Claiming on a Business account? Lets join forces?

[steven4064]

It therefore seems that the key to this is to establish a breach of contract.

Absolutely right. I think we should each look at the T&Cs for our own accounts - you can usually get the ones in force when you opened the account by writing to customer services. I have Nat West ones for 2001.

[steven4064]

Nat West 2001 Business T&Cs say

You must always ensure that you have enough cleared money in your account(s) by 3:300pm on the working weekday before: you give out cheques; standing orders or direct debits are due to be paid...

However, if this condition is not met, no charge is added to the account. When, however, the cheque, SO or DD comes to be paid, the charge is added. Because the charge is levied when the payment comes to be made and not when the condition is breached, it is not a penalty.

 

They also say

Overdrafts are only availabe for business customers who have previously arranged these with the bank ... If you do not have an arrangement, we may charge you an extra fee and interest...for unarranged overdrafts... Cheques should not be written when there are insufficient funds in your account

An unarranged overdraft doesn't appear to be a breach of a condition. The writing of a cheque when there were insufficient funds would be a breach of the condition but the charge is applied when the cheque comes to be paid not when the chaeque is written so the charge is not directly related to the breach and is not a penalty.

[kashfat]

Hi would anyone be able to provide a letter that i could use to ask the judge to lift a stay from the courts for a business acccount, i ha d got right to the end and the bailiff went in then the banks asked for a stay. any help would be great.

[steven4064]

You have to make an application using a form N244 - it will cost you £70.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Steven,

 

Is there anyway you could get to me, maybe by e-mail, those Natwest terms and conditions?

 

TheyrCriminals

[steven4064]

Here

[TheyrCriminals]

Thanks Steven,

 

Im now going to do some reading!

 

TheyrCriminals

[TheyrCriminals]

Steven,

 

These business terms are for direct business banking, i.e telephone banking. We need the terms and conditions for NatWest's general business accounts. In actual fact there's nothing in here about their charges.

 

TheyrCriminals

Edited June 15, 2008 by TheyrCriminals

[photoman]

I've realised that I'll probably receive a few requests for the Lloyds TSB stuff I have. Also some of you may also have some stuff of your own you may wish to share?

 

So I've created a group album on photobucket for Lloyds TSB Business stuff.

You can go here to download the Information.

So far, I have posted a booklet I received from Lloyds outlining their charges, and describing under which circumstances they become payable.

I don't know if this could be considered as T&C's or not ?

But it does indicate under which circumstances they declare such charges becoming payable, and the rates. Interestingly, they are described within here as being in relation to "fees"...... yet when they arose, the letters I received implied that they were with regards to "costs" incurred in dealing with such matters (see pages Seven & eight)

 

So, the description of the charges and the reasons given within differ from how they were presented to you on such occasions, and also how they have probably tried to justify them since commencing a claim.

So this could possibly be used as evidence of concealment, and/or indicate how the method of presentation led to your conceding to them whilst acting under mistake.

 

Anyway, here's the link. The folder is also open, so if any of you have anything of your own that is relevant then feel free to upload it into the group album.

 

Regards

 

PM

 

The link:

 

LloydsTSB Business stuff - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

[photoman]

Nat West 2001 Business T&Cs sayHowever, if this condition is not met, no charge is added to the account. When, however, the cheque, SO or DD comes to be paid, the charge is added. Because the charge is levied when the payment comes to be made and not when the condition is breached, it is not a penalty.

 

They also sayAn unarranged overdraft doesn't appear to be a breach of a condition. The writing of a cheque when there were insufficient funds would be a breach of the condition but the charge is applied when the cheque comes to be paid not when the chaeque is written so the charge is not directly related to the breach and is not a penalty.

 

Could this be considered as "cloaking" of the penalties ?

[kashfat]

Thanks Steven, any advice on what i can put on it??

[steven4064]

Could this be considered as "cloaking" of the penalties ?

Well, I think so, but judge Stevens thinks differently

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Steven,

 

Having read through some of Lloyds TSB's past business terms and conditions, thanks to Photoman, it is interesting to note that with Lloyds TSB the charge is applied at the same time as when the 'offence' occurs.

 

TheyrCriminals

[steven4064]

Can you post up an example

[photoman]

How about this ?

 

 

PM

[photoman]

Then they very clearly say in here that the charge is to cover the additional costs THEY incurred in dealing with the matter:

 

 

 

[steven4064]

OK, so it's (suposedly) to cover their costs and it's payable in direct consequence of an event. Is the event a breach of a contract condition?

[photoman]

At the top of the page it states:

 

 

Overdraft Limit : £5000

 

 

From the Oxford dictionary:

 

limit

• noun 1 a point beyond which something does not or may not pass. 2 a restriction on the size or amount of something. 3 the furthest extent of one’s endurance.

 

• verb (limited, limiting) set or serve as a limit to.

 

— PHRASES be the limit informal be intolerable. off limits out of bounds. within limits up to a point.

 

— DERIVATIVES limiter noun limitless adjective.

