Claims Older Than 6 Years - Any Thoughts? **WON**

[Guest Battleaxe]

Matheos,

 

It is by pushing the boundaries that things happen. All it takes is a couple of people to step out of the comfort zone.

 

Let's see what happens

[TINK660]

Any more developments on this thread yet?

Really interested in this one.

Does anyone have any links to any other threads where anyone is claiming over 6 years from Nat West. I have found most of my statements but I am sure there are more somewhere - prob in the loft (dark up there)!!

[Matheos95]

No nothing at moment they have acknowledged just waiting for their defence.

[Matheos95]

Ok defence recieved at it is as follows:

 

1. This Defencie is filed and served without prejudice to the right of the Defendant to apply for summary judgement in respect of and/or to strike out the Particulars of Claim.

 

2 The Claimant claims return of £XXXXX taken by the Defendant in charges between 22/01/1990 and 15/11/2006. The schedule of charges attacked to the Claim Form details charges from 22/01/1990. Such charges were debited on dates more than six years prior to the issue of the claim, and 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 the claim and/or for summary judgement.

 

3. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to relief claimed or any relief whether as pleaded or at all.

 

4. The claim to the principal sum being denied, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to interest.

 

5. By reason of foregoing facts and matters, it is the Defendant's case that the claim is misguided and if it is allowed to proceed as presntly constituted or at all, the Defendant will submit that:

 

5.1 the Claimant is by service of this Defendant put on notice of the same;and

5.2 for the Claimant to pursue a claim which (to its knowledge) has no legal basis and no prospect of success whatsoever constitutes unreasonable behaviour within the meaning of CPR 27.14 (2)(d) and in the event that the claim is allocated to the small claims track, the Defendant reserves the right to make such application for costs against the Claimant on the foregoing basis as it considers appropriate.

 

Signed (well not actually) by Lynsey Clare Burgoyne.

 

Any thoughts?

[Parkvale]

Matheos,

They continue to claim that your claim has no legal basis (para. 5.2 ) Yet in the Limitation Act 1980. The concealment in clause (b) does not refer to the charges at all. It refers to the concealment of the UNLAWFULNESS of the charges (the cause)

The banks knew the charges were unlawful and concealed that fact. Which they are continuing to do today.When you were advised or realised that the charges were unlawful, and you proceeded with your action on that basis.Therefore your 6 years

begins from that date.There are alot of scare tactics in their defence and many parts of it look desperate.

I am not a legal eagle, but i have not heard of any case in the small

claims court where you are libel for the defendents costs.Their comments " on

application for costs", are very intimidating and show their desperation. Maybe you

should contact one of the mods. Watching with great interest and good luck.

[Guest bong]

matheos that is REALLY interesting - even if they were to succeed with the limitation defence, they have treated the claim as if it is wholly time barred and haven't dealt with the charges that are within the 6 years -and they haven't even attempted to answer or deny the claims that these are unlawful penalties or unreasonable/invalid/unenforceable etc.

 

See what help comes your way but I will post up my reply to the defence served on me when I've finished drafting it, and that might give you some pointers to start your own reply to defence.

 

Hopefully catch up with you later.

[Matheos95]

Hi guys

 

There are no charges less than 6 years so there no need to answer that was a little slip in my POC although the schedule is correct (hope that dont come back to bite me in the bum lol)

 

To be fair I hadnt on reading it taken it as intimidating but I guess when you read it could be but not bothered about that. Infact my first impression was what a crap defence especially with the ones I had recieved from other banks (that I won against I might add). Maybe they feel confident that the part of the Limitations Act they quote covers them but they fail to note the part of the Act that I (Bong to truthfull and great they were) quote so in essence they cherry picked what they liked but I feel section 32 overrides this so.....

 

I know the MOD's are probably busy at mo so when they get chance any input greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks Bong will definatley take a look when your reply is posted will start thinking about mine too.

 

After reading both defences now to be honest I feel even more confident that this is a possibility guess its all down to the Judge. I have done a little reading ref CPR 27.14 (2)(d) and the costs that are quoted there are limited (unless I read wrong) so onwards on upwards

[mcuth]

Hi Matheos95

 

Glad you're not worried about that defence - gotta say that I don't think I would be either

 

I don't think that 1, 3 & 4 mean a lot - they're denying that you have a claim (umm, well, they would wouldn't they? )

 

Re: 2. Is easily rebutted by reference to s32 (1) b) & c) of the Limitations Act

 

Re: 5. Well, this just strikes me as being a prime example of bully-boy tactics trying to scare you with costs implications & references to CPR.... here's a link to part 27.14 if you haven't seen it already.

