Claiming on a Business account? Lets join forces?

[TUTTSI]

In light of the recent Barclays business charges cases that were thrown out by the Judges and costs to the claimants. Is there any way forward for these claims. My o/h has an HSBC one already stayed at court since the onset of the test case.

[MARTIN3030]

charges cover 1996 - 2001

have submitted hardship application, received response that they are not dealing with claim due to not falling under scope of UCTR

 

 

They are right of course,business accounts fall outside the remit of the consumer law.

However,your charges fall within the earlier periods pre 2002,in which Justice Smith was unable to rule on as to whether Natwest historical terms and conditions were capable of being a penalty under common law one way or the other.

So the door remains open.

 

 

The banks will say that they are not obliged to deal with complaints under the waiver agreement.

Since the waiver does not apply to Business accounts,you can argue that they should therefore look at your complaint as you are relying, or will be seeking to rely,not on consumer regulations,but common law.

[MARTIN3030]

In light of the recent Barclays business charges cases that were thrown out by the Judges and costs to the claimants. Is there any way forward for these claims. My o/h has an HSBC one already stayed at court since the onset of the test case.

 

 

The Barclays cases cannot be seen as a foregone conclusion.

Whilst they have won 2 or 3,for the greater part,they have been intimidating claimants by threats of costs,and referring to their victories-and claimants worried about this have voluntarily withdrew save costs.

 

Each case is different,and thought should be given to the dates of charges.

 

Barclays have won by citing that the Judgement handed down in the second stage of the test case in relation to charges being capable of penalties under common law was upheld in their favour.

This was on a ruling based on a single clause in Barclays customer agreement condition 7.

 

It is accepted that this was a major blow for claimants seeking to rely on common law alone.

 

However it is not the end of the road.

Cag is actively looking at additional spheres which will seek to swing the balance-I cannot disclose them for obvious reasons but would say that we are quite confident that the smile on Barclays barristers faces will be short lived.

 

Hopefully as our work progresses within these areas we will see the results of this work begin to bear fruit.

As a business claimant myself,who has experienced first hand the frustrations and need for some clarity,I can assure you that I understand everyones feelings of wanting some wayforward.I just ask you to bear with us.

 

 

 

Can you tell me specifically what action you began/or took with Natwest ?

Did you send a prelim or letter before action ?

 

I will be happy to assist you with this claim but am tied up intensly with my own for the next week or so.

Edited July 19, 2009 by MARTIN3030

[TUTTSI]

 

Can you tell me specifically what action you began/or took with Natwest ?

Did you send a prelim or letter before action ?

 

I will be happy to assist you with this claim but am tied up intensly with my own for the next week or so.

 

Thanks Martin for your responses on this and hope that you make some good inrodes in your case and I look forward to hearing some good news for a change.

 

I was not sure you were referring to me in relation to the above on this bit of your post, but the claim was with HSBC not NATWEST.

 

My o/h had followed CAGS templated letters on business claim and had done the POC without the UTTCR's.

 

Tuttsi

[MARTIN3030]

Sorry.... I am getting my Tinks mixed up with my Tuttsi ha ha.

In the case of HSBC I am not 100% on the reasons as to why judgement was upheld in their favour on common law.

 

As we have said,the position is to look at why the ruling was made and what terms were looked at specifically.

Can you tell me the dates of your charges ?

And the name of your account ?

[gaz2006]

The Barclays cases cannot be seen as a foregone conclusion.

Whilst they have won 2 or 3,for the greater part,they have been intimidating claimants by threats of costs,and referring to their victories-and claimants worried about this have voluntarily withdrew save costs.

 

Each case is different,and thought should be given to the dates of charges.

 

Barclays have won by citing that the Judgement handed down in the second stage of the test case in relation to charges being capable of penalties under common law was upheld in their favour.

This was on a ruling based on a single clause in Barclays customer agreement condition 7.

 

It is accepted that this was a major blow for claimants seeking to rely on common law alone.

 

However it is not the end of the road.

Cag is actively looking at additional spheres which will seek to swing the balance-I cannot disclose them for obvious reasons but would say that we are quite confident that the smile on Barclays barristers faces will be short lived.

 

Hopefully as our work progresses within these areas we will see the results of this work begin to bear fruit.

