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

[natwesttookmymoney]

I'm expecting another showdown 2morrow with the Nat West lending dept., over the phone this time though, would much rather it was face to face I can see them cry then!!

 

Hi, Deller

 

Nice one, though I expect - like me - you don't take enjoyment from upsetting people who don't upset you first (watch out woman at NW Salisbury, and her manager!)

 

Anyway - if you can, recorxd your conversation with the Lending Dept because, in my experience, they will subsequently try to deny everything - including that the conversation ever took place!!

 

As a private individual, you are allowed to record conversations without even mentioning the fact to the other party. There's an Act about it which I shall, no doubt, stumble across later today and post up.

 

Westy

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Deller

 

Found the law that allows you to record phone calls. It's the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 ("RIPA") and does not prohibit individuals from recording their own communications provided that the recording is for their own use. Recording or monitoring are only prohibited where some of the contents of the communication - which can be a phone conversation or an e-mail - are made available to a third party, ie someone who was neither the caller or sender nor the intended recipient of the original communication. You don't even have to tell them you're making a recording (though I tend to, afterwards), provided you are not intending to make the contents of the communication available to a third party. If you are you will need the consent of the person you are recording.

Legal representatives and the Court are not third parties.

[natwesttookmymoney]

Wossapened, Deller? Anything? Did you get a call from the bank/go there/call them?

Westy

[natwesttookmymoney]

Aaaawwwww!

I was looking forward to your report. Music from High Noon, God, Bad and the Ugly, etc, have been playing in rotation on my iTunes.

Ah, well. I have work to do, too, so I'd best get on with it!

Westy

[natwesttookmymoney]

Lmao

[natwesttookmymoney]

On the basis of the knightreplica info, I've cancelled all my DDs and SOs online and taken a screenshot of the pages, showing them all cancelled, with the date.

Thanks for the tip!

Westy

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Deller

"Any ideas about the above, or what happens now?"

I don't think the fact they've put nothing in section G is a big deal. You've asked for small Claims, they've agreed. Your claim isn't over £5K (as far as I'm aware) so there's no point of contention.

Did you ask for standard disclosure in your AQ?

 

Westy

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Chantelle

it's from when the claim was served = two days after you filed it.

Anyway, WE may be at the same stage but this is Deller's thread and he's a long way ahead! My thread's at natwesttookmymoney - v- NatWest

You are more than welcome to join in.

Westy

[natwesttookmymoney]

I was too tired to take a close look!

Should be turning into the home straight, now!

Good luck!

Westy

PS - did you send the jpg?

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Deller

Got the jpeg!

It was lurking in my bulk folder on the server. Not sure when it arrived because I looked there on Saturday, but it's OK, now.

Thanks muchly!

Westy

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Martin

 

Why couldn't you accept it? I would have thought settlement would have been demonstration that the default was unsafe/unsatisfactory or whatever the appropriate legal term is.

 

Westy

[natwesttookmymoney]

Application to strike out? What's that about, Giz?

Westy

[natwesttookmymoney]

"Cheque should clear today!!! Wonder if it will bounce hey kids!!!!

 

Wouldnt that been funny!!!"

 

Oh, yeh. We'd all split our sides at that one!

I can see the headline now: 'Big Bank's Bouncing Cheque'

W

[natwesttookmymoney]

I'll reply on your own thread, Debs but, in essence - don't worry. It's the particulars of claim that is important.

Westy

[natwesttookmymoney]

That is great news, Deller. Their defence looked pretty standard, so if the Court is striking it all out - even before your prompting - that's great. And the Limitations Act defence won't last five minutes, either. Unless they talk for more than 5 minutes.

That finishing line is getting closer and closer!

W

[natwesttookmymoney]

I'm hoping they wont get time to, because there isn't really that long between now and 3rd Jan, what with Xmas in between.

 

I just have this horrible feeling that dealing with your claim is going to take up all their resources between now and January, I won;t get their defence in time, I'll get cross, call the Court on Jan 4 and...

Get a default judgement!

Yippee!

Power to your elbow, Deller!

W

[natwesttookmymoney]

I love it!

Send me a bill for your phone calls. I'll split it with everyone who benefits!

[natwesttookmymoney]

Lmao

[natwesttookmymoney]

That would be nice!

[natwesttookmymoney]

"And now we know that £2.50 to the highest of £4.50 is what they should be charging us, which we basically knew all along."

And those are at the very top end, according to the boys in blue suits.

I found it quite uplifting, thinking of the hundreds of thousands (or more) people watching, who will now go after the banks for their money back.

And what about the bank execs who were watching? Surely, they must know the game is up if even the Ombudsman is saying, loud and clear, justify the charges or pay them all back.

As for calling it a 'service', well, bring it on! Sale of Goods Act; and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, plus - haven't we all asked them about manual intervention? There is no service.

Didn't Angela Knight look shifty and unconvincing??

And what about the judges who may have been watching?

:D:D:D

(I can't help myself!)

Westy

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, pmhfc

You are young, grasshopper, but you will learn!

The individuals, in the branches especially, are generally very pleasant and well-meaning. But just wait till you encounter Customer Relations Department (their idea of relations seems to be more carnal than caring - i.e., they want to screw you), Stuart Higley and - most dread of all - the jabberwok that is....Cobbetts!

(Parents cover their children's ears; old ladies look shocked. CofE vicars implore society to show understanding and compassion)

No matter - there are plenty of people willing to help. They may take over your thread and argue about an arcane point of law for a while, but they mean well.

Set up your own thread, keep us posted with your progress and feel free to ask any questions you wish. If we can help, we will.

Westy

[natwesttookmymoney]

And look what I've turned into now - a giant, flesh-eating praying mantis!

You must be very proud of me!!

:D:D:D

 

A very busy couple of days. I shall resume interventions and contributions at the weekend. Unless something really gets my goat.!

W

[natwesttookmymoney]

"So what's on the menu today then??"

Joyce Tudor, who STILL hasn't sent me the statements for my loan a/c, nor the notes from the CRM file at Bristol Lending Centre.

[natwesttookmymoney]

"Where did the price £2.50 to £4.50 com from? If that is at todays rate then it should have been less 6 years ago?"

Probably not much different, except for postage. Once you've automated something - which the banks did to their processes in the 1980s and 90s - the cost is pretty constant.

You have to go back to the days of manually-printed cheque books, phone calls when a cheque that would take you over your limit was presented, and personally-signed summonses from the branch manager to find anything that resembled the costs they charged.

W

[natwesttookmymoney]

"It is down to the bank to prove that these are reasonable charges, not you." Correctamundo, Deller!

 

Keep this handy, just in case. I used it in my full POC:

 

"To the extent that they may be found to be so incorporated and therefore form part of the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant the Claimant avers that the items referred to in such leaflets do not constitute service charges but punitive penalty or default charges for acts of default. Further the Claimant contends that these show that the Defendant has structured the Claimant’s accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made and that any purported fees for “services” or “additional services” are no more than disguised penalties. The Claimant avers that no additional services are supplied by the Defendant in relation to acts of default or at all."

 

The 'leaflets' referred to are the ones setting out charges. But I like 'spuriously'. I really like it a lot.

W