Taylors v Nationwide 3rd Time

[taylormandy]

I've already successfully claimed against Nationwide twice. This final claim is for charges from 1998-2006 i.e more than 6 years ago.

 

I have got to the stage in my claim where Nationwide have entered a defence. They did not do this with my previous claims, they just acknowledged, then paid!

 

Their defence is this:

• This is my third claim against them.
  
• They already refunded money to me (the first 2 claims).

Now, in my mind, this is no defence at all to this, my third claim. Just because I have successfully claimed previously cannot be a defence against this claim.

 

They have not cited the Limitation Act in their defence at all. Does this mean they cannot bring it up in court?

Now that they have entered a defence, is it more likely I will need to go to court?

I am quite prepared to do so, and feel confident in my understanding of the issues involved in claiming beyond six years, I just wondered what others would make of their defence.

Grateful for any opinions.

 

I need to return form N236 stating I wish to proceed with the claim, with a copy to Nationwide. Shall I send additional info at this point, or wait until court?

[taylormandy]

Does anybody have any assistance they can offer?

[taylormandy]

First of all, Merry Christmas to you all!

 

I am going to add another query here. The advice at the time of my first claim in June was to sever it if is was over £5000. This I did and therefore made 2 claims, both of which were successful, NW settled after I filed my claims at court. This is a separate claim because it is for charges more than 6 years ago.

Part of the NW defence is that this is my third claim. Does anybody have any suggestions for me to reply to this. I realise it will not be enough to tell the judge that it i was acting on the advice given, but I don't want my case struck out for abuse of the court system. I realise that this was the risk I took at the time, but can I do anything about it now?

 

Interesting, NONE of their defence alludes to the fact that the charges are over 6 years, just that this is my third claim, and that they have already paid me money (the first 2 claims). They appear to be completely ignoring the fact that I am asking for totally different charges back (one's that I haven't had refunded already).

I really would appreciate some help with this situation. Thank you.

[taylormandy]

I would be grateful for ANY advice. I now have a court hearing for 9th March.

I need a robust response to the fact that part of their defence is that this is my third claim. (I split my first claim to keep it under £5000).

I really would appreciate some help.

Thanks

[Guest bong]

hi tm it would help to see the defence

[Guest bong]

apparently the n236 form is what you fill in if the defendant states that the money has already been paid to you.

[taylormandy]

hi bong,

 

I have returned a copy of the N236 to the court and to Nationwide.

The defence is:

1. This is the third claim brought by the Claimant for refunds of account charges from the defendant since June 2006.
   
2. The total amount of charges and interest debited to the Claimant's account since 1 July 2006, was £6941.79
   
3. Without prejudice to arguments concerning its liability to do so, the Defendant had refunded the sum of £6934.05 to the claimant together with interest totalling £2284.67 prior to the issue of this claim.
   
4. Further charges of 7.74 and interest thereon of £3.82 was refunded to the Claimant on 15 Nov 2006.

That's it!

 

They are basically saying that they have already refunded me money. However, this is the total from June 2000- June2006. They make no mention that what I'm claiming for now is different money. It's for charges from 1998 - June 2000.

 

I am not sure what to argue in defence of the fact that this is my third claim.

[bill-k]

FWIW I've had N236's where the money has been paid into a previously closed account. It's a defence form specifically to claim that the money has been paid, as you say, Bong.

 

I have simply carried on with my claim, and pointed out to the banks that putting the money in an account to which I do not have access cannot be taken as settlement of the claim.

 

I got the cheques.

 

HTH

 

Bill

 

PS This N236 doesn't appear to refer to the claim which it is apparently defending at all. In fact, it seems to state "We have paid up twice before, and can't think of any reason why we can dispute this new claim."

[JonCris]

They have paid you twice for 2 legit claims .....so what.

 

They mention them but make no reference as to why..........Are they claiming they have paid you?.........clearly not the dates don't match.........Are they claiming your mucking them & the court about...............Hardly. In fact they make no attempt anywhere to justify their statement & I think that's what you need to say in your rebuttal.

