Josa v Natwest ~ 6 years with Contractual Interest

[Josamolly]

LOL... it would have taken me weeks to come up with that!!.. Thanks Westy, i have come to the last lap of my claim, and hopefully will get it settled,or nearly settled this coming week.. I will definitely posture and pose over the fax machine next week to see what, if anything, comes back..

[Josamolly]

Hi Jos,

 

like Glenn i wouldnt say they have you over a barrel but of course they are solicitors and know how to scare a claimant into thinking they are far superior to you and in court they would swallow you alive.

I think they are testing the waters to see if they can see any ripples, and to be honest i think your boat is swaying a little bit....

 

Your not bloody wrong mate... feel like a rubber dinghi in a force 10 gale.

 

 

If it were me Jos to be perfectly honest i would weigh up just what that money could do for you and if you decide its too important to risk then accept it. Me myself i think i would be inclined to go over the maths and scrutinise it, ammend it and get it checked to be sure you are very accurate.

Then id send a little ripple over to cobbetts and show them your ship is a little stronger than they first estimated. (sorry i have no idea where the boat theme came from )

As long as your sure about the figures then you cant be pulled down for that (and it seems thats what they are relying on). There is passage from a well known judge that sums up legal and court affairs very well, not that i can remember it off the top of my head buts its along the lines of, the actual law has nothing to do with who wins or loses, its a game of bluff, of chance, at first your repulsed by this and after a whie you just feel slightly sick by it all.

Cobbetts are just trying their hand Jos, of course thats what they do, thats what their good at, they have to try dont they. Get your house in order and continue im not sure why but this time it semms they are not so confident of the outcome of this case, i would make the most it

 

Johnny

 

Appreciate your comments Johnny.. I have been thinking about the quick response from Cobbets and something doesn't fit properly.

 

Faxed my whole hand over to them Thursday lunchtime, and by Friday morning special delivery they had a cheque to me... so what was it in my reply to the defence/AQ/Draft orders that they didn't like the look of ??

[mcuth]

You can definitely reject the settlement on the basis of unreasonable conditions. However, I'm not sure about going back with alternative settlement offers of £7k with conf/£5.5k without conf, as I think that makes your position look weaker.

 

I'm presuming that £1.5k difference is the CI element? If so, and they try the same offer without confidentiality, then you're basically going to be arguing over CI only. That'd be a much tougher decision to make.

 

I do think that they're worried about the reply to defence, AQ, draft orders, etc.. and they're using every way they can to try and avoid having that stuff examined. The fact they're including charges pre-6years (even as a "GOGW"), shows that, I think. In my case, the majority of my charges are pre-6years, so they have a lot more to get away with by arguing Limitations....that said though, if I get past the LA hurdle, I have a feeling that I'd be receiving a letter very quickly

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[bobandsuzzi]

Faxed my whole hand over to them Thursday lunchtime, and by Friday morning special delivery they had a cheque to me... so what was it in my reply to the defence/AQ/Draft orders that they didn't like the look of ??

as you know josa, i got the same letter as you

 

i emailed them on wednesday, and cheque arrived friday

 

bobandsuzzi

[Josamolly]

You can definitely reject the settlement on the basis of unreasonable conditions. However, I'm not sure about going back with alternative settlement offers of £7k with conf/£5.5k without conf, as I think that makes your position look weaker.

 

I'm presuming that £1.5k difference is the CI element? If so, and they try the same offer without confidentiality, then you're basically going to be arguing over CI only. That'd be a much tougher decision to make.

 

I do think that they're worried about the reply to defence, AQ, draft orders, etc.. and they're using every way they can to try and avoid having that stuff examined. The fact they're including charges pre-6years (even as a "GOGW"), shows that, I think. In my case, the majority of my charges are pre-6years, so they have a lot more to get away with by arguing Limitations....that said though, if I get past the LA hurdle, I have a feeling that I'd be receiving a letter very quickly

 

Cheers

 

Michael

 

No Michael, i made the figs up to be honest.. the CI content is about 4.5k.. I will have a look at penning a reply, using some of Westy's wording, and seeing what happens..

 

Bobandsuzzi, what email address did you use??

[progenic7]

Jos,

 

what cobbetts seem to be offering is only what you are ging to get when you get to court of course.

They are not doing you some kind of favour as the court will order the s69 8% stat as a matter of course in your case.

So what are cobbetts worried about huh, could it be if they have to go to court they are going to be exposed to show the costs ? they could never let this happen could they.

