Nat West Business charges reclaim court claim for a friend

[gaz2006]

Im helping a friend agaisnt Nat West already had some success with Nat West myself but not under limitation act . Anyway this is Nat West Business claim was stayed by nat west but I went with my friend and got stay removed as it didnt apply to business accounts ... now I know that section 32 of limitation act can be used as defence against 6 year rule as this claim goes back many years in all with lloyds and nat west we are talking about 40k in total however this claim was kept below 5k due to small claim limits and if / when successful ill move to the others .

However as I thought they would Cobblers ahve applied to strike out claim and hearin is set for strike out at end of month ie January 2008 .

My friend has recieved oday a most rude and threatening letter as follows

"we have requested your claim be struck out on the basis that the claim falls outside section 5 of limitation act and so is irrecoverable .

We must inform you that your behaviour in pursuing a cliam which to your knowedge has no legal basis due to you having no locus standi to bring the claim constitutes "unreasonable behaviour " pursuant to the civil procedure rules 27.14(20 g . As such we put you on NOTICE that we researve the right to refer to this letter on the issue of costs if you persist with this claim "

What I want to know is and I may be wrong here

1 Do I need to reply to this letter

2 Should I draft a letter to court about it

3 Should I be sending letter to court and to Cobblers say what we are relying on in court ie section 32 or should I be relying on other things as well ?

any guidence woudl be helpfuL i thought and I may be wrong that i just say at hearing section 32 etc and my reasoning to counteract strike out should I be putting in evidence beforehand if so Ive made a boo boo ....

Is there anything else I should be doing / looking at ....

regards Gaz

[steven4064]

Hi Gaz

 

This is just intimidation - Cobbetts threateneing costs to bully you into dropping the case. If they have made an application to have your claim struck out you should get a chance to object but it might be better to get in first.

 

You don't need to reply to Cobbetts but you do need to get something to the court.

 

I am not sure whether a letter to the court wold suffice or whether you need to make an application using a form N244 (which wil cost you £65) - ring the court an tell them the circumstances and ask what you should do.

 

I have posted on another thread with slightly similar circumstances (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/126189-roscodog18-g-e-money.html) - you might find some useful stuff there.

 

As you say, your locus standi is s32 of the Limitations Act 1980 but I would also suggest you also use the first part of my letter in that other thread and request their defence to be struck out under Part 3.4 (2)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

I would suggest a document to be sent as a letter or as an application (depending on what the court say) with a section on s32 of the LA1980 and then asking for an order for them to produce a list of cases they have defended in court or their defence struck out as abuse of process - attack is the best form of defence

[gaz2006]

Looking for terms and conditiosn re business accounts to help a friend anyone got any or poit me in direction for ones in the 1990s regards Gaz

[gaz2006]

Helping friend with claim put into court and Cobbets for Nasty Westy counterclaim as follows

"a quantum meruit or restitutionary award in an amount equal to the total of the paments which a reasonable bank for the supply of an integrated bundle of current account services and or the supply of unarranged borrowing services or an amount calculated in such other manner as the court may think just "

Comments please cobbetts may have droped a cobbler anyway as its business claim not personal so counterclaim doesnt make sense advice please regards Gaz

[BankFodder]

Please can you give us some detail about this please.

I don't think that anyone would understand what the problem is from the sparse detail whcih you have provided

[ukaviator]

Gaz

 

I assume you are counterclaiming against Nat West. Quantum Meruit means "the amount deserved". It is generally applied to claims for a reasonable sum reflecting the cost of carrying out work or providing goods or services. A claim cannot be made for a Quantum Meruit if there is an existing contract between the parties to pay an agreed sum. Quantum meruit may, however, arise where the parties to a contract have failed to agree a price, or where a party has carried out work in the reasonable expectation of a contract being formed, but where agreement is never reached on the essential terms of that contract.

 

This latter situation is often referred to as falling within the "law of restitution", or the doctrine of "unjust enrichment". The law of restitution will ensure the payment of a reasonable price for goods or services rendered in circumstances where it would be unjust to allow one party to be enriched at the expense of the other, and where the goods or services have been freely accepted. As Bankfodder has said can you give us more to help you?

[gaz2006]

Sorry didnt want to give too much info as people from cobbetts and nasty westy do read on here ..

ok im helping a friend with business claim under £5k business account most of claim is 1986 to 1996 so a lot is subject to Limitation Act 1980 s32 ie over 6 years ago but of course under Judge Smith some of Nat Westies charges could be "penalty charges " as their terms and conditions havent covered themselves from that angle at that time . Nasty Westy made offer of around 40% of claim which was declined asked them to increas they refused so court claim issued as "Business Claim " Hence then they responded with their quantum meruit claim " for exact amount we are claiming .