27.14 (2) states:

The court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party's costs, fees and expenses, including those relating to an appeal, except –

and (2)(d) is:

expenses which a party or witness has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from a hearing or in staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;

So they're telling you that they'd put a claim in for travel expenses & possibly a hotel bill (though it could be argued that that would be hard to justify for the length of a bank charges hearing!) - ifthey win (and as we know, that's hardly likely too )

 

HTH

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[Matheos95]

Thanks Michael certainly does

 

Just started putting together a response to their defence obviously yes point 2 is argued re section 32.

Also point 4 re section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984

Never done one of these responses before and keep looking at the defence thinking that there is something hidden in the wording im not reading but I guess not if you read it too lol.

 

Bong is doing hers in the next couple of days so would should hopefully be able to share notes hehehe

 

May come back for more help form you too if you dont mind - more the merrier

[mcuth]

I've not had to do a "reply to defence" as yet either - am sure there are a few around that could be used as guidelines though. You're right though, there doesn't appear to be anything sinister hiding in the words defence - it just appears to be very plain & transparent (& not very good!). Quite astounding

 

Feel free to ask questions, we all do it - indeed, there are a few of us going at this - was pointed over here by Bong, so am now subbed to both your threads. Just taken my own N1 down for my 6+ year & contractual interest claim vs RBoS today

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[Matheos95]

Fantastic wish you luck with that claim, I will track your thread down to sub to it - nice little +6 club building here lol

[Guest bong]

matheos just out of interest - was the claim below £5k?

[Matheos95]

Morning Bong yes it was £1800 charges + 8% of £2000 basically just under 4k

[SHERLOCK]

Heres another in the 6+ club.

Natwest hit me with a court claim for £0000's going back 10 years!!

I have filed a defence and now they have to show how they came about the alleged amount (not even sure if it was loan/overdraft).

When/if I receive this lot I will be counterclaiming.

 

Watch your thread with interest,

 

SHERLOCK

[Matheos95]

Heres another in the 6+ club.

NatWest hit me with a court claim for £0000's going back 10 years!!

I have filed a defence and now they have to show how they came about the alleged amount (not even sure if it was loan/overdraft).

When/if I receive this lot I will be counterclaiming.

 

Watch your thread with interest,

 

SHERLOCK

 

Wow good luck Sherlock - hope you get chance to hit them where it hurts

[Guest bong]

Re: 5. Well, this just strikes me as being a prime example of bully-boy tactics trying to scare you with costs implications & references to CPR.... here's a link to part 27.14 if you haven't seen it already.

27.14 (2) states:

The court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party's costs, fees and expenses, including those relating to an appeal, except –

and (2)(d) is:

expenses which a party or witness has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from a hearing or in staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;

 

So they're telling you that they'd put a claim in for travel expenses & possibly a hotel bill (though it could be argued that that would be hard to justify for the length of a bank charges hearing!) - ifthey win (and as we know, that's hardly likely too )

 

HTH

 

Cheers

 

Michael

 

do you think they've made a mistake and intended to quote 27.14(2)(g)?

[Matheos95]

do you think they've made a mistake and intended to quote 27.14(2)(g)?

 

With some of the tricks the banks pull now a days would have been more understandable I guess - ill keep (d) thanks

[mcuth]

do you think they've made a mistake and intended to quote 27.14(2)(g)?

 

You could well be right there because (g) would certainly make more sense given the original context. Question is, do you point it out, or do you leave them to look stooopid in front of a judge?

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[Guest bong]

I'd leave it that they want to claim their train fares:D

[Matheos95]

I'd leave it that they want to claim their train fares:D

 

yeah i will do dont want to attract more expences/costs than is totally necessary just incase the case goes against me

[Matheos95]

Ok - im no legal eagle but have had a stab at a response to their defence over the weekend - never had to do one before so any help would be greatly appreciated - feel free to pull it apart say its no good etc etc I just dont want to screw things up anycase here goes:

 

In response to point 1

No comment - At least I dont think there is??