As a business claimant myself,who has experienced first hand the frustrations and need for some clarity,I can assure you that I understand everyones feelings of wanting some wayforward.I just ask you to bear with us.

 

 

 

Can you tell me specifically what action you began/or took with Natwest ?

Did you send a prelim or letter before action ?

 

I will be happy to assist you with this claim but am tied up intensly with my own for the next week or so.

 

 

Dear Martin

If I can chirp in am helping friend with business claim wih nasty westy claim is £8500 if claiming back interest they charged would be £12000 ie £8500 includes interest at 8% they have offered £4500 saying they wont pay back any interest etc but will pay this as goodwill gesture lol ..

claim relates mainly to pre 6 years ie limitation act applies and ive quoted section 32 etc please advise which u think would be best as nasty westy on sticky wicket as they can still be judged penalty charges

 

1 accept £4500

2 start claim in court for £8500

3 start claim in court for £12000

4 go to ombudsman as they do accept business claims but arent they waste of space ?

anyone else wanting to give opinion please chirp in regards G

[TINK660]

Martin

 

I followed the prelim and lba stage with Nat West and then submitted a hardship application - their response has been the "get lost - you're getting nothing all the way down the line" First it was the statute of limitations issue which I argued and now the UTCCR issue - I am very reluctant to proceed further at this stage until something is clarified on this forum on any new developments as this to us would not exactly be a life changing amount of money but it would sure make us comfortable and not having to worry about money all the time. I really hope that work progresses on this quickly and that all the business claimants can again start to claim what is rightfully theirs, including me! However the clock is ticking and the interest is building so the wait isnt quite so bad!

THanks for your help Martin

[MARTIN3030]

Dear Martin

If I can chirp in am helping friend with business claim wih nasty westy claim is £8500 if claiming back interest they charged would be £12000 ie £8500 includes interest at 8% they have offered £4500 saying they wont pay back any interest etc but will pay this as goodwill gesture lol ..

claim relates mainly to pre 6 years ie limitation act applies and ive quoted section 32 etc please advise which u think would be best as nasty westy on sticky wicket as they can still be judged penalty charges

 

1 accept £4500

2 start claim in court for £8500

3 start claim in court for £12000

4 go to ombudsman as they do accept business claims but arent they waste of space ?

anyone else wanting to give opinion please chirp in regards G

 

 

What years are your charges covering ?

 

Stat sec69 interest is at a courts discretion-they are right to say they dont have to pay this -especially since theres no claim filed yet.

Who has made the offer is it Cobbetts or Natwest themselves ?

 

What you need to consider here is this......

Why do you think they would make a 50% offer now if they knew that you would have no chance in Court?

 

Lets also remember that this is standard practice for RBS/Natwest-it usually ALWAYS starts with a 50% offer.

I am not saying that this is a dead cert-but in 99% of cases where 50% offers have been made -they have been upped and settled once claims have been filed.

Lets not forget that many people have taken the 50% or else been too scared to file a claim-they know that...but so do WE.

Its for you to decide yourself-and only you can make that decision.

Have they given a timescale for acceptance ?

Can you tell what you did to get the offer ?

Can you give a name of who is dealing ?

Just initials will do...it may tell me something

[Ibsys]

Further to this item about section 77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, I issued Lloyds with a section 77/78 by recorded delivery and they did not comply. I reported this to the Trading Standards Dept as it refered to a loan in my case, and they confirmed that where the lender had not complied with the request, the loan would become unenforceable as written in the Act. I reported it to the OFT and they are going to persue it. The Act also says the copies should be legible and what Lloyds sent me was a copy held by the insurance company (loan insured) and large parts of it were blanked out...illegal! In my case Lloyds issued me with a default notice in the sum of £1650 where two loan payments were missed (£273.50 each) and the loan had £3000 paid early which had not been taken account of. Lloyds had also added to the loan without my knowlege. Whilst I calculate the loan then to be 13 months ahead, they have not reduced the payments or adjusted the last payment date.

[MARTIN3030]

Martin

 

I followed the prelim and lba stage with Nat West and then submitted a hardship application - their response has been the "get lost - you're getting nothing all the way down the line" First it was the statute of limitations issue which I argued and now the UTCCR issue - I am very reluctant to proceed further at this stage until something is clarified on this forum on any new developments as this to us would not exactly be a life changing amount of money but it would sure make us comfortable and not having to worry about money all the time. I really hope that work progresses on this quickly and that all the business claimants can again start to claim what is rightfully theirs, including me! However the clock is ticking and the interest is building so the wait isnt quite so bad!

