judges requests

[john]

Thanks Martin. Also I think I need to be careful what I put as its a business account and consumer law can't be used.

[MARTIN3030]

Yes you are correct.

[john]

bump

[Guest willowb]

There's that word again!! I've asked before so someone please tell this idiot what it means????

[john]

see reply 68?

[MARTIN3030]

Surely these are self explanatory.......being in the principles of the breaches by the bank in unlawful penalties.

[verity]

I don't understand why someone is an idiot for bumping their thread. In fact elsewhere on the site it is suggested to do this. This rudeness is surely unneccessary.

 

Many of us are interested in John's thread as we are following in his footsteps and may need the same advice.

 

I think, as far as i can see, the judge is asking specifically WHAT the breach of contract is, and not just generally that

'they are invalid under the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4'

 

and for part iv, exactly which contractual terms are unenforcable.

 

I have read the supply of goods and services act. here is the relevant section.

 

15 Implied term about consideration

1.

Where, under a contract for the supply of a service, the

consideration for the service is not determined by the contract,

left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or

determined by the course of dealing between the parties, there is

an implied term that the party contracting with the supplier will

pay a reasonable charge.

 

2.

What is a reasonable charge is a question of fact.

 

 

I wouldn't know what the matters relied on for basing my claim would be either.

 

 

Hey, John, we must both be idiots then!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MARTIN3030]

Whatever the rights and wrongs here.......lets remember that we all have the same interests and end results in our sights so guys lets carry on and continue with the job in hand.

 

Theres should be no conflicts on here.........after all this is a self help site.

That relies on everyone working together !!

 

 

[john]

Thanks verity. That’s exactly it. Bankfodder pm’d me last week and asked for a scan of the judges order, which I sent him, but have had no reply yet. Have only got until Wednesday to take it into court and don’t want to make any mistakes at this stage. If I mess up it might affect future claims for people.

[john]

Right, I’ve come up with what I think are the answers to the judges questions. I was wondering if a mod can check with Bankfodder that this is all correct before I send it in.

 

 

 

Q. The nature of the breach of contract in respect of which it is alleged the charges have been made

 

 

 

A. The breach of contract is that these charges have been applied to the account contrary to the Unfair Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s15 and The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

 

 

 

Q. The contractural terms alleged to be unforceable

 

 

 

A. According to the Unfair Contract terms Act 1977, it is stated that all terms in contracts should be transparent. As the bank refuses to show a breakdown of their charges then the term is not transparent. Also the term should be fair and reasonable. It is not fair or reasonable to charge around £30 to send out an automated letter to advise of the charge

 

 

 

Q. The matters relied on for basing the claim on S. 15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

 

 

 

A. Section 15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

 

 

 

Implied term about consideration

 

 

 

 

 

1. Where, under a contract for the supply of a service, the consideration for the service is not determined by the contract, left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealing between the parties, there is an implied term that the party contracting with the supplier will pay a reasonable charge.

 

 

 

If the charges applied to the account are deemed by the defendant to be reasonable then why has the defendant declined to supply a breakdown and justification of these charges?

[Bookworm]

I don't understand why someone is an idiot for bumping their thread. In fact elsewhere on the site it is suggested to do this. This rudeness is surely unneccessary.

 

Hey, John, we must both be idiots then!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Verity, before you go off on one, it is quite obvious that Willowb is referring to HERSELF as the "idiot" who doesn't know what "bump" means. It is of course her privilege to call herself such a name if she so wishes, and I can hardly moderate her for doing so

 

John, part of the UCTA you may want to refer to as well is the "test of reasonableness", in particular whether the purchaser (you) had the bargaining power to negotiate better terms, and whether the contract was negotiated or in standard form, which both would come under scrutiny of the court when deciding on unfair terms.

[verity]

apologies. can see that now. read it totally wrong and felt sorry for john. Sorry willowb.

[thewifeandI]

After looking at the questions asked I think the replies quoted do not answer two of the three questions. My versions are in red: -

 

Q. The nature of the breach of contract in respect of which it is alleged the charges have been made

 

A. The breach of contract is that these charges have been applied to the account contrary to the Unfair Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s15 and The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

 

A. Insufficient funds to cover outgoing payment from the account and overdraft limit exceeded.

 

 

Q. The contractural terms alleged to be unforceable

 

A. According to the Unfair Contract terms Act 1977, it is stated that all terms in contracts should be transparent. As the bank refuses to show a breakdown of their charges then the term is not transparent. Also the term should be fair and reasonable. It is not fair or reasonable to charge around £30 to send out an automated letter to advise of the charge

 

 

Q. The matters relied on for basing the claim on S. 15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

 

A. Section 15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

 

A. Although the charges are disguised penalties, the defendant states that they are charges for services. I am not aware of a service that involves non-provision of a service. Any service that the defendant performs on my behalf has to be under my instructions and these were not. If they are indeed services then the costs are excessive under Section 15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

[Guest willowb]

Verity, before you go off on one, it is quite obvious that Willowb is referring to HERSELF as the "idiot" who doesn't know what "bump" means. It is of course her privilege to call herself such a name if she so wishes, and I can hardly moderate her for doing so

 

.

