Fred_Funk v NatWest

[Stoked]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/consumer-forums-website-questions/126507-too-many-posts-going.html

[Stoked]

I'd like to help you mate but I can't and I think your questions will be best answered by a moderator, I'm sure one'll come along before the test case is resolved.

 

They get well busy here of course - just since yesterday they've somehow managed answer 55 posts in one forum alone.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/

[Robertxc]

Guys

 

I'm hoping someone might be able to point me in the right direction.

 

Rest assured, I have had a good look around the forums but it's hard to know where to begin these days.

 

In any case, it's like this...

 

I finally submitted my claim against NatWest just after Christmas and they - or Cobbetts to be more accurate - have written informing me of their intention to contest it and provided me with details of their defence.

 

Needless to say, the claim is stayed at the minute, pending the outcome of the 'test case'.

 

What I'm anxious to find out is what kind of timetable I might be facing as and when the stays are lifted. I'm assuming, whatever the outcome of the 'test case', I'll probably have to go to court because: (1) My claim goes beyond six years; and (2) I'm asking for compound interest (on the basis of Sempra).

 

I presume as and when they stays are finally lifted, I will be given good warning of any court date but would appreciate confirmation of this from someone rather more knowledgeable than me. Better still, if anyone can point me in the direction of a thread touching on issues such as this I'd be most grateful.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred Funk

I wouldn't read too much into Natwest/Cobbett saying they intend to defend - that's standard. No-one really knows what timescale we're looking at for the test case. There seems to be a notion floating around that the judgement will come down sometime around easter, but it's worth noting that the judge himself made it clear that he had 'no idea' when it would be.

 

To be honest, it's anyone's guess what sort of timescale you'll be looking at if things go as we hope with the test case. For a 'normal' bank charges claim that was settled out of court the average amount of time seems to have been about 12 weeks from initial demand for payment to receiving the cheque. I have to say however that there have been some wide variations on this. In your case, since you'll also be challenging the limitation period, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually take it to court (assuming that some outcome from the test case doesn't require them to hand back all charges). The compound interest might also complicate things. If I had your circumstances I wouldn't be counting on an early settlement. I would be expecting them to at least try and get it thrown out over the limitation issue, and if that fails then settle. On the other hand, if the banks lose comprehensively and they end up having to hand back huge sums of money I wouldn't be surprised if they just pay out without a fuss.

 

If you're worried about the amount of notice you will be given that the stay is to be lifted, I strongly recommend giving the court a call and asking one of the clerks. They are invariably friendly and helpful. They may not be able to give you a definitive answer, but they'll certainly give you an idea of what to expect.

[Stoked]

There's a poppet

[Fred_Funk]

Guys

 

I'm hoping you might be able to put my mind at rest.

 

It's like this...

 

I've issued a court claim against NatWest for a figure in the region of 9k (in respect of unlawful charges, interest incurred as a result of these charges, and contractual interest on the basis of the bank's unjust enrichment).

 

NatWest acknowledged the claim, which Cobbetts have written to say they will be disputing, and it is currently stayed pending the verdict in the case heard in the high court last month.

 

In the meantime, I have ceased to use my NatWest account - which has a £2,000 overdraft facilty - an opened a basic account with Abbey, in to which my wages are now paid.

 

So far, so good. The things is I am now being harassed, at increasingly regular intervals, by Equidebt, operating on NatWest's behalf, threatening county court proceedings if I do not contact them immediately and make arrangements to repay my overdraft.

 

I have explained that the account is in dispute - as, clearly, NatWest well know - and that in such circumstances they have no business contacting me. I thought they'd finally grasped the situation and that the calls and letters would stop. Alas no.

 

Please, can someone reassure me that a debt which is in dispute - to the extent that I have issued court proceedings - should not be pursued in this manner and that to do so is tantamount to harassment and I would be entirely within my rights to contact the OFT and trading standards.

 

Certainly, this is what I understand to be the case but, despite much reading around the forum, I'm struggling to find anything which explicitly confirms this.

 

If you can put my mind at rest and, better still, point me in the the direction of something which spells this out I would be incredibly grateful.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

[Fred_Funk]

Guys

 

I'm hoping you might be able to put my mind at rest.

 

It's like this...

 

I've issued a court claim against NatWest for a figure in the region of 9k (in respect of unlawful charges, interest incurred as a result of these charges, and contractual interest on the basis of the bank's unjust enrichment).

 

NatWest acknowledged the claim, which Cobbetts have written to say they will be disputing, and it is currently stayed pending the verdict in the case heard in the high court last month.

 

In the meantime, I have ceased to use my NatWest account - which has a £2,000 overdraft facilty - an opened a basic account with Abbey, in to which my wages are now paid.

 

So far, so good. The things is I am now being harassed, at increasingly regular intervals, by Equidebt, operating on NatWest's behalf, threatening county court proceedings if I do not contact them immediately and make arrangements to repay my overdraft.

