Hydra-vs-RBS

[HydraUK]

I went the 'Holy Hell' route this morning....I shall await with baited breath a suitably contrite response from the bank.

 

I will be making a note of it to bring it to the court's attention though.

 

Dear RBS,

 

Any more ammo you can send me would be appreciated.

 

Your's

 

HydraBomber

[isidore]

Dear RBS,

 

Any more ammo you can send me would be appreciated.

 

Your's

 

HydraBomber

 

Love it!

[ggrant]

I've just got off the phone to Customer Relations and when Sandy Watt said it had nothing to do with them, that was tosh.

 

Spoke to a young lady there and she said it would be refunded to my account today. The reason it happens is that it is Human Error and usually goes through automatically when the Historic Statements are printed. It only takes someone a minute to overide it though.

[isidore]

Personally, I think it's their way of trying to get some extra money in from those that don't know what they are doing.

 

If that really was the case, why isn't £5 times the number of statements you are requesting which is what the actual charge is from RBS if you go in asking for copy statements.

 

"What can we get away with"........

[livelylad]

The £5 is as it says for historic statements, they levied that charge on my account instead of taking the £10 SAR fee. I can only pressume they have done the same to others thinking that they have not had the SAR fee. Human error me thinks. Strong letter and phone call needed.

[livelylad]

whats a charge historic statement fee then. thats a new one to me. can you add it to your claim.

 

 

I added mine to my claim as I considered it to be part of the SAR request.

[flyboy80]

Hi, Hydra,

 

How's it gone ? - Any more installments?

[HydraUK]

Yes sorry, been a bit busy involving myself in everyone elses threads....

 

They've refunded the £5 taken abgove after I phoned again and asked to speak with manager.

 

Friday is day 28 since service so things should start happening soon.

[sambuca]

Hello all,

 

First time ive posted up on here but i have been watching with interest for a While. When i think back over the years at the amount RBS have charged me im very tempted to follow your lead, just a case of finding the time and plucking up the cahooners. For a long time i would say i was averaging out around £100 a month

 

I wish you the best of luck. Also has anyone else noticed that although your advise sheet attched to a statement shows your royalties charge, overlimit charge and interest there is actually no written warning of any referal charges before they are actually deducted from your account, so no opportunity to actualy budget for them. Im sure that can be used in our defence should any of us meet them in court.

 

RBS also seem very good at cold calling and trying to pursuade their customers to take out loans to pay their overdrafts, i had a call like it again today.

 

Best of luck

 

 

Sambuca

[HydraUK]

The lack of warning for deduction of charges actually breaks some code of practice or other...but seeing as the entire act of penalising is illegal it's hardly surprising they don't stick to their own COP.

 

Banks regularly do this and I have seen it discussed in other threads....

 

And yes - they've been after me for the last 3 years to take a loan to pay off the overdraft

[HydraUK]

IN THE TRURO COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO. 6TR02711

BETWEEN:

MR HydraUK Claimant

- and -

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC Defendant

 

DEFENCE

1. This Defence is filed and served without prejudice to the Defendant’s case that the Particulars of Claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the Claimant to recover the bank charges (and interest thereon) referred to in the Particulars of Claim or any other sum(s). In the event that the Claim is not properly particularised then the Defendant will apply to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgement in respect of the same.

 

2. Without prejudice to the non-admission set out in the foregoing paragraph, if and to the extent that the Claimant proves the allegation that the Defendant debited charges to the Claimant’s bank account, insofar as such charges were debited on a date or dates more than six years prior to the issue of this claim, any remedy in respect of the same, whether damages, restitution or otherwise, is barred by the operation of the Limitation Act 1980 and/or the doctrine of laches and the Defendant will apply to strike out this aspect of the claim and/or for summary judgment.

 

3. On allocation the Defendant invites the Court to direct that there be a case management conference in order for the Court to consider the making of appropriate orders to give the Claimant the opportunity to properly particularise the claim.

 

4. No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the Claimant’s bank account.

 

5. In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (“UCTA 1977”) and/or the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 (“the Regulations”) and/or the common law, the Claimant is required to identify:

 

5.1 (a) the section(s) of The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (“UCTA 1977”); (b) the regulations of The Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 (“the Regulations”); and © the principles of common law relied upon by the Claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable; and

 

5.2 the contractual provision(s) that the Claimant alleges are invalid by reference to UCTA 1977 and/or the Regulations.

Until such time as these sections/regulations/provisions are identified the

Defendant cannot plead to the allegation referred to in paragraph 5 above.