 

In response to point 2

The date 22/01/1990 to 15/11/2006 appertains to the complete time fame of the claim, 15/11/2006 being the date of issue. The schedule of charges shows in detail each individual charge and the date they were applied to the account being from 22/01/1990 to 31/08/1995. Copies of schedule attached see Appendix A.

 

The defendant quotes that the charges are barred by the operation of the Limitation Act 1980 under no particular section. The Claimant denies this and makes particular reference to The Limitation Act 1980 s.32 (1)©:

The action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;

1. The period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.

2. For the purposes of subsection (1) above, deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty.

 

The Claimant seeks permission to proceed with the claim under s.32 (1) (c.) Limitations Act 1980 on the ground that the payments were conceded on the mistaken presumption that the said charges and interest thereon did not amount to penalties and that the Claimant would not reasonably have discovered the said mistakes before the report of the OFT was published on 05/04/2006.

 

In response to point 3

The Claimant is claiming the return of money taken by Defendant in charges during the time the claimant has had the account with the Defendant. The Defendant's charges are a disproportionate penalty and are therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law. They are also invalid under the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 s4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.Para.8 and sch.2.1.e. In the event that the court finds that the charges are not a penalty then they are unreasonable within the meaning of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15.

On 2 occasions the Claimant tried to enter into dialogue with the Defendant regarding these charges, copies of these letters are attached in Appendix B and C but only received one response, Appendix D. The Defendant quoted that they do not accept the OFT findings yet it is publically known that the Defendant, upon not gaining confidentiality, settled before court on many cases in order not to disclose their true costs. This left the Claimant with no choice but to issue proceedings.

 

In response to point 4

The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from the date of each individual charge and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment should the Claimant be successful.

 

 

In response to point 5

 

 

The Claimant denies that there is no legal basis for this case to proceed. The Defendant, in point 2 of their defence, uses the Limitations Act 1980 as a blanket reason for the claim to be time barred, but the Claimant has shown that specifically under claim under s.32 (1) (c.) of the said same Act that the action does hold a legal basis and therefore does not constitute unreasonable behaviour.

The Claimant would also like it noted that they are a litigant in person with little means and considers point (5.2) as intimidation towards the Claimant not to proceed with the case.

 

 

Appendix A – Schedule of charges form 22nd January 1990 to 31st August 1995

Appendix B – Letter to National Westminster Bank dated 12th October 2006

Appendix C – Letter to National Westminster Bank dated 21st October 2006

Appendix D – Letter from National Westminster Bank 20th October 2006

 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

 

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this statement are true.

[Parkvale]

Matheos,

Just had a quick glance.In response to point 1. As far as i am aware any communication marked " without prejudice " cannot be used in evidence in court

proceedings. If the attempt at settlement fail and the dispute comes to court. It quite

clearly states that "The defence is filed without prejudice to the right of the defendent

to apply for summary judgement." Interesting ? Are they not anticipating a court fight ? Will digest the rest of your defence later,but it looks really good

[Matheos95]

Matheos,

Just had a quick glance.In response to point 1. As far as i am aware any communication marked " without prejudice " cannot be used in evidence in court

proceedings. If the attempt at settlement fail and the dispute comes to court. It quite

clearly states that "The defence is filed without prejudice to the right of the defendent

to apply for summary judgement." Interesting ? Are they not anticipating a court fight ? Will digest the rest of your defence later,but it looks really good

 

Thank you not sure where that leaves me or the degence then

[Parkvale]

Matheos,

Did not mean to confuse you .Just trying to read where they are coming from.

Again your response to their defense reads really good. Again any mods. out there.

[WarHorse]

best of luck, i am after statements from NatWest for 1984-1996, apparently they have them, but i think they will try and stall me due to the time statute, Data Protection Act handed into local branch were i held the account but so far not a peep out of them and cheque not cashed, no surprised there, they have until the 30/11 to reply, but wont be holding breath.

will be watching with interest(slight understatement)

best of luck

regards kevluff

p.s. am about to start a thread

Hi, there. Excuse me buttin' in. Am also looking to retrieve statements from NatWest from 1986 up to approx 1994. Was advised by NatWestStaffMember unlikely they will have 'em from 1986 even with DPA request. Can u elaborate on why you think they have 'em, pls? I know the bank branch, but have no paper statements.