 

— ORIGIN Latin limes ‘boundary, frontier’.

 

 

 

 

Sounds like a Term and condition set upon the account to me ?

ie: A contractual agreement not to be exceeded.

[steven4064]

Maybe. Ideally, you would like a condition that said "You must not exceed you overdraft limit"

[photoman]

Maybe. Ideally, you would like a condition that said "You must not exceed you overdraft limit"

 

Agreed.

The terminology could maybe be construed as a bit ambiguous, and if before a judge it would perhaps come down to their interpretation. However, I do believe that they would make a reasonable interpretation of the evidence and agree with such arguments.

 

Do bear in mind, that I am only presently posting this stuff up, and having this debate for the benefit of others, as my own claim relating to my Business account is satisfactorily settled.

So hopefully others yet to complete the process will have use of what I have posted and am making available.

 

However....

 

I do still have a couple of personal account claims yet to deal with, and as these pre-date the UTCCR, then they will need to be raised and contested upon the issues of penalty at common law.

 

...... and I DO actually have some very real, very implicitly worded actual signed T&C's from way back, which VERY CLEARLY DO state that I am not permitted to exceed any stated and agreed limit upon the accounts..... and then some letters subsequently received upon exceeding such limits, which then present the exorbitant resultant charges as arising due to their costs involved.

I am unwilling to publicly post them up here at the moment until matters are further progressed, but I could email them to you ?

[TheyrCriminals]

Maybe. Ideally, you would like a condition that said "You must not exceed you overdraft limit"

 

I am pretty sure you will find this phrase in every single banks' terms and conditions.

 

TheyrCriminals

[photoman]

Not necessarily phrased so implicitly.

 

For example in the page I posted earlier it states:

 

You should always discuss any borrowing requirements in advance.

 

They could perhaps plead that this is just advisory.

They could claim that it just merely advises you to (but not actually insists upon) your discussing any and all borrowing in advance.

It could perhaps be construed (or misconstrued) that it does not necessarily implicitly forbid any borrowing without arrangement.

ie: It is phrased as you "should" discuss, rather than you "must" discuss.

 

They would try to claim such terminology would still allow for excess borrowing without prior agreement to occur whilst still being within the contract terms (at their discretion of course).

They would then argue that this is why they publish terms and describe such an event as "unauthorised" borrowing, and vis a vis then claim the consideration and provision of such was by way of a "service", and the charge is a fee for such.

(........ except.... why did they then later present them as costs) ??

 

This may or may not all be agreed as being the case by a judge.

We already know that the judge in the OFT case dismissed the service charge defence, plus the fact that they publish one thing, and then later present it another way, would I hope be seen through as the smokescreen it is.

 

Anyhow, it would be far better and less open to interpretation if it stated that borrowing without prior arrangement was "not" allowed.

eg: "You MUST always discuss any borrowing in advance"

or "Borrowing without prior arrangement is NOT allowed"

Edited June 17, 2008 by photoman
clarity

[steven4064]

We are looking at a different approach to business claims - not quite 'cooked' yes though

[gandolfi]

Hello Photoman, steven4064 and all other Business claimants.

 

I'm hoping it will be possible for my thread...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/81525-gandolfi-natwest-9.html

 

...to be moved over to the Business Claims forum.

 

The most recent post on my (very long) thread gives a summary of the case so far. My Counterclaim against Natwest is a combination of 70% Business 30% Personal account claims for charges. The case is currently stayed.

 

I'd really appreciate you guys taking a look - any advice regarding my options post-OFT would be appreciated (especially as the two accounts are being claimed as part of one counterclaim).

 

Apologies for posting this within your thread Photoman.

Thanks and best wishes,

Gandolfi

[photoman]

Hello Photoman, steven4064 and all other Business claimants.

 

I'm hoping it will be possible for my thread...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/81525-gandolfi-natwest-9.html

 

...to be moved over to the Business Claims forum.

 

The most recent post on my (very long) thread gives a summary of the case so far. My Counterclaim against Natwest is a combination of 70% Business 30% Personal account claims for charges. The case is currently stayed.

 

I'd really appreciate you guys taking a look - any advice regarding my options post-OFT would be appreciated (especially as the two accounts are being claimed as part of one counterclaim).

 

Apologies for posting this within your thread Photoman.

Thanks and best wishes,

Gandolfi

 

Gandolfi,

 

Firstly, no need to make any kind of apology for posting in this thread.

 

I do not consider it to be my own thread.

Although I started it up, it was always intended to be for the use of all business claimants, as a a place to exchange ideas and experiences, develop tactics, update others on your own progress and plead for help if need be.

So post away.

 

CAG now have a Business forum, which is great news.

This thread is now included in this forum, as it has through its life had some very valuable and useful contributions from lots of Business claimants, Mods, helpers etc, so is still a useful resource and a potted history of Business claims so far.

Hopefully it will remain to be so.

 

I'm sure Steven or someone will be able to move your own thread into this Forum.

I'll take a peek myself if I get a chance.

 

Best regards

 

PM