The Defendant therefore reserves its right to plead further to the allegation

once (and if) the Claimant identifies the relevant contractual information.

 

6. Save as hereinbefore appears the Defendant joins issue with the Claimant on the claim(s) and denies that it is liable to the Claimant as alleged or at all.

 

Statement of Truth

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I am duly authorised by the Defendant to sign this statement.

Full name: Lynsey Clare Burgoyne

Name of Defendants solicitor’s firm: Cobbetts LLP, Ship Canal House, King Street,

Signed

Defendant’s Solicitor.

DATED this 1st day of February 2007

 

 

EEEK!

[Guest willowb]

Hi Hydra, I've copied the Defence and inserted your POCs for the record.

 

IN THE TRURO COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO. 6TR02711

BETWEEN:

MR HydraUK Claimant

- and -

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC Defendant

 

DEFENCE

1. This Defence is filed and served without prejudice to the Defendant’s case that the Particulars of Claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the Claimant to recover the bank charges (and interest thereon) referred to in the Particulars of Claim or any other sum(s). In the event that the Claim is not properly particularised then the Defendant will apply to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgement in respect of the same.

 

Particulars of Claim

1. The Claimant has an account 1220xxxx ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened in or around August 1989

 

2. During the period in which the Account has been operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

 

3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.

 

4. The Claimant contends that:

 

a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or relate to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

 

b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of common law, under the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 s4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 para 8 and sch2(1)(e)..

 

5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

 

a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £8261.00

 

b) Court costs;

 

c) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per year from 11th January 2000 to 12th December 2006 of £2480.21, as set out on the attached list of charges, also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £1.81.

 

Statement of Truth signed by HydraUK

 

 

2. Without prejudice to the non-admission set out in the foregoing paragraph, if and to the extent that the Claimant proves the allegation that the Defendant debited charges to the Claimant’s bank account, insofar as such charges were debited on a date or dates more than six years prior to the issue of this claim, any remedy in respect of the same, whether damages, restitution or otherwise, is barred by the operation of the Limitation Act 1980 and/or the doctrine of laches and the Defendant will apply to strike out this aspect of the claim and/or for summary judgment.

 

Hydra, are you claiming back further than 6 years? I don't remember you posting that as your intention. If you are you'll need to maybe amend your POCs and include some directions? anyone?

 

3. On allocation the Defendant invites the Court to direct that there be a case management conference in order for the Court to consider the making of appropriate orders to give the Claimant the opportunity to properly particularise the claim.

 

4. No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the Claimant’s bank account.

 

5. In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 ("UCTA 1977") and/or the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 ("the Regulations") and/or the common law, the Claimant is required to identify:

 

5.1 (a) the section(s) of The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 ("UCTA 1977"); (b) the regulations of The Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 ("the Regulations"); and © the principles of common law relied upon by the Claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable; and

 

5.2 the contractual provision(s) that the Claimant alleges are invalid by reference to UCTA 1977 and/or the Regulations.

Until such time as these sections/regulations/provisions are identified the

Defendant cannot plead to the allegation referred to in paragraph 5 above.

The Defendant therefore reserves its right to plead further to the allegation

once (and if) the Claimant identifies the relevant contractual information.

 

6. Save as hereinbefore appears the Defendant joins issue with the Claimant on the claim(s) and denies that it is liable to the Claimant as alleged or at all.

 

Statement of Truth

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I am duly authorised by the Defendant to sign this statement.

Full name: Lynsey Clare Burgoyne

Name of Defendants solicitor’s firm: Cobbetts LLP, Ship Canal House, King Street,

 

Signed

Defendant’s Solicitor.

DATED this 1st day of February 2007

So, the main question is, are you going back more than 6 years with your claim? the rest we can disect later.

Wxxx

[HydraUK]

Thanks Willow

 

I wasn't meaning to go back more than 6 years but made a bit of a stupid error in that it having requested 6 years statements I simply used what they sent me, which covered back to Jan 2000 - schoolboy error - 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006 - Thats seven years, not six!

 

But according to the spreadsheet a big chunk of the charges is in that period (they were very active in early 2000) so I don't know what to do - ammend so as to remove the offending dates, or argue against Limitation/Laches on the basis of concealment and the fact the the bank has not been put at a disadvantage by my failure to claim (Laches) but rather has gained considerably by the use of my monies (enrichment).

 

If I removed all of 2000 at this point I assume I will be able to attack it again?

 

Thoughts and comments appreciated.

[Guest willowb]

I'll be honest I don't know what you should do. .

 

Would it be worth amending your POCs to include the fact that you are claiming for 7 years and back it up with the relevant arguments?

