natwesttookmymoney - v- NatWest **WON**

[natwesttookmymoney]

Nice!

 

I might borrow your paragraphs (if that's OK) on interest for our claim against GE Money (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/55863-son-steven4064-ge-money.html) who are flatly refusing to pay any interest. We'll see about that!

 

GE Money have a slightly differeent approach to some of the other institutions you read about on this site. Rather than making a low offer, their response to the 'initial request' letter is to send a cheque for all the charges, "as a gesture of goodwill". The fight then is just about interest (at 29.9%).

 

Feel free to use whatever you wish (on a strictly personal, non-commercial basis)!

 

I like your letter of 16 January - good one! Have you looked at the 'contractual interest' thread? It's very long but there's a lot of good stuff in there. Had it begun sooner - or I'd read it later - then I would probably have gone down that route from the outset.

 

W

[natwesttookmymoney]

What did you get this morning, your nice big fat cheque?

 

Naaah.

 

I got a chance for a bit of a lie-in, though, which was very welcome in the current and continuing chaos!

 

W

[petrafyde]

Naaah.

 

I got a chance for a bit of a lie-in, though, which was very welcome in the current and continuing chaos!

 

W

 

Whats one of those?

[leviathan]

Well Done Fellow,

 

I took mine to the court earlier, with the same format, shall look forward to Natwests response!

[natwesttookmymoney]

I've got something from the Court!

 

Hurray!

 

It's being referred to a pre-trial review in the week commencing 25th June!

 

Booooo!

 

 

But there looks like being some other cool and groovy stuff - as well as things I'm not clear on.

 

What I've had from the court is as follows:

 

In the SALISBURY County Court

 

Case no XXXXXXXXX

Natwesttookmymoney v NatWest

 

Before District Judge Asplin, sitting at Salisbury County Court

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

 

1. Each party shall give all parties standard disclosure of documents by serving copies together with a disclosure statement by 9th March 2007

 

2. Each party give standard disclosure to every other party by list

 

3. The latest date for service of any request to inspect or for a copy be made by 16th March 2007

 

4. There be simultaneous exchange of such statements by 27th April 2007

 

5. No expert evidence being necessary, no party has permission to call or rely on expert evidence

 

6. Requests for clarification or further information based on a document disclosed or statement served must be served within 21 calendar days after disclosure or service

 

7. Any such requests shall be dealt with within 21 days of service

 

8. Each party must file a completed pre-trial checklist by 22nd June 2007 and must be accompanied by witness statements, replies to requests for information

 

9. There be a pre-trial review week commencing 25th June 2007 allowing 20 minutes, this date to be fixed.

 

 

Dated 29 January 2007

 

 

Now, point one - standard disclosure - had me beginning to raise my arms and smiling. Point 2 - by list, has me puzzled. Is it documents, is it list of documents, originals, copies, what? Do I get more ink and paper or relax about it?

 

Everything else is OK down to the last two points., The claim has been allocated to 'fast track' but this seems snail-like. It's about as far out as one can go. But, looking on the bright side, standard disclosure is quite prompt - just over 5 weeks. But is t asking for the documents or a list?

Point 6 looks like the means by which I can force them to give me information relating to my loan account - at last - and without a new court case.

 

If I read minds correctly, the judge has, in effect, given the order to force NatWest to come out with the information on costs, etc, within five weeks. He's allowing loads of time before the trial presumably because he doesn't think it will get that far. Or isn't cluttering the court up beforehand anyway.

 

Thoughts, anyone? About the disclosure in particular?

 

W

[Grapes]

Hi Westy

After a period of dead silence on both my NW cases, had a Notice Of Allocation Hearing for mine today (26th March)

Slightly confused though, the claim is for £10,000plus, I asked for it to be considered for small claims (Didnt think it would hurt!). Does this mean they are going to consider small claims?

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Grapes

 

Sounds like it. I asked for consideration of small claims, too, but mine has been allocated to fast track.

 

BTW -I read the allocation notice a bit further (I'm allocated to fast track) and found I have a court date.

 

!5th August.

