Jump to content

eerose5 v Natwest - defence lodged

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5303 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Ive read on this site that judges have alowed banks to lodge defence after the deadline when the case should have been won by default. How can judges allow the banks, with all of their vast resources at their disposal, to file a defence AFTER the deadline? Surely that defeats the object of having a deadline? What would happen if the situation were reversed? Have those concerned lodged a formal complaint to the relevant authorities?

Does this prove that because judges and solicitors have higher paid jobs than the average working person, they are more likely to have investments associated with the performance of the banks, and therefore have a vested interest in ruling in the banks favour?

Linsey Clare Burgoyne of messrs Cobbetts of Manchester acting for National Westminster Bank plc appears to believe that because a claimant has had financial difficulties in the past they are going to be of ‘lower standing’ socially and, therefore, easily intimidated by requests for CPR Part 18 completions (she is working on the assumption that we will not have any idea what it is, thank goodness for the internet and the Consumer Action Group web site). She also try’s to put up a smoke screen by implying that even if the court agrees the claim, much of it will be time-barred if it is dated 6 years before the date of issuing the small claims action. This in not correct. The date is 6 years from when you first made you request to the bank for reimbursement.

If she has written such a letter to you, join me in complaining to your court about Ms Burgoyne’s intimidation and stalling tactics and to the law society sighting Ms Burgoyne’s conduct in your case. Send a letter of complaint to the ombudsman about NatWest unlawfully applying default charges in excess of their costs.

As the law states that a bank can only re-claim it costs when an account is in default then it is up to the bank to prove that its cost are exactly what it has charges us. If we were to believe the bank’s first letter of response where they say that they have acting within the parameters of the law, then why do they refuse to provide a breakdown and then instigate these intimidatory strategies? Any one else agree? A simple “no, you have it wrong, here is what it cost us” would save both sides a lot of time, trouble and money. I can only assume by their behaviour and refusal to disclose their expenses that we are correct and the banks have been knowingly acting unlawfully for years. I say knowingly because with their legal retainers they have know excuse for pleading ignorance, plus, I have always been told that ignorance is no defence under the law.

It would also appear that banks are now under investigation over the selling of mortgage protection insurance to cover loss of earnings if involved in an accident, long-term sick or redundancy. Apparently they are selling products that do not deliver what they promise. Surprise, surprise. We purchased such a mortgage protection cover a few years ago for an up-front payment of £6,000. You will not be surprised to learn that when my husband was made redundant from a company owned by his father, the insurance company would not pay out because my husband ‘should have known what was happening’. Eventually we recovered £3,000 back but I will keep my eye on this investigation and maybe claim our remaining £3,000 later.

Allocation Questionnaire Received 13-Dec-2006

My Reply To Cobbetts CPR Part 18 Request


Cobbetts Defence 06-Dec-06

Money Claim OnLine 02-Nov-2006 Claim 6QZ79675

Natwest Reply 'Bring It On' 10-Oct-2006

Letter Before Action 06-Oct-2006

Natwest FIRST Reply 04-Oct-2006! They beieve thire CHARGES fair according to their tariff

Third Request to Natwest 28-Sept-2006

Second Request to NatWest 05-Sep-2006

First Request to NatWest 18-Aug-2006

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Create New...