Big Fight With NAT WEST ***WON***

[martinpar]

I believe you said it was sent 'without prejudice'. My understanding of 'without prejudice' means that you cannot volunteer it to the judge, although he can ask to see it.

 

Therefore, you should not send it to the court. I would assume they would not allow it to go into the file anyway, so the judge cannot see it.

 

I'd be interested to know from one of the legal members on here if I am correct. If so, it is something we should all be aware of.

[martinpar]

Just found this definition of 'without prejudice':

 

The basic meaning is 'without loss of any rights'. It is a term used when two parties are in dispute, and one makes a settlement offer to the other. It puts 'without prejudice' on its offer to make it clear that the settlement offer should not be construed as a waiver of rights. Importantly, communication marked 'without prejudice' cannot be used in evidence in court proceedings if the attempts at settlement fail and the dispute comes to court.

[martinpar]

At the risk of sounding stupid (not for the first time) why are you expecting a cheque? Surely it is normal for them to hold out until just before the hearing. Or did I miss something in the earlier posts?

[martinpar]

Ah, fair enough. My fingers are crossed for you.

[martinpar]

Deller, I've just done my claim. Waiting to hear back from the court.

[martinpar]

That does seem strange. I have a Halifax Websaver account which only allows DDs to be set up to pay other Halifax accounts but that's a bit different.

[martinpar]

It does say you have to open and maintain an account with them fair enough - but it doesnt say the loan repayment have to come out of this account!

Actually allysia, it says the bank may require you to open an account. That would presumably need some sort of notice in writing.

 

deller, I may be being silly here but I thought the idea of a parachute account was in case the bank closes your account. To my way of thinking that would mean leaving the new account on the back burner in case the bank close your original account. If you intend to switch anyway, why not just close the account? I know it would likely still cause the same problem with Natwest but if they've never told you you have to have an account they can't really do much.

 

Just my HO.

[martinpar]

Allyxia (sorry for spelling it wrong in the last post):

 

Unless I've missed something, or you know something which hasn't been posted, I don't think deller has said that the bank ever said they required him to open and maintain an account. The fact that he did so voluntarily, possibly because he already had the account, is not the same.

 

However, I appreciate everything else you and gizmo say.

 

I would agree with you about setting up a standing order. They can't stop that being paid then and can hardly do anything about it in law, since there is no breach of T & C, particularly if the Natwest account is kept open and empty. Presumably the definition of maintaining an account is merely keeping it open, not actually cycling any money through it.

 

The other thing, I suppose, would be to keep the DD on the Natwest account and transfer the exact amount into it each month from the new account. Depends whether you want a quiet life or fancy a showdown over principle, I imagine.

[martinpar]

I'd absolutely agree with you deller.

 

Allyxia and gizmo, I don't want to start an argument because I don't actually disagree, in principle, with you. I don't agree that the bank have established throught their T&C that they have obliged him to run an account, merely that they can, for which they must make an official request.

 

I just wanted to make the point that it's wise to have a parachute account before you start but that you don't have to use it. After all, there's probably an argument that if they don't close your account once you've reclaimed your charges they will be reluctant to make further unlawful charges.

[martinpar]

Blimey! I must be a slow typer. About half a dozen posts since I started typing the last reply.

[martinpar]

I think it must be Cobbets. Maybe they're just getting snowed under. Mine is being handled by RBS Litigation and the day after I got notification from the court of their acknowledgement I got a cheque for the full amount from RBS. Pity I couldn't accept it because I am asking for removal of a default as well.

[martinpar]

Don't quite understand this. I wrote a reply to pmhcfc and knightreplica but it has disappeared.

 

FWIW I pointed out that all settlements have been made without admission of liability and as a show of 'goodwill', so they couldn't technically be held up as precedents and that if it is a service charge they can charge what they like as it was agreed to at the time of taking out the contract. As long as we can show it is really a penalty there's no problem.

 

Obviously they'll never get away with that one.

[martinpar]

As you said, I can't see the banks risking it getting to court any more than they are now. It's just a technique to scare off people who aren't too sure about what they're doing.

[martinpar]

Really well done Deller. And it'll be cleared in time for Christmas too!

 

When they sent me a cheque they said it was on condition I told no-one about it or the background to my claim. When I sent the cheque back (because they hadn't undertaken to remove my default) I said I was a member of CAG and had already discussed aspects on the forum.

 

Mind you, I haven't heard from them since, except to see they've updated the default with the CRAs.

[martinpar]

Don't know if anyone can help me on this, but when you have been charged, are you supposed to get a letter of nat west saying you have been charged for unpaid items, I have never received a letter of them.

 

NatWest haven't sent letters for years.It means you might not find out about a returned item until it is represented and they charge you a second time. Nice bit of extra income for them.

I know Lloyds still send letters but not sure about other banks.