 

Looking on the bright side, it is 15 August 2007, so that's this year. :rolleyes:It's just about as far out as one can get on the fast track. He's allocated five HOURS for the hearing.

 

I suspect he wants it over beforehand, too.

 

 

W

[muggins73]

Well about time, news at last!!!!!

 

Cor blimey, 15th August, it's abit like getting an appointment to see my doctor!!!

 

By list, I reckon it's a list of documents:confused:

Considering you've been allocated 5 hours, I'd think about getting that extra paper and ink you mentioned (LOL)

[natwesttookmymoney]

I think you're right.

 

I called the court to get clarification - do they want a list or do they want documents. Do you know what?

 

They went from confident, yes, we'll take time to explain the blindingly obvious to you you silly little man to 'you'll have to take advice from a solicitor. It's not for us to interpret what the judge meant.'

 

Grrrrrrrrr!!!!

 

However, I note that anything I ask for has to be given to me within 21 days of service. So, while it looks a bit confused, there is the means to get to conclusion, I think. Demanding documents being that route.

 

I'll keep you posted - naturally!

 

W

[natwesttookmymoney]

Another thought has occurred: I can serve Cobbetts with the order I tried to get the judge to make. Have to amend it a bit but I think it may work.

 

What does anyone else think?

 

The relevant post is no. 137, on page 7.

 

W

[stan5131]

Jeez. I would be pulling my hair out. Why dont you write to the judge himself asking for clarification. Snatchwest will seize this opportunity to withhold settlement to the bitter end.

[natwesttookmymoney]

That may become necessary but I think I'll try the service route and see what NatWest makes of it.

 

W

[The cobbett slayer]

Hi Westy

 

Disclosure by list does exactly what it says on the tin! It is a list of documents on which you will rely in court - it's all covered here http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/GetForms.do;jsessionid=C72330FF95CBA5A09F71725B5FB6AA4E

 

Your post from way back asking the court for an order could easily be turned into a Part 18 request. The bottom line is you want them to tell you how much it actually cost them to administer your alleged breaches of contract.

 

Standard disclosure on their part should include the accounting information required to prove that the charges are not a penalty but you might as well put the pressure on and make your Part 18 request as I did. The judge in my case has ordered them to respond to it.

 

Mine was condensed to a single question. They provide the "actual cost of administering each and every alleged breach particularised by the claimant"

 

You have time to do this as the N265 (standard disclosure) can be updated as new evidence comes to light.

 

Paul

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Paul

 

thanks for your input.

 

" Disclosure by list does exactly what it says on the tin!"

 

the problem is - the order para 1 also looks like it's requiring the actual documents. what do I go for - list or docs? That's the quandary.

 

"Mine was condensed to a single question. They provide the "actual cost of administering each and every alleged breach particularised by the claimant""

 

I'll probably do that but think about it first. I'll certainly add the demand for the statements and documents relating to the loan a/c, too. Still nothing from them - but Part 18 will help, and will be cheaper than a DPA action.

 

Westy

[Trish76]

Hi Westy

still following with great interest!!I too would be pulling my hair out by now,but you seem to be doing just fine.

Considering how much they have already paid back to peeps it seems crazy how they still drag this out.

Heres wishing you all the best

Trishx

[natwesttookmymoney]

Thankyou, Trish. Very kind.

 

W

[natwesttookmymoney]

RIGHT!!

 

This is the CPR Part 18 request I'm about to send to Cobbetts. Have a look and tell me what you think

 

 

Natwestttokmymoney

 

 

7 February 2007

 

Cobbetts LLP

Ship Canal House

King Street

Manchester

M2 4WB

 

Your ref: XXXXXXXXXXX

 

Dear Sirs/Mesdames

 

Re: In the Salisbury County Court, case no XXXXXXXX, Natwesttookmymoney – v –National Westminster Bank plc

 

 

Subsequent to the Order from the Salisbury County Court I am writing to request further information in connection with the above matter. This request is made in accordance with CPR Part 18. If you do not comply with this request within 14 calendar days, i.e., by 21 February 2007, I shall draw the fact to the court’s attention and may apply for the Defence to be struck out under CPR Part 16 and other regulations as may be appropriate.

