Fred_Funk v NatWest

[JonCris]

Write & tell them the debt will be disputed & that in view of the current OFT case the court will be asked to stay any claim by them until it's final outcome or as the high court rules regarding stays

[The GodMother]

Just a question that the OP has not asked or has not thought of.

 

If they take him to court and you provide the courts with documentation to say this matter is already in court and has been stayed wll the courts be able to throw the new case out of court based on wasting courts time and award the OP compensation?

[Bookworm]

Highly likely on point 1 (throw case out, as amounts in question already in existing litigation), highly unlikely on point 2 (compensation for what? :-? unless OP has had to take unpaid time off work maybe). It is quite possible that OP wouldn't have to go to court as judge could simply thorw the case out or stay it long before it got to court stage.

 

Of course, judges will be judges, so who's to say for sure....

[JonCris]

As it has already been issued by the OP the court might award some measure of costs against the bank for abuse of process. In any event the court won't be happy as to the banks action which it will see as being retaliatory & vindictive

[The GodMother]

Just what l thought

[buzby]

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?!

 

Providing the complaint concerns the identical account, then yes - I'd tell them to take a hike, however I'd still urge caution, because whilst there IS a blanket stay of actions concerning unfair charges, you would need to be certain that those charges were applied to the account you're disputing. If you've only got the 1 account, then that seems ideal! Good Luck!

[Fred_Funk]

Thanks to everyone who's contributed to this thread, I can't begin to tell you what a help you've been. I shall be knocking out a letter to Equidebt just as soon as the footie is over.

 

But, before I do so, just a few more questions! ;-)

 

(1) The GodMother suggested I should also write to the OFT and trading standards. Will a copy of my letter to Equidebt with a brief covering note suffice or ought I to go into rather more depth?

 

(2) What about the FSA? Is it also worth writing to them or wouldn't my harassment by Equidebt - depsite the fact that the account is in dispute - come under their remit?

 

(3) JonCris suggests Equidebt's actions are 'retaliatory and vindictive' and may constitute an 'abuse of process'. How best I use this to my advantage? Is it enough to copy the letter I send to Equidebt to NatWest and Cobbetts or ought I also, for instance, to write and inform the court?

 

Apologies for all the questions. As ever, your thoughts and opinions will be very much appreciated.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

[JonCris]

Absolutley no doubt

 

Send copies to all of them making sure to show the court that you have CC'd them.

[Fred_Funk]

So what form should, for instance, my letter to the court take?!

 

Will a copy of my letter to Equidebt, with a brief covering note, suffice? Or do I need to pen an altogether different letter? And when writing to the court am I trying to achieve anything more than firing a warning shot to Equidebt and/or Natwest?

 

And ditto Cobbetts... can I just copy 'em in on my Equidebt letter or do I need to write to them directly to raise my concerns?

 

If anyone can add a little meat to the proverbial bones, I'd be hugely grateful.

[Fred_Funk]

Okay guys, how does this look?! I wanted to give it to 'em both barrels, lol! ;-)

 

Dear Equidebt

 

Your reference: XXXXXXXXXXXX-XXX

 

I am writing in response to your letter of February 27, 2008, in which you informed me you were preparing to issue County Court Proceedings against me in respect of the above account.

 

As I have already informed your employee XXXXXXXX XXXXX, who I spoke to on February 26, ie before your most recent correspondence, the above account is in dispute and, that being the case, you are not legally permitted to pursue me for repayment.

 

As I told Ms XXXXX, I issued a court claim (XXXXXXX) against NatWest at Exeter County Court on January 16 of this year. Cobbetts, acting on behalf of NatWest, filed an Acknowledgement of Service on January 30. The claim has, subsequently, been stayed pending the outcome of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) case on bank charges.

 

As you ought to be aware, when an alleged debt is in dispute and the subject of a court action not only is it unlawful for you to pursue enforcement activities, but it is also a breach of OFT collection guidelines, the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and the Data Protection Act 1998 for NatWest to have passed on my details to a third party such as yourselves.