As far as i can see you have nothing to lose, ok the judge may not go with the CI argument but so what ?

At the end of the day you are going to win on the charges front, you will get the 8% anyway and you will get the court fee back...so ?

Hang in there Jos and stand your ground i have the feeling if you do then you may get a bit more than a little extra

 

im sure you know the classic trick used loads by cobbetts ? paying the charges in the account hours before the court apperance, leaving you ony with the CI argument, so be aware of their tactics as this would be pretty bad.

 

Dont let them get to you Jos

[Josamolly]

Jos,

 

what cobbetts seem to be offering is only what you are ging to get when you get to court of course.

They are not doing you some kind of favour as the court will order the s69 8% stat as a matter of course in your case.

So what are cobbetts worried about huh, could it be if they have to go to court they are going to be exposed to show the costs ? they could never let this happen could they.

As far as i can see you have nothing to lose, ok the judge may not go with the CI argument but so what ?

At the end of the day you are going to win on the charges front, you will get the 8% anyway and you will get the court fee back...so ?

Hang in there Jos and stand your ground i have the feeling if you do then you may get a bit more than a little extra

 

im sure you know the classic trick used loads by cobbetts ? paying the charges in the account hours before the court apperance, leaving you ony with the CI argument, so be aware of their tactics as this would be pretty bad.

 

Dont let them get to you Jos

 

 

Thanks Johnny, Michael, Westy, Glenn, Giz.. and everyone else.....

 

I can see what you are saying.. At the moment i have grounds to turn it down anyway on the 'conditions' front, so won't expose myself to costs as it is a legitimate reason..

 

At the same time, hanging in there for a few more days as i won't be any worse off anyway should i end up submitting my AQ.. Charges + 8% is what i will get anyway..

 

Jos

[bobandsuzzi]

jos

i emailedthem at [email protected]

 

and this is what i put in it

 

Could you please confirm that you are preparing the statements of evidence for filing and serving on or before 16/03/2007, regarding the above claim, on behalf of your client, National Westminster Bank.

 

It would be helpful to establish that your client is going to defend this

claim and come to court on 30/03/2007, to prove that these penalty charges are not disproportionate, and are infact a true estimate of adminisrative costs, and are not unjust enrichment

 

If this is not the case, then please advise me by return, to avoid wasting

anymore of mine or the courts time, and settle this claim forthwith

bob

[Josamolly]

jos

i emailedthem at [email protected]

 

and this is what i put in it

 

 

bob

 

And did they reply forthwith??

[Josamolly]

the PoC that i submited is on post #20.. not sure about business accounts but on the face of it they look ok to me..

[bobandsuzzi]

And did they reply forthwith??

no, nothing,they arent that polite, but they did send me a nice cheque next day, unfortunately it wasnt enough,

bob

[progenic7]

Scott..

 

dont send that just yet man...

 

to be honest after reading through it, it seems to be incoherant and certainly doesnt bring a legally recognisable claim to the court.

I know this is the civil county court but you still have to have a case thats makes a proper legal complaint.

 

am i right in thinking your main body of argument is based on 100 year old case law and nothing else ? Upon what authority are you bringing it to court ?

 

i dont mean to bring you down or pull your PoC apart in any way, but i certainly would not send that the way it is scott. The defence would be laughing all the way to a strike out. When you file a small claims case you have to make a proper legal argument under the law, and yes case law is important for judges when trying to decide something, that same case law isnt the basis of the claim, its just a guide for the judge.

 

read though this forum and legal sites ect and get your arguments straight in your head before you file, sloppy mistakes are easily avoided if you take your time and dont rush, i promise you the money will still be there in another couple of weeks.

 

Best of luck

 

Johnny

[Josamolly]

ahhhhh!! hate posts being edited later on...

 

So what should the wording be then Johnny? Scott is probably in the same boat as many and although he knows what he wants to say, the templates have been used to get their points across, and rewriting one 'blind' so to speak surely would be worse than using the template.

[mcuth]

Johnny

 

to be honest after reading through it, it seems to be incoherant and certainly doesnt bring a legally recognisable claim to the court.

I know this is the civil county court but you still have to have a case thats makes a proper legal complaint.

 

With the greatest of respect, Scott's PoC are but a slight variation on the template PoC here (with just the UTCCR removed, as they don't apply to a business account - see suggested PoC for business accounts here). These PoC have successfully served thousands of claimants well (including myself), and I'd suggest that if you think they're not good enough, you start a separate thread to discuss how they can be improved.....