 

The information required is as follows:

 

1. all outstanding information requested under a Subject Access Request (‘Request’) in accordance with the Data Protection Act, dated October 13 2006, including information relating to a loan, account number xxxxxxx, sort code xxxxxxx; and all relevant notes and evidence of manual intervention, on this and any other of the Claimant’s accounts with the Defendant.

 

2. The actual cost of administering each and every alleged breach particularised by the claimant.

 

3. In respect of each item claimed, as listed in the Claimant’s Schedule submitted with the Particulars of Claim and previously supplied to both the Defendant and yourselves:

 

a) Pursuant to what contractual provision such charge was made, producing a copy of the contractual document relied upon;

 

b) Whether such charge is accepted to be a penalty, and if not why not;

 

c) If such charge is alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions (whether or not such action is treated as a breach of contract between the parties), all facts and matters intended to be relied upon as showing that such was a proper estimate of such loss, and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to what the true cost of dealing with the matter was;

 

d) If such charge is not alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions then facts and matters intended to be relied upon showing the basis upon which the charge was calculated and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to show that the charge was fair and reasonable.

 

4. In relation to each and every breach by the Claimant which resulted in a charge being levied, full details (with all relevant supporting documentation) of:

 

a) any letters, telephone calls, or incidents of manual intervention into the account in respect of each and every charge claimed by the Claimant and itemised in the Schedule submitted with the Particulars;

 

b) how charges are applied to the account (whether automatically or by some other means) and when;

 

c) the Defendant’s assessment of the cost to it of sending any letter making any telephone call or otherwise administering the charge levied and the incident giving to it, with details of how the cost to the Defendant is calculated and what items of expense are included, or such other costs as are foreseeable in the context of contractual damages and the remoteness thereof and which can be specifically identified and defined and which can be reasonably attributed to each and every breach on the part of the Claimant;

 

d) the principles upon which all such costs are calculated and result in the specific level of each charge levied by the bank in respect of each of the breaches which resulted in the charges now claimed by the Claimant.

 

5. If the Defendant avers that the charges are applied in return for the provision of a banking service to the Claimant:

 

a) to identify each and every such service referred to in the defendant’s Terms and Conditions and identify the charges, by reference to those terms and conditions, that the Claimant is required to pay for each service identified.

 

b) to confirm what steps are taken by the defendant in providing the alleged services. The Defendant to provide copies of all notes, memoranda, or other information retained by the defendant to demonstrate the provision of the alleged services to the Claimant.

 

c) to confirm whether charges are applied automatically.

 

 

 

I look forward to receiving this information within 14 calendar days.

 

 

Yours faithfully

Natwesttookmymoney (Mr)

[stan5131]

Think you've covered everything there Westy. They will be sending your cheque very soon.

[The cobbett slayer]

Absolutely top job Westy. It asks all the questions they won't want to answer.

 

Be prepared to stick by your guns and make an application for an order that they respond. As everything is relevant to the final outcome of the case there is no reason for a judge not to make the order if they don't reply.

 

Paul

[natwesttookmymoney]

Cheers, guys.

 

Sending now, Special Delivery.

 

Hope Whizzboy doesn't get any Cobbetts people slung in jug as a result of NatWest's repeated breaches or I'll never get my money back....!!

 

W

[muggins73]

Can't you smell it yet Westy, that sweet aroma of success.

Natwest aren't gonna like you much, but I'm sure your settlement is just itching to get to you soon, I knows these things!!!

[natwesttookmymoney]

The smell at the moment is quesadilla with roasted garlic.

 

We had it a couple of days ago - man, that garlic takes a while to dissipate!

 

W

[stan5131]

Alliance and leicester fined by FOS for retaliatory account closure (1 2)

 

 

Have a look Westy. Very interesting.

[natwesttookmymoney]

Interesting, and welcome. Even though the refund wasn't very much.

 

But, as they say: It's the thought that counts!!

 

(edit)

 

Westy

[natwesttookmymoney]

..