THanks for your help Martin

 

 

Ok thanks for clarifying that.

I understand you perfectly,and given the amounts involved the risks of costs exposure should be a worry since its clearly out of SCT.

The hardship scenario is out of the equasion,although under the Banking Codes they would have to address any issues that were immediate such as looking at your financial situation if you were repaying loans or whatever.

It matters not as to whether you are a business customer OR individual current account holder in that regard.

 

Limitation would be no problem-the case law of Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council has proved more than adequate to go there.

 

I think it would do no harm to look into the charges as being capable of penalties based on the Historical ruling.

I think I can help you on that one,and as I said if you can give me a week or two to sort out my own,then I will give you a lift with it.

I am quite clear on whats needed and can explain more to you so you can get the jist of things,and what I am saying here-later.

[gaz2006]

What years are your charges covering ?

 

Stat sec69 interest is at a courts discretion-they are right to say they dont have to pay this -especially since theres no claim filed yet.

Who has made the offer is it Cobbetts or Natwest themselves ?

 

What you need to consider here is this......

Why do you think they would make a 50% offer now if they knew that you would have no chance in Court?

 

Lets also remember that this is standard practice for RBS/Natwest-it usually ALWAYS starts with a 50% offer.

I am not saying that this is a dead cert-but in 99% of cases where 50% offers have been made -they have been upped and settled once claims have been filed.

Lets not forget that many people have taken the 50% or else been too scared to file a claim-they know that...but so do WE.

Its for you to decide yourself-and only you can make that decision.

Have they given a timescale for acceptance ?

Can you tell what you did to get the offer ?

Can you give a name of who is dealing ?

Just initials will do...it may tell me something

 

Thanks Martin for comin back gto me in answer to your questions here we go

Nat West made the offer hasnt got cobbetts involved yet as at writing stage

No timescale for acceptance

I followed scripts on here re claim ie already had his statements for his business going back to 1990 approx worked out what charges i could help him with send letter and got this offer ...

as to who is dealing havent got initial with me but will post them later if its helpful but just looks like standard letter to me

my friend if successful will of course as i have done donate too site .............. my gut feeling was start a claim at court but due to size it wont be small claims ie £8000 plus or £12000 if i claim what interest rate they charged ie 29.5% but not sure if that would work as havent seen any successes but they have deprived a person of money and due to nasty westys terms and conditions not being right they could be pursued with penalty claim and maybe as true costs didnt represent fees charged a claim on repricosity basis not sure if spelt that right regards Gaz

[MARTIN3030]

Ok did you tell them that you would be relying on section 32c of the limitation act ?

They may be assuming that you will accept after they try to say its outside the 6.Just a thought.

There is new guidance being issued on CAG for claiming restitution and a higher rate but it is still in its early stages.

In 2006/7 there were some successes with users claiming compound interest but equally it did not find favour with many more Judges-and so we advised against unless the member was fully understanding and competent to argue for it.

 

A friend of mine recently had some success after a very similar scenario to yours-although in their case the claim had been filed.

The other alternative is an amended LBA which points out some key elements in your claim-specifically the capability of the charges as being enforceable under common law.

It lets them know that you are more aware than what they THINK you are...and gives them something to further come back to you with.

As a preliminary step-theres nothing to lose here.

[gaz2006]

Ok did you tell them that you would be relying on section 32c of the limitation act ?

They may be assuming that you will accept after they try to say its outside the 6.Just a thought.

There is new guidance being issued on CAG for claiming restitution and a higher rate but it is still in its early stages.

In 2006/7 there were some successes with users claiming compound interest but equally it did not find favour with many more Judges-and so we advised against unless the member was fully understanding and competent to argue for it.

 

A friend of mine recently had some success after a very similar scenario to yours-although in their case the claim had been filed.

The other alternative is an amended LBA which points out some key elements in your claim-specifically the capability of the charges as being enforceable under common law.

It lets them know that you are more aware than what they THINK you are...and gives them something to further come back to you with.

As a preliminary step-theres nothing to lose here.