 

I have explained that the account is in dispute - as, clearly, NatWest well know - and that in such circumstances they have no business contacting me. I thought they'd finally grasped the situation and that the calls and letters would stop. Alas no.

 

Please, can someone reassure me that a debt which is in dispute - to the extent that I have issued court proceedings - should not be pursued in this manner and that to do so is tantamount to harassment and I would be entirely within my rights to contact the OFT and trading standards.

 

Certainly, this is what I understand to be the case but, despite much reading around the forum, I'm struggling to find anything which explicitly confirms this.

 

If you can put my mind at rest and, better still, point me in the the direction of something which spells this out I would be incredibly grateful.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

[saintly_1]

Have you sent them the account in dispute letter ?

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

Dear Sir or Madam,

Account number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

 

I must admit that I am rather bemused as to why this account has been passed to yourselves, as it is in dispute with the **original creditor/DCA** and has been since DATE 2007.

Not only is this a breach of OFT collection guidelines, but also in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Data Protection Act 1998

 

My last letter from **original creditor/DCA** was DATE and intimated that my complaint would be

resolved on **DATE**, this obviously hasn’t happened.

As **original creditor/DCA** are now in default of my Consumer Credit Act request, OFT Collection Guidelines, *Subject Access request and have also breached *s10 Data Protection Act request , I consider this account to be in SERIOUS DISPUTE.

 

As you are aware while my Consumer Credit Act request remains in default enforcement action is NOT permitted, under s127 this constitutes a complete defence at law.

 

Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

 

Now I would respectfully suggest that this account is returned to the **original creditor/DCA** for resolution of these defaults and breaches, as **New DCA** cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities.

 

If **New DCA** chooses to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action.

 

After taking advice, I am of the opinion that any continued pursuit is in violation of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40 as well as breaching a number of the OFT Collection Guidelines

 

I hope that this will not be necessary and an acceptable solution can be accomplished.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

If not fire this off to them see if that has any effect

 

 

saint

[saintly_1]

I have just answered this ....... on your other thread !!

[Fred_Funk]

saintly 1

 

I haven't, as yet, sent them any letters as: (1) I haven't had a chance; and (2) before doing so, I wanted to clarify precisely what the situation was - hence my opening post.

 

As I said...

 

Please, can someone reassure me that a debt which is in dispute - to the extent that I have issued court proceedings - should not be pursued in this manner and that to do so is tantamount to harassment and I would be entirely within my rights to contact the OFT and trading standards

 

As regards the 'account in dispute letter' you've posted above, that clearly concerns DCAs which have failed to satisfy CCA requests and, in so doing, have failed to fulfill their legal obligation and to establish the basis on which the debt exists.

 

I'm not disputing that I have an unpaid overdraft with NatWest. My point is that the OD is considerably less than my court claim. Indeed, it is considerably less than NatWest have already offered me as 'a gesture of goodwill'.

 

Any further thoughts much appreciated

Fred_Funk

[buzby]

The stay unfortunately has no bearing on the overdraft, as this is a seperate facility. Whilst you can argue the overdraft wouldn't be as high if unfair charges were levied, this really is of no concern as to ancillary matters - like breaking the terms of the overdraft itself. As much as I'd like to say you'll be OK, there is no right of set-off for one debt against another, and your credit file will feature the default (if it has already come to that). IF the bank agree to waive the pursuit pending the outcome then that's fine, but they donl't have to. Also if the super complaint isn't fully upheld, there's a danger your amount outstanding is going to spiral out of control in the meantime.

[Fred_Funk]

saintly 1

 

I haven't, as yet, sent them any letters as: (1) I haven't had a chance; and (2) before doing so, I wanted to clarify precisely what the situation was - hence my opening post.

 

As I said...

 

Please, can someone reassure me that a debt which is in dispute - to the extent that I have issued court proceedings - should not be pursued in this manner and that to do so is tantamount to harassment and I would be entirely within my rights to contact the OFT and trading standards

As regards the 'account in dispute letter' you've posted above, that clearly concerns DCAs which have failed to satisfy CCA requests and, in so doing, have failed to fulfill their legal obligation and to establish the basis on which the debt exists.

 

I'm not disputing that I have an unpaid overdraft with NatWest. My point is that the OD is considerably less than my court claim. Indeed, it is considerably less than NatWest have already offered me as 'a gesture of goodwill'.

 

Any further thoughts much appreciated

Fred_Funk

[Fred_Funk]

Thanks buzby - not exactly what I wanted to hear but helpful all the same.

 

As my initial post intimated, I was keen to know exactly what constituted 'a dispute' and whether an unresolved court claim would be looked upon in the same way as an unsatisfied CCA request.

 

You suggest not and while I don't doubt you are almost certainly right, I wonder whether you'd care to take a look at the following which appears - at least to the uninitiated, such as myself - to suggest otherwise...

 

www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf

 

Physical/psychological harassment

 

2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows

 

h. ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment

 

and also...