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[progenic7]

michael,

 

i really hope i am blown out of the water with this..please do but can you really bring a legal claim only based on case law ?

whats the authority of the claim then the case law ?

 

ok i saw the reference to supply of goods and services but thats only if its a service, and of course that wont hold up (IMHO)

 

but as far as i could see that was the only basis of claim, so thats fine then is it ?

 

i hope that is the case because then the whole thing will be so much easier as the case law i have could turn the entire legal system on its head if thats all you need to make a case.Im not trying in any way to be argumentative this is just my way of clarification, but am i now right in thinking then that you dont need any legal authority ie statute, bills, acts ect only a case reference ?

 

 

Johnny

[mcuth]

Johnny

i really hope i am blown out of the water with this..please do but can you really bring a legal claim only based on case law ?

whats the authority of the claim then the case law ?

 

ok i saw the reference to supply of goods and services but thats only if its a service, and of course that wont hold up (IMHO)

 

but as far as i could see that was the only basis of claim, so thats fine then is it ?

 

i hope that is the case because then the whole thing will be so much easier as the case law i have could turn the entire legal system on its head if thats all you need to make a case.Im not trying in any way to be argumentative this is just my way of clarification, but am i now right in thinking then that you dont need any legal authority ie statute, bills, acts ect only a case reference ?

 

As far as I'm concerned, the PoC as stated in our templates are a completely legitimate basis for bringing a claim - AFAIK, not one has been thrown out on the grounds of not disclosing reasonable grounds to bring a claim.

 

Of course, the templates serve as a good grounding for a basic claim - there are those of us that have used them for basic claims, and indeed have expanded on them as cases have become more detailed (pre-6years, CI, loan interest, etc.. etc..). BTW, the ones from MSE aren't even as detailed as ours!

 

I'm sure that if they were too vague, some fancy bank lawyer would've jumped up and down on them and had the cases thrown out. I'll confess that I'm not sure what the exact legalities are according to CPR, but I would suggest that going on the experience of thousands of successful users here, the PoC suit very well - otherwise we'd have seen a whole load of very very very disappointed people.

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[progenic7]

(edit)

 

just deleted two pages of writing after realising im the only person thats bothered about doing things right.

lets just agree to disagree

 

johnny

[mcuth]

(edit)

 

just deleted two pages of writing after realising im the only person thats bothered about doing things right.

lets just agree to disagree

 

The 2 pages of writing wouldn't have been in the right place anyway Johnny

 

We welcome constructive discussion, that's how this site works and why we've become so successful - don't "just agree to disagree" if you have thoughts, experience, suggestions that give you grounds for thinking something can be improved or isn't right.

 

Like I said above - if you think the PoC templates need adjusting, then start a thread so that your suggestions can be discussed properly and we don't take Josa's NatWest thread off track any further than it already has been

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[scott150663]

wow

ive started something here,ive looked through other templates and am sticking with the business template that has been successfully used many before,thanks for all your comments on this matter. i will let you all know what the outcome of using this poc as it seems there are different points of view see post 106

[Josamolly]

Oh well, i will continue to fax my stuff over.. that seems to help matters along quite nicely...

 

[bobandsuzzi]

josa,

pm me your reply, as you promised, i still havent decided what to do

bob

[Josamolly]

Ok.Letter ready to go first thing tomorrow....

 

But.. what if i send it and they come back just dropping the confidentiality clause?? Now thinking about waiting to fax it at the last minute...

 

but i would like to get it sorted this week if at all possible....gggrrrr

[Josamolly]

Right, took the decision to sale with the wind... faxed it over and guess what!!!!!

 

No reply... booooooooooooo...

 

Just see what happens now.. Friday is very close so who knows...

[bobandsuzzi]

josa

i emailed l burgoine on monday, and reply came back---out of office till thursday---and to contact rachel mcfarlane, she turned out to be a nasty piece of work, some good that to me

so i then faxed the email at 9.30 am

heard nothing by 2.30, so i rang her, and quess what, they hadnt even taken the message off the machine

so i would ring them tomorrow if i were you, and tell them their time is nearly up

what have you said,? you didnt pm me

 

Bob:-o

[Josamolly]

Hi Bob.. sorry for not sending it over.. I will do so as soon as i can... Won't bother calling them.. they will have it by now, and in any case if they don't respond positively i will sale into court on Friday with my AQ..