LOL....OK SO I'M AN IDIOT ALREADY!!!:-|

 

That's ok verity.....I know that communicating in forums can be somewhat lacking in clarity when you can't see the person's facial expressions!

 

back to thread......

[john]

i have now sent back my reply to the request (thanks to bankfodder for his help), and got it all in a day before the deadline. i am now waiting for the next stage?

[zeus_the_god]

I have just filed a claim via MoneyClaim and RBS have acknowledged it so im about to embark down the path of legal ping pong so i am extremly interested in seeing how your claim pans out john

 

Go get em

[fiona_c]

Hi guys

Just had letter of acknowledgement from rbs re my 'intentions to go to court' letter - no offer - just a reminder of correct address to send claim to! So hey ho, it's off to court we go (at least 12 times with the amount that i want to claim back). I'll keep you posted of my (hopefully)news of successes.

Fiona

[livelylad]

just reading the thread with great intrest as i am getting very close to this stage. good luck.

[john]

Just a quick update. Telephoned court on Tuesday to find out what was happening. RBS/Cobbetts had until 7th September to submit an ammended claim. Apparantly there is no record on the courts system of anything from them, only of the information I have supplied. All the file is now with the judge so I've no idea what will happen next. Will ring again early next week to see if theres any progress.

[Guest willowb]

Hi John:>)

 

Ooooooh I smell a victory looming ;>)

Wxx

[barracad]

There's that word again!! I've asked before so someone please tell this idiot what it means???

 

Nobody appears to have answered you yet... BUMP stands for Bring Up My Posting.

[Guest willowb]

Ahhhhh thank you Barracad....d'oh!

 

Wxx

[davidhannam]

Your letter's fantastic Martin. I have just worded a similar letter but without this bit....ingenius! using their own information against them! I'll certainly be refering to it again!

 

In respect of the relevant clauses and contract terms, I sent a letter to the defendant, Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) several months ago asking for such relation of charges. Unfortunately they did not send a copy of the original terms and conditions. I have endeavoured to obtain them in multiple trips to RBS branches, but the best I have managed to retrieve from them is a leaflet about charges.

In respect of the charges detailed on the enclosed spreadsheet, the relevant statements of the said leaflet are as follows;

· Where just a date is given, this relates to

o Service charge £10

§ Monthly maintenance charge

· “If you borrow more than your agreed overdraft limit you will be liable for a maintenance charge applied monthly, 16 days after the end of the charging period (or the next business day if this is a Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday). The charging period is normally in line with the date that we send your statement to you.”

· Paid referral £30 per day

o “If we pay a debit drawn on your account which results in an unarranged overdraft, a daily referral charge is payable and will be applied monthly on the sixth business day of the following month.”

· Unpaid items £38 per item (previously £35)

o “Payable when a cheque, standing order or Direct Debit is not paid due to there being insufficient funds available on your account”

· Unauthorised transaction fees £35

o Card misuse

§ “Payable when we are forced to pay an item which has been supported by cheque guarantee or Maestro although there are insufficient funds available on your account”

· “When your account is overdrawn in excess of any agreed overdraft limit, a maintenance charge will also be applied.”

Wx

 

 

 

 

glad to see my letters doing the rounds, big col and few others used it as well....bet lynsey B's getting a sense of deja vu!

[Irishad1]

Hey all,

 

Looks like Cobbetts have a few templates of their own, as I have just received a similar defence letter from lynsey B!

 

I am slightly worried that these letters are stalling tactics till they find something new to halt us with!

 

However I am ploughing on with the advice above.

 

Is there a definitive way to answer the UCTA questions that cobbetts are asking? i.e. please identify the contractual provisions that the claimant alleges are invalid with reference to UCTA.?

 

Has anyone actually gone through this stage and had their day in court - or better still had their money back from RBS?

[MARTIN3030]

read big cols thread in rbs section.

Also note there is no requirement to fill in the part 18.

 

Lots of Rbs claims in the system.....Cobbetts have recently moved to bigger offices in Leeds........and very likely to have a BIG team on this.