 

"You are at a loss and are unable to respond as the defendant makes no effort to justify or explain their statement"

 

Also they appear to have missed limitation so will have difficulty raising it now

[redsue]

taylormandy - I've also had a so called defence off Nationwide as they are querying paying me contractual at 24.9% - take a look at my thread - I've asked that their defence is thrown out due to basic factual errors.

Have a look at my thread and see if it is of any use to you - I think they need to change their legal team or Mr Bacon should take up another profession - they are 29 days late in filing their AQ - and still no sign of it.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/nationwide/28574-authorised-interest-unauthorised-interest-6.html#post396471

 

I've fast forwarded for you and along with my AQ I entered a response to their defence

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/nationwide/28574-authorised-interest-unauthorised-interest-10.html#post424681

 

Hope this is of use to you

[taylormandy]

Thank you all for your help.

JonCris, when you talk about my rebuttal, what are you referring to? (!)

Also, can they really not refer to the time limit in court as it is not in their defence? Does that mean if it goes all the way, all I have to do is prove the unlawfulness of the charges, not the Limitation Act?

 

My notification of court date says " District Judge Dickinson has considered the satements of case and allocation questionnaires filed and allocated the claim to the small claims track".

I was never sent an allocation questionnaire!

 

Redsue, I was following your thread before Christmas, but had missed recent events. So you've handed in your AQ, but NW haven't. Where does this leave you? Why did you get an AQ and I didn't?!

They paid me 24.9% previously, I wonder why they wont pay you? Good luck anyway!

 

Bill, you are right. Nothing in their defence seems to have any bearing on this claim! Unfortunately, the money hasn't gone into a closed account. I just haven't got it!

 

thank you all again. I haven't had to go as far as this with my other claims!

[natwesttookmymoney]

First of all, Merry Christmas to you all!

 

I am going to add another query here. The advice at the time of my first claim in June was to sever it if is was over £5000. This I did and therefore made 2 claims, both of which were successful, NW settled after I filed my claims at court. This is a separate claim because it is for charges more than 6 years ago.

Part of the NW defence is that this is my third claim. Does anybody have any suggestions for me to reply to this. I realise it will not be enough to tell the judge that it i was acting on the advice given, but I don't want my case struck out for abuse of the court system. I realise that this was the risk I took at the time, but can I do anything about it now?

 

Interesting, NONE of their defence alludes to the fact that the charges are over 6 years, just that this is my third claim, and that they have already paid me money (the first 2 claims). They appear to be completely ignoring the fact that I am asking for totally different charges back (one's that I haven't had refunded already).

I really would appreciate some help with this situation. Thank you.

 

I think the rebuttal to their defence should be along the lines of 'I have only recently realised that it was possible to submit a claim in respect of incidents more than six years ago. Until the last two months I was unaware of S32 of the Limitations Act and its implications for my case. I respectfully request the Court to allow my action to proceed.'

 

What does anyone else (that certainly includes you, Bong - HNY, BTW) think?

 

Westy

[JonCris]

I'm not suggesting that the rebuttle incude any mention of the Limitation Act (let them raise it) Only that the rebuttle should be along the lines of I don't understand what the hell they are talking about as they haven't explained themselves.

 

They can try raising it at trial but they should have raised it out the outset or at least applied to have their defence ammended.

 

If they raise it at trial you can ask the court to adjorn to allow you time to present your counter argument as to why you think limitation does not apply

[bill-k]

I agree with JonCris here. The N236 Form is submitted where a defendant has (in their estimation) already settled the claim (by paying the claimant the wonga). The wonga mentioned on this length of Andrex is nothing to do with the wonga currently being claimed. LA s.32 is another planet, at the present stage - and nowhere near the co-ordinates of this lot !!

 

For sp*ck's sake, somebody beam 'em up !!

 

Kirk - out.

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Bill

And how are you this morning? Me? I'm a bit grumpy having got up too early for a meeting that hasn't happened.

Anyway, the point of this

thread is that the Taylors are claiming for the third time against Nationwide and this time, it's for charges more than 6 years ago. So I suspect (although I'm always willing to be corrected, as you know) that S32 of the Limitations Act may well have a bearing.

Hold the transporter a moment, Scotty!

 

W

[redsue]

They paid me 24.9% previously, I wonder why they wont pay you

 

Taylormandy following your previous threads I understood that Nationwide paid you 24.9% simple and not 24.9% compounded which is what I am claiming for. They have paid me 7.75% compounded (authorised rate) but in their own defence they say that I'm not entitled to compounded and they have paid me 8% S.69 - which is incorrect.

 

I think you should contact the court to see why you where never sent an AQ and see whether NW have actually submitted one.

[bill-k]

Hi, Bill

And how are you this morning? Me? I'm a bit grumpy having got up too early for a meeting that hasn't happened.

Anyway, the point of this

thread is that the Taylors are claiming for the third time against Nationwide and this time, it's for charges more than 6 years ago. So I suspect (although I'm always willing to be corrected, as you know) that S32 of the Limitations Act may well have a bearing.

Hold the transporter a moment, Scotty!

 

W

 

Grumpy - you & me both, Westy ! Odd thing here is that, although WE'RE aware of the +6yrs aspect here. There is NO mention of the LA in this so-called "defence" !!! In fact, there is NO mention of the current claim in it !!

 

No defence ? It's worse than that - it's dead, Jim !

 

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr !!!

 

Taylormandy following your previous threads I understood that Nationwide paid you 24.9% simple and not 24.9% compounded which is what I am claiming for. They have paid me 7.75% compounded (authorised rate) but in their own defence they say that I'm not entitled to compounded and they have paid me 8% S.69 - which is incorrect.

 

I think you should contact the court to see why you where never sent an AQ and see whether NW have actually submitted one.

 

I have received several of these "But I already paid it, guv" defences, and ALL before AQ stage. Just ticked the "carry on with the claim" box, told solicitors why, and got the cheques. I still suggest you do the same, TM.

[Guest bong]

hi all!!

 

Yes I don't think you can rebut a defence that hasn't been raised (ie the limitation issue).

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi

 

You may well be right Bong but the question has been asked in the defence, in essence: why's this person coming after us yet again? The 6 years rule and LA is, in the event, I would suggest perfectly relevant.

 

On a more general point, I think this raises the potential problems of artificially splitting claims: there is a danger of second and subsequent claims being thrown out and the claimant being branded vexatious. Notwithstanding the cost, personally, I am of the opinion it's best to go for the lot in one go.

 

JMHO

Westy

[taylormandy]

Hi, thank you all for your help.

The Notice of allocation to small claims track states " each party shall deliver to every other part and to the court office copies of all documents on which he intends to rely at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing".

I presume this is the court bundle - am I right?

 

Is my rebuttal that is being talked of a statement within this bundle?

I am just not sure what form this rebuttal takes.

 

Westy, I'm sure you are right. In hindsight, I shouldn't have split the first claim, but at the time general opinion was generally to split.

Thanks again

 

Mandy

[taylormandy]

I've plenty of time before my bundle has to be in, so would it be worthwhile dropping a line to Charles Bacon, confirming I am pressing ahead and pointing out that his defence doesn't seem to have any relevance whatsoever to the claim and perhaps he should just settle now?

[taylormandy]

Any thoughts?

[JonCris]

hi all!!

 

Yes I don't think you can rebut a defence that hasn't been raised (ie the limitation issue).

 

Precisley........why put thoughts into their heads.

 

Crossing bridges before coming to them comes to mind......Also believe it or not some defendants will miss the limitation defence completely.

 

However having said that make sure you understand the argument & that you have copies of statute & case law to hand when & If you attend court

[taylormandy]

Somebody in "customer services" said I couldn't claim more than six years of charges in response to my LBA, but it was not raised in their defence. So can they now not enter an argument againt the limitation issue?

 

Also, what are your thoughts regarding sending a letter to Charles Bacon, inviting them to settle, as their defence has no relevance to my actual claim?

 

Many thanks for your help thus far.

[taylormandy]

Hi, I really would be grateful if somebody could advise as to whether I should send a letter regarding their ridiculous defence in the hope of getting a settlement, or whether I should just get my court bundle ready and send it off?