 

Deceptive and/or unfair methods

 

2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows

 

i. failing to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate, when a debt is queried or disputed, possibly resulting in debtors being wrongly pursued

 

And finally, even if there's no legal necessity for the bank/DCA to stop pursuing this claim pending the outcome of my court claim, could it be argued - in light of the waiver they've been granted while the high court reaches its verdict - that there's some kind of moral obligation?!

 

As ever, interested in everyone's thoughts.

 

Thanks, again, in anticipation

Fred_Funk

[Fred_Funk]

When I first posted this thread I wasn't sure where best to put it and so posted it in two different places. It seemed like a good idea at the time but is now becoming a bit confusing... doh!

 

With that in mind, should you wish to respond, could I ask that you do so not on this thread but here...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/133467-help-being-pursued-dca.html#post1407104

 

Thanks.

[buzby]

Hiya Fred,

 

I'm only trying to ensure you're not surprised with an unexpected outcome! I can understand the confusion, and there is a sort of 'chinese wall' with the scenario you outlined. Regarding the OFT document, do remember this only applies to the provision of credit or a regulated credit agreement. An overdraft, depending on whatever marketing spin has been put on it, isn't that type of agreement. You have no commitment to make monthly payments of a set amount on a monthly basis, the overdraft simply provides a maximum level of indebtedness (usually for a set initial fee) then you pay interest based on the prevailing balance averaged over the month. The overdraft then ends, or is renewed on the same or similar terms. You don't (usually) have to enter into a new overdraft arrangement every year or be credit checked etc etc, but of course every bank may decide to operate it differently.

 

In my case, I use the overdraft as a safety net and have really not made use of the amount available, as such I not maid more than £2.50 in interest over the year - so not a regulated credit agreement as described in the OFT document.

 

That said, if even if there was a dispute about the provision of the overdraft, then though it could be seen as an overall dissatisfaction with your bank, trying to link this with a specific complaint of overcharging. My bank service contract actually specifically mentions there can be no right of set-off in any banking dispute. (this is where the Bank may have lost £XXXX of my money, but I cannot offset this if they mistakenly overpaid me on another, or if I take them to court to achieve a repayment).

[elsinore]

Fred, is it correct that the amount of your claim far exceeds the amount 'owed' to Natwest?

 

If so, I would send Saintly's letter to Equidebt, suitably amended to be even more forceful if you wish, with copies to Cobbetts, Natwest and the court. Make sure Equidebt know that you have sent those copies.

 

I think Equidebt are sabre-rattling in the hope that you will cough up (yeah--right:rolleyes:) and produce a nice little earner for them.

 

Els

[buzby]

I think Equidebt are sabre-rattling in the hope that you will cough up (yeah--right) and produce a nice little earner for them.

 

Els

 

And since the matters aren't directly linked, how you would hope to convince them otherwise? Especially if there is a set-off clause in the T&C's... ignore it?

[saintly_1]

The account is in dispute ...... Fred has initiated court proceedings in the light of that dispute .. therefore the passing of the account to a DCA is against the OFT guidelines

[Fred_Funk]

Regarding the OFT document, do remember this only applies to the provision of credit or a regulated credit agreement.

 

I'm not sure this is the case. The OFT document I'm referring to...

 

www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf

 

... clearly states: "Our guidance [in this document] does not relate to the routine collection of repayments. It applies to the collection of debt once an account is in default."

 

Which, as I understand it, is exactly the situation I find myself in. That being the case, surely the guidance in the document is relevant to me, isn't it?!

 

And, if it is, then Equidebt have clearly breached it.

 

As ever, I'd welcome anyone else's thoughts.

[saintly_1]

Thats the way I read it ......... which is why I posted the account in dispute letter ........ which can be amended to suit your purpose

[buzby]

And as I've noted already ONEaccount is in dispute (as I understand it) and a completely unrelated account at the same bank is. IF they are one and the same, I'd agree, but hoping to link the two in the hope that one settlement will pay of another is risky brinkmanship. If they take the view that these are seperate matters, you'll have one stayed (through no fault of your own) and the other fully competent to be heard. If both accounts (the one with the charges and the other with the overdraft) have their own application or agreement, then this would take precedence.

[Bookworm]

I only see one account being mentioned. :-?

[Fred_Funk]

Bookworm is right, there is only one account concerned.

 

OD is in the region of 2k; claim for charges, as per my signature, in the region of 9k; NatWest already offered 4k as a 'gesture of goodwill'.

 

Busby, this being the case, would you now agree that I'm entirely within my rights to tell Equidebt the account is 'in dispute' and to bugger off?!

 

And would everyone else agree?!

 

Thanks again

Fred_Funk

[Bookworm]

Yes.

[elsinore]

Yes.

 

Els

[The GodMother]

If the acc is in dispute and they are chasing u for money then you have every rite to tell them to bugger off.

 

I would also inform the OFT and TS abput this aswell