 

Moreover, even had you been legally entitled to pursue me for repayment of the alleged debt - which, clearly, you were not - your actions have shown a wilful disregard for OFT guidelines [Debt collection guidance, Final guidance on unfair business practices, July 2003 (updated December 2006)] and, it seems to me, constitute harassment.

 

(1) You have continually called me at my workplace and, on those occasions when I have not been in the office, you have deliberately left messages which appear to have come from a friend/acquaintance requesting I call you on a number that isn’t listed anywhere as belonging to Equidebt.

 

(2) You have contacted me at unreasonable times and at unreasonable intervals.

 

(3) You have continued to write me intimidatory letters, threatening legal action, and making unjustified demands for repayment even after I have informed you that the alleged debt is in dispute.

 

I am, therefore, copying this letter to the OFT, the Financial Services Authority, the Financial Ombudsman Service and Trading Standards in order that they are aware of your company’s readiness to flout OFT guidelines. I will also be informing NatWest, Cobbetts and the court of your actions which, I have been advised, are likely to be looked upon by a judge as retaliatory and vindictive and, as such, an abuse of process.

 

Furthermore, if you ignore this letter and persist in attempting enforcement, I will not hesitate to initiate legal action on the basis of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 S.40 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

 

I look forward to confirmation in writing, in the next seven days, that you will cease your unlawful behaviour and return this alleged debt to NatWest pending the outcome of the bank charges test case in the Commercial Court.

 

Yours faithfully

Fred_Funk

All thoughts, especially constructive criticisms, gratefully received! ;-)

[buzby]

Just my 2p on the original questions you raised.

 

(1) Needless 'busy work', and relatively pointless. The OFT will only refer you to Consumer Direct, which is Trading Standards in a new t-shirt. CD/TS have absolutely no power to do anything except make soothing noises as they have no legal powers to assist or promote your cause.

 

(2) The FSA are looking primarily at financial ineptitude, and your complaint, which may well have sprung from this, has rolled on to a different sphere or expertise. Again, it'll bea soothing response but not much else.

 

(3) I'd love to see how this can be an abuse of process, as you have not had any process to speak of. A stayed action hasn't even made it to the opening rounds so threatening an abuse would be laughed at.

 

The letter is fine, but it does give the impression of a blunderbuss approach verging on desperation (I'm telling on you!), it is far far better to hint darkly as possible horrors ahead without stating your plans in minute detail;

 

"Notwithstanding the above, I fully intend to take all measures at my disposal to protect my interests, and formally advise you that should your harassment continue, I will take all actions necessary without further notice. THe additional costs for so doing will be added to a claim against your company. I respectfully advise that you refer this matter back to your client."

 

Send it by RD, and see what happens.

[JonCris]

Your letter should be to the court pointing out that you have already issued proceedings in this matter not forgetting to quote the original court & claim no.

 

Mention that, if not an administrative error on their part, that you consider their application to be retaliatory & vindictive

 

You should send COPIES of your court letter to the original creditor & DCA

 

The reason for writing to the original creditor to write to the original creditor enclosing a copy of said letter is so that they can't argue later that they are unaware of what their agents are doing

[The GodMother]

Thanks to everyone who's contributed to this thread, I can't begin to tell you what a help you've been. I shall be knocking out a letter to Equidebt just as soon as the footie is over.

 

But, before I do so, just a few more questions! ;-)

 

(1) The GodMother suggested I should also write to the OFT and trading standards. Will a copy of my letter to Equidebt with a brief covering note suffice or ought I to go into rather more depth? You can either write to or

telephone them. Telephone would be better as you get instant advise. They may want you to send all documents in. They may then contact the company and advise them of the law anf that. The OFT will need to be informed as they can fine and/or take away the licence for the company based on complaints.

(2) What about the FSA? Is it also worth writing to them or wouldn't my harassment by Equidebt - depsite the fact that the account is in dispute - come under their remit? See what TS say. You caould always issue court proceding against the company your self.

 

(3) JonCris suggests Equidebt's actions are 'