Jump to content

Anjipl v NatWest ** WON **


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5315 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

Have we won? Got a letter from Cobbetts today offering 4,300. Natwest will not pay out everything, they say they will only pay the interest on the loan which we have already paid. Still leaves us with about 800 to pay it off. Not sure whether we should accept or not because it still leaves a balance which would not have been there had they not put charges on. Daughter is delighted and wants to accept as she can now pay off most of her debts. Anyone have any views on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not sure that I have worked it out correctly, thats the problem. It was very complicated but we knew that she had paid all of the capital back so we just asked for a settlement figure and quoted that amount. I'm really no good at maths and was not sure which way to go with it. Because of that I think we are going to accept the cheque and call it a day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well done



try ringing them and saying u want the full amount if they dont increase the offer then accept it if youre not sure on the correctfigures.......................Its worth a try u might get a few extra ££££sssssss




Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Scott for advice. Talked to daughter (whose money it is) and she just wants to take what they have offered. Personally I would have gone on for full amount but I think she is desperate to get it all sorted. She is going to pay off her loan now and then we'll start another claim for the money she has been charged in the the last 6 weeks (400 +). Thanks to all who have support us during this time, its been hard, but worth it in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally understandable. You have to do whats right for you. The impetious of youth. Ahh long forgotten on my behalf. Tell her to enjoy her win.

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.



Good things come to he who waits



Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Hi all, we have sent back the Part 18 to Cobbetts, recorded delivery, and have just received AQ from the Court. I have a quick question if anyone can help. Natwest "forced" my daughter to take out a loan to cover her overdraft which occurred because of the bank charges. They told her that if she did not take out a loan, they would take her to Court. The loan was with an APR of something in the region of 29.9!! I am not sure of the exact figures but the loan was for around 2,800 and she has already made payments in this amount. She seems to think that she will have to repay about 6,000? Anyway, can I ask the Court, along with the claim for repayment of charges, to order the bank to cancel the loan seeing as she has already paid the 2,800 of the original amount? It seems a bit unfair that if we get the full amount of charges refunded, 2,500, she will still have to pay back a further 3,000 on the loan anyway unless they cancel it. Any help please guys?

Hi anjipl. I see you replied to Cobbetts Part 18 request for info. I have just received them. Are you able to help me with this or provide a copy of your reply (taking out any private info you don't want disclosed). I need help with (1) specify all facts to support "penalty charges are irrecoverable at Common Law" (2) specify all facts to support "charges are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bradachin, this is the letter I sent. I hope it helps. To be honest I cannot believe that Cobbetts are still pursuing this line of intimidation. Good luck with your claim and do not ever cave in, you will get your money in the end.

"In response to your request for further information and clarification as requested for by Cobbetts acting on behalf of NatWest Bank PLC, pursuant to your CPR Part 18 Request, please find below my responses to your part 18 enquiry.


Please understand that it is clear to me and to the Court that you are asking questions which are already within your knowledge and as such serve merely as an attempt to obstruct and intimidate legitimate claimants acting in person.


For your information and the information of the Court I state here that one copy of my schedule of charges was sent to your client on two previous occasions, 1st October 2006 and 23rd October 2006.


1. This response is served pursuit to CPR 18


The Response



2. In response to Para 2.1 and 2.2 (a)(B)© of defendants request please find herewith a break down of the charges applied to the claimants account. This includes the claimants account number sort code and the dates the charges were applied and the reason.


3. In response to Para 2.2 © of the defendants request, the claimant has already explained why the charges should not have been applied but for the avoidance of doubt the claimant alleges that the charges are Penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor co Ltd [1915] AC 79.along with Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963 It was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses.


4. In response to Para 2.3(a) Yes, the claimant should not have been charged an amount above the true administrate cost incurred by the respondents, (B) I am contesting the legality of your client’s charges and need to see a breakdown of your client’s charge structure to ascertain exactly what level of disproportionate charging has taken place. It is my belief that they are disproportionate and as such contrary to common law and consumer regulations. © the claimant should have been charged the true administrative cost,


5. In response to Para 2.3(d) The Respondents have asked what the claimant should have been charged, to answer this the claimant will need a break down of the administrative cost incurred by the defendant in applying the said charges.


6. In response to the further question made by the defendant the claimant will not be able to respond to these until the claimant has disclosure and inspection of documents as the claimant will be requiring a copy of his contract with the respondents


7. If the defendant requires any further information, the claimant will be happy to provide this once the discloser of documents/information has been dealt with by the court. "

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...