As already stated their counterclaim doesnt make sense as they talk about "current account services " when clearly its business claim they also applied for stay when OFT case doesnt cover business accounts .

However I feel it s a new attack by Cobbetts claiming what we are claiming or leaving it to court to decide what amount these "services " if you call them that were worth to the customers . Their objective is of course to reduce any amount paid out to contra that it could be pointed out that Nasty Westy have had their customers money for over 20 years so a compound interest claim would mean they might be liable to a lot more what do you think ?

As a start maybe we could apply to have counterclaim struck out as its businsess claim not personal and refute stay as its business claim too but "attack is best form of defence " so any advice is listened to and usally used .

Regards Gaz

[gaz2006]

Gaz

 

I assume you are counterclaiming against Nat West. Quantum Meruit means "the amount deserved". It is generally applied to claims for a reasonable sum reflecting the cost of carrying out work or providing goods or services. A claim cannot be made for a Quantum Meruit if there is an existing contract between the parties to pay an agreed sum. Quantum meruit may, however, arise where the parties to a contract have failed to agree a price, or where a party has carried out work in the reasonable expectation of a contract being formed, but where agreement is never reached on the essential terms of that contract.

 

This latter situation is often referred to as falling within the "law of restitution", or the doctrine of "unjust enrichment". The law of restitution will ensure the payment of a reasonable price for goods or services rendered in circumstances where it would be unjust to allow one party to be enriched at the expense of the other, and where the goods or services have been freely accepted. As Bankfodder has said can you give us more to help you?

 

Hi thanks for the help noim not counterclaiming they are ie nasty westy counterclaiming against us which is a new tact I think see my post above regards Gaz

[BankFodder]

Right, well what you do next is you supply a defence to the counterclaim.

Actually by making this kind of counterclaim they make a trap for themselves. They obviously have one of their office juniors at work.

 

You should file and serve a defence to counterclaim.

Draft it on ordinary A4 paper using the formal heading style of court pleadings - between XXXX

Claimant

 

 

and

 

 

XXXX defendant -

 

claim number date

 

etc

 

head it

Defence to counterclaim

 

 

refer to theit defence by para no.s

 

The it is not admitted that the defendant is entitled to the said sum claimed as alleged in the counterclaim or at all.

 

It is not admitted that defendant is liable to reimburse the defendant on a quantum meruit basis as alleged by the defendant or at all

 

In the event that the defendant is entitled to some reimbursement from the defendant then it is not admitted that the sum claimed by the defendant in the counterclaim is a fair measure of any services which have been rendered by the defendant.

 

The claimant puts the defendant to strict proof as to the basis upon which they say the sum which they counterclaim is a fair measure of any services which they may have provided.

 

Sign it as a statement of truth.

[gaz2006]

Thats a good start do I not mention that claim is not "personal one " at this stage at all ?

Ie do I not apply for strike out on basis its not a personal claim and apply to reject stay they are asking for on same basis ?

Regards G

[BankFodder]

It's up to you. I think that they are just tehnicalities which won't have much effect.

If you apply to strikeout I expect that they will merely be given leave to amend. I think that you should deal with it head on.

 

At some point you will receive an AQ. You should ask for standard discovery in this in order tobtain details of the actual costs which they have been put to. It is they who have raised the issue of quantum meruit (a fair return) - not you. Now you can pressure them to prove to the court that it was indeed a fair return.

[gaz2006]

Thanks Bank Fodder thats a brilliant suggestion Regards G

[gaz2006]

Ive made a boo boo .

Im helping a friend with a business claim Nat West amount £8000 plus

1990s to 2006

put in claim as oft case ruled some personal terms for Nat West could be penalties which can apply to businesses too

pressed bank they made offer of £3000 asked for more declined so put in claim to court .

I have used Limitation Act 1980 s32 myself with my own claim and Nasty Westy coughed up

at the moment they havent

problem is

I have found out as I didnt realise I cant represent my friend as im not a solictor in court .

I could as a lay representative in a small claim but this will be allocated to fast track etc

Im in a quandary anyone know what to do ie

advise or a good fair barrister or lawyer who'd represent if need be

Regards Gaz

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Bump

[gaz2006]

Have case management conference coming up anyone got any ideas on revision of poc for court at present does mention penalties and some of charges are over 6 years ago etc regards Gaz:)