly from information (bank statements) NatWest have supplied me. I have sent this list to Stuart Higley at Natwest twice (16th June and 26th June) whose final response was that he would be notifying Natwests lawyers and litigation department of my intentions to pursue this through the court. I assumed he would have provided you with this information already and if not, Natwest have full access to my past statements and could have provided a list of charges themselves no doubt, if they had so wished. I feel this, along with your decision to leave filing your defense until the very last day a poor excuse to drag things out longer than necessary. I suggest you obtain a schedule from your clients as to their confirmation of the charges they have made so you can compare their list of stated charges against my own. I shall of course require a copy of their schedule and calculations if it transpires the figures are disputed.

 

In response to the CPR Part 18 Request, well, I’m sure you already know that this does not apply to the small claims track and is only necessary to respond at the request of the court. I take offence that you appear to have attempted to obtain this information by using carefully worded arguments suggesting we are under strict obligations to obey your requests rather than the Courts. Having been in contact with other Natwest claimants I am aware that this is nothing more than an intimidatory tactic designed to ‘encourage’ a claimant to withdraw their claim as being too complicated to continue. I shall be bringing this to the attention of the court. Of course, if the court orders me to provide this information in the form you require I will not hesitate to meet their requirements, however, I will have no difficulty in making a reciprocal request.

 

On the advice of other claimants, whose claims have been successful in identical circumstances to mine and who have been passed onto yourselves by NatWest, I will be sending a copy of this letter to the Court.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

Posted it an hour ago and just noticed a few typos at the start (stupid laptop keyboard is dodgy)

 

Oddly enough Word didn't flag me on any errors there. Piece of crap.

[danmoz98]

Update.

 

got a response form cobbetts regarding the above letter and my AQ from the court today.

 

Has anyone else received a letter like this from Cobbetts:

 

We note your comments on our Request for Further information. Please note that Part 27.2(1)(f) applies subject to paragraph 3 of Part 27.2, which states that the Court of its own initiative may order a party to provide further information if it considers it appropriate to do so.

 

It is our clients contention that your Particulars of Claim did not properly particularise your claim. for example, our client cannot properly defend a claim where you have not given your account details and the details of each charge you claim is disproportionate and unreasonable.

 

The Court is bound by an overriding objective to deal with cases justly and ensure that parties are on an equal footing. It was clearly the case that our client could not respond to your claim where you did not provide sufficient particulars. Our client therefore objects to ytour allegation that the Request is intimidating

 

Is this another generic response? It makes me think so in the second paragraph where it says I haven't given my account details. I know that's not true, they're in the second line of the PoC!

 

The letter covernote on the AQ is a little confusing:

 

...the enclosed allocation questionaire on or before 02 September 2006 and return it, where the claim is over £1500, the court fee of £100.00...

 

I assume it's saying that a claim over £1500 results in an extra £100 fee, anything less doesn't?

 

What's my best step here? Should I submit an amended Particulars of Claim that contains more information, or can I submit a more detailed response as part of section G on the AQ, along with the list of charges?

[danmoz98]

Anyone?

[danmoz98]

Update.

 

AQ delivered to the court today, woman behind the desk was very helpful.

 

Guess the clock is ticking now.

[danmoz98]

For anyone interested I've sent a reply to Cobbetts letter above, hope they don't find it too cheeky:

 

Dear Sir / Madam,

In response to your letter dated 15th august 2006.

Are the letters / defense you send out generic responses to all these claims? I have to wonder considering your comments contained in the previous letter. In the second paragraph you state that “our client cannot properly defend a claim where you have not given your account details and the details of each charge you claim is disproportionate and unreasonable”

Two points;

1) My account number is clearly stated on the second line of my Particulars of Claim: “I am claiming the return of £866 taken from account xxxxxxxx by the defendant in the way of charges over the last six years.” You also have my name and address, were these details not sufficient enough? The only thing lacking is a sort code, which should not be necessary.

2) As for not listing the details of each charge, well this is a flaw in the Moneyclaim Online system. There is a limited amount of characters that can be used in the Particulars of Claim which makes it rather difficult to include all the charges. However, as your client does actually have all relevant information for my account they could have acquired their own list of charges. I myself did just this with the information provided by Natwest, therefore there is nothing stopping them from doing the same. Fortunately I enclosed a list of these charges with my previous letter (Natwest have had two copies) so you should now have the information required.

Out of curiosity, I have to ask why your client continues to drag these cases out for as long as possible? With all the latest publicity surrounding bank charges and websites like Moneysavingexpert.com and Consumeractiongroup.co.uk making people aware of where they stand, what do Natwest stand to achieve by continuing like this? I know, and you know and your client knows that they’re refunding customers, sometimes even trying to silence them by way of an NDA. Not only that, but I expect your fees probably exceed the sum of money seeking to be refunded (in the majority of cases).

Yours faithfully

[danmoz98]

Am I getting a little too cocky do you think?

 

In response to your letter dated 23rd August 2006.

If your client believes my challenge to their charges would fail in court, and they believe their charges are fair, reasonable and transparent and that the amounts debited have been applied strictly in accordance with our agreement, then why are they making a ‘goodwill gesture’ of £700? Surely if your client stands by their beliefs then they wouldn’t feel any need to pay me anything? What exactly is a ‘goodwill gesture’? The dictionary defines ‘goodwill’ as a “friendly disposition toward somebody or something“, up until now I’d say your client has been anything but friendly. Would they pay me a ‘goodwill gesture’ of £700 if I’d never had any charges applied to my account? I doubt it, therefore this seems like a thinly veiled admission of liability. Also, if it’s a ‘goodwill gesture’, then why must my acceptance be on the basis that I do not disclose the details of this payment to any third party? Again, that doesn’t sound much of a ‘friendly disposition toward somebody’.

I disagree with you that my challenge would fail in court, mainly because so far, Natwest have failed to defend so many other similar cases instead settling fully out of court. On that basis, I am happy to continue to proceed with this matter to press for a full refund of the charges.

I am very grateful of your interim payment of £700 of the full amount and look forward to receiving a bankers draft for this.

I am however unwilling to agree to the specific terms and conditions you have added to this, namely:

 

1. Not to disclose to any third party the fact of, or any details relating to, this payment;

2. Withdraw my claim

3. That this payment of £700 is a full and final settlement of the claim

However once settlement of the full amount of claim is received I may be willing to renegotiate those terms.

Please also find enclosed a copy of my previous letter in reply to the letter you sent dated 14th August 2006. This was the first letter I sent non-recorded delivery and as I have not had a reply in response to the points raised, I will assume that perhaps you have not received this. However, I will continue to send this letter and future correspondence by recorded delivery.

[Guest NATTIE]

Looks good damnoz, I think the end is in sight.