Northern Rock HAS LAUGHED AT MY CLAIM

[Maximus69]

Hi All,

I have wrote to my bank (allegedly ) and received a copy of the last 6 years charges etc. I then wrote saying they were unfair and unlawful etc and wanted a full refund. They wrote back and claimed they provided services to my current account and apply charges and interest in return for those services set out in its charges leaflet that forms part of the Terms & Conditions.

They then go on to say the charges vary depending on which of the 3 states your account is in. If in an unauthorised overdraft your account is still within the T&C , accordingly you are not in breach of contract and therefore the issue of damages for breach does not arise( I have never asked for any damages?).As a matter of Law, the courts will only find that a contractual term represents a penalty where, on breach of contract, that term provides for a measure of damages that is not considered to represent a genuine pre-estimate loss.(What the hell are they talking about?)

 

In summary, the charges applied to your current account represent a core term of the contract with N/Rock, they do not represent any form of damages for breach of contract and are simply the agreed charges for services provided.In return N/R have acted entirely within the T & C's agreed by you in relation to your current account and NO Refund of the charges will be forthcoming.

 

I then sent off the standard letter before action with a copy of the charges plus 8% pa compounded interest using the websites calculator.

I have just received there response as follows;

 

It appears from your letter that you have either failed to grasp or chosen to ignore the key legal issues in realtion to charges for services provided to N/R account holders as set out in our last letter to you.

They then go on about "charges on current accounts are charges for services and are not default charges" and " in law, for a clause to be deemed a penalty clause, it has to operate due to a breach of contract. Then they say, the charges made by the c/acc provider for those services go directly to the adequacy of the bargain between the c/ac holder and the c/acc provider and as such, are a core term of the contract. The combined effect of these points is that the current acc charges are entirely lawful, they are not an illegal penalty and nor are they unfair or unenforceable.

 

For the avoidance of any confusion, N/R plc has only ever actes as your c/acc provider and not in any way as your personal banking service provider or any other posistion that might arguably be considered to place it in the posistion of your fiduciary.

 

With regards to your threat of court proceedings, N/R plc looks forward to receiving your substantive response to the legal points raised in both of its letters prior to the issue of any proceedings. We do not consider your claims disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against it and if so, that it would have any prospect of success!

 

In the event that proceedings are issued without your having provided a substantive response to the legal issue raised, N/R reserves the right to bring such a failure to respond and the contents to the attention of the court in relation to its costs.

 

If we do not hear from you within 8 weeks, I will CLOSE your complaint for you.

Now I am boiling!!!!!

 

My last standard letter I used from the cag website stated that I would begin a claim etc without further notice?

Do they not read the letters.

 

I have never once said i was charged for being in breach, or damages etc. What the hell are they waffling on about?

 

Oh and they also state, " the reference to the OFT report and this was in relation to credit cards and not service charges on current accounts. As an aside, it is for the courts rather than the OFT to decide what is or is not unlawful.

 

HELP. Are they trying to scare me off as well as taking the p;;ss out of me. Because I am prepared to go all the way.

 

I would really appreciate any response from people who have had similar and went on to win their argument and get a full refund?

 

Cheers from a cheerful Geordie.

Malcolm.

[Bookworm]

I have never once said i was charged for being in breach, or damages etc. What the hell are they waffling on about?

 

Errr, yeah, you did...

 

Malcolm, stop now. It is obvious from your questions that you have fired off the letters without knowing what they mean, and what they refer to.

 

You have also sent a letter asking for 8% interest when that should only be done at court claiming stage.

 

Now they have replied with a lot of legalese and you are lost.

 

So I beg you, stop.

 

Take the time to read the FAQs, the step-by-step. Take the time to understand what a penalty charge IS, and WHY it is so.

 

Once you do understand, you will be better equipped to respond, and we will help you all the way. But you can not continue blindly as you have so far.

 

It's YOUR claim. That prat can say he'll close your complaint in 8 weeks all he likes, he'll only have to re-open it then, if you go back later, won't he? He does not call the shots, you do.

 

So take your time. You have waited that long for your money, it will wait that bit longer. Once you're ready to proceed, please start a thread in "other institutions" forum, and keep all of your updates and queries there, to make things easier to follow for you and us.

 

.

[Maximus69]

Thanks for that slap bookworm!!

 

I did read the FAQ and step by step instructions before i sent the template Letter before Action from the library. However, I misunderstood about when to send the 8% pa interest calculations etc. I thought I needed to send them a copy because it stated I would make a claim in court, 'without further notice'.

 

I have just posted another thread in the 'other institutions' forum for everyones attention and help.

 

Cheers

 

Maximus69.

[mutzi]

Hooray for the OFT

Default charges are not 'core terms'

3.4 'Core terms' relate to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract or to the adequacy of the price or remuneration as against the services supplied in exchange. They are subject to the UTCCRs, but are outside the scope of the test of fairness by virtue of Regulation 6(2). We do not consider that terms providing for default charges are core terms. (In this context the breaches of contract which may lead to a default charge typically arise where a customer exceeds a credit limit, fails to pay or fails to honour a payment.) Consumers do not generally enter into such contracts expecting to incur these charges. We consider that the charges are not the substance of the bargain but are simply an incidental charge that is applied if some of the main obligations are not complied with.

 

Page 11

Quote them that and ask nicely if they would indeed like a court to decide. While this if the credit card report the issue of charges not being core terms would be identical I assume.

 

As for the point about them not being your fiduciary I have no idea but I'm sure someone will.

 

Why not just write a new letter to address their points, with the help of the more knowledgable about here? It'll stop them trying to end your claim later.