 

Best to wait for a mod to help, or Micheal Browne....he's very clued up on this as far as I can remember from posts that I've read of his. Try a pm and link your thread (don't forget to do that.)

 

Wxxx

[HydraUK]

Ok thanks, I'll get on it ASAP.

[HydraUK]

I need to get on with this but, wouldn't you know it, after months of doing very little the work goes mad...

 

Trouble is I don't know what to do next...I've received AQ which has to be in by 22nd, no problem there, I'm working from the template.

 

But what should I be doing about the defence?

 

. In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 ("UCTA 1977") and/or the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 ("the Regulations") and/or the common law, the Claimant is required to identify:

 

5.1 (a) the section(s) of The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 ("UCTA 1977"); (b) the regulations of The Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 ("the Regulations"); and © the principles of common law relied upon by the Claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable; and

 

5.2 the contractual provision(s) that the Claimant alleges are invalid by reference to UCTA 1977 and/or the Regulations.

 

Until such time as these sections/regulations/provisions are identified the Defendant cannot plead to the allegation referred to in paragraph 5 above. The Defendant therefore reserves its right to plead further to the allegation once (and if) the Claimant identifies the relevant contractual information.

 

They haven't given any timescales, but I'm worried about what I should be doing about this...

 

I've done lots more reading round but I can't find a thread to help, if anyone has any input or links I would be very grateful.

[isidore]

Don't know if this is progress enough for you, but this looks like a thread of interest.....

[HydraUK]

Thanks T4FF, reading through.

 

I've just noticed that MCuth has posted his PoC too, his case has similar leanings to mine.

 

I'm still crapping meself though! Where does all the confidence go??

 

Happy Days

[isidore]

I've just noticed that MCuth has posted his PoC too, his case has similar leanings to mine.

 

I've been reading it too. Not fully up to date on it, so don't know if it will be of great benefit but Livelylad's RBS claim is going for Contractual. Don't know if he is at similar stage but worth a look...

 

Where does all the confidence go??

 

Ah, treading on new waters doesn't help does it? Realistically, what's the worst that can happen? Judge will file for 8% instead of CI. Ok, big loss in potential winnings, but you're still on a winner.

 

Keep the faith buddy!!

[isidore]

Contractual? Where on earth did I get that from. Sorry matey, getting thread blindness atm I think....

 

Guess I failed at the poor attempt at geeing you up...perhaps I can direct you to the successes forum? Maybe that might do a better job?

[HydraUK]

Hehe....it's a double edged sword in there mate...on the one hand, all those successes, on the other, none of them are you....

 

Update.

 

AQ submitted by hand this morning, including the template draft order for directions.

 

According to court staff nothing from THEM yet.

[mbdiss]

good luck hyrda will be doing mine soon i have to get in for the 5th march

[flyboy80]

Same here, due 5th March, sent Cobbetts request for further information, etc, ready and waiting.... we just can't let them roll over us, we put our trust in them to look after our money, they con us in various ways, and the majority just shrug and say " I guess they are within their rights to screw us! ". Take back what is yours.... period, and then go on holiday:D

[HydraUK]

Amen to that one brother! lol

[HydraUK]

Well another slight twist today....

 

Received Cobbetts AQ copy.

 

Only thing that bothers me.....

 

H - Other Information

 

'The claimant has not shown that he has reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and despite the Defendant requesting that the Claimant remedy this lack of partiuclarity [sic] pleaded in the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant has failed to do so.

(They mentioned this in the Defence but there were no timescales or anything for me to reply - should I have done so??)

 

Case management directions cannot be proposed until the claimant fully particularises his Claim. In Light of this, the Defendant may ammend its defence or apply to strike out.

(What? Why? HELP!)

 

 

To add to the confusion, Sandy Watt is still trying to negotiate. In the same post I received a letter off himself, increasing the offer to £5359.91.

 

Interestingly there is this paragraph -

 

Whilst many of our services are provided without a corresponding charge (oh really? which ones?) we do make charges when customers, by their actions, request an increase to, or the creation of an overdraft in excess of their previously agreed limit. By reviewing such requests we provide an additional service to customers, in many instances allowing items to be paid either by creating or increasing an overdraft. These charges can be avoided entirely by arranging suitable borrowing facilities in advance.

 

For these reasons, we do not agree with the basis of your complaint. We believe that the charges we levy are for providing services and that they are not penalties or charges for default. Furthermore we believe these charges are fair, reasonable and transparent.

 

MY ARSE.

 

 

But this has me worried....input would be appreciated.