 

Dear Martin

Yes quoted s32c to them ...not 100% up on higher rate restitution but maybe you can guide me to links that will give me the thesis rather than the knowledge ....

you mention "enforceable in common law " where can I get info on that ? As a business claim apart from Nat West T & Cs not being correct didnt know there was anything else to use that would be good

 

i awit your learned reply regards Gaz

[MARTIN3030]

Ok Gaz-the common law is still reliant because Smith ruled that he could not be certain as to whether Natwests historical terms were capable of charges being penalties or not.Common law was the main point of reliant case law for business claims as you probably know.

So when Smith ruled in favour of the banks on this-it effectively closed the door on business claims being able to rely on it.

However,there are arguements for claimants who can show that their terms and conditions either differed from,or were not the same as those terms and conditions looked at by Smith which were for personal accounts for individuals and joint.

There is some evidence which suggests that in the 90s the big 4 banks ran their business accounts in much the same way as eachother-but there were differences in terms and conditions which made business and personal accounts as different.

You are probably aware that as news of the OFT investigations and the reclaims for charges got underway-almost all the banks changed their terms and conditions to try to mask their dirty deeds,and also to cover themselves for the future.

They probably did not anticipate that Smith would be seeking to go back as far as 2001,but this was needed to determine historical terms and conditions-or if they were also relevant-which turned out to be the case.

 

So in a nutshell-post 2002 Natwest charges were considered as questionable under common law-which means its still possible for those with accounts before this to challenge.

 

For everyone else with a business claim against Natwest (or for anyone else)

The crux of the matter is looking at their own terms and conditions,and reconciling them to the ones Smith looked at in their particular banks case,to see if there are distinctions.

 

I hope thats a little clearer.

 

You are well placed to look at a number of options since you have not filed yet.

Those with stayed cases who were reliant on Common law alone will need to look at this and decide if they want to amend the Pocs of claim-the problem is that the new strats and Pocs that are being rolled out to go down different avenues all require different pre action protocols,therefore its not so simple for those with existing claims in the court system to introduce them now-although it is not impossible.

The details of the restitution strats are on the cag front page which you see when you sign in.

[gaz2006]

Thanks for the update im sure other business claimants will benefit from your help as I have will take a look at restitution on front page havent seen it before regards Gaz

[gaz2006]

sorry being stupid martin but had a look for restitution on first page can you guide me too it por favor

[MARTIN3030]

OK GIVE ME MINUTE i WILL GIVE YOU A LINK TO IT.

[MARTIN3030]

read here too;

 

Bank charges reclaim case takes new twist

[MARTIN3030]

The Consumer Forums - Banks face deluge of charges claims and massive liability

[gaz2006]

Thanks Martin thats very interesting what u think about mentioning this in potential poc to nasty westy ????? regards Gaz

[Ibsys]

Banks-Lloyds-what about this?

We have 8 issues of dispute with Lloyds all connected. One of the disputes includes insurance. Lloyds have a policy of refunding premiums where the insurance is not appropriate or unusable. (£2000 in my case) I have a contract for £32000 and have agreement from the client about the payment system to give us better cash flow. Without the debackle with Lloyds (cost so far £50000) we would just do the job. We need the refund of the insurance refund (£2000)NOW to save 3 jobs and the contract. I found out tonight there was not one contract of £32000 to be had but 8 (EIGHT) = £280,000. Now they have said no we can't have our refund. They just don't know what damage they are doing!

[Rhia]

Please take a look at my attempt at business charges from 1988/92

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/business-claims-bank-charges/206046-rhias-attempt-1990s-charges.html

[MARTIN3030]

Thanks Martin thats very interesting what u think about mentioning this in potential poc to nasty westy ????? regards Gaz

 

 

If you are doing a claim from scratch Gaz then this is a good way to go.

The important thing is that you are geared up and determined to push it all the way.

[gaz2006]

If you are doing a claim from scratch Gaz then this is a good way to go.

The important thing is that you are geared up and determined to push it all the way.

 

as sum in total over 5000 do you think i should put in as 2 claims first do one ie under 5000 and after hopefully settled do other one so they cant claim fcourt fees ..

[Rhia]

Gaz you need an expert on this but in some cases they can still claim costs in SC court. I think we are quite scared of Fast Track but I think you can limit costs. Need advice here though but i have come across this in my personal experience and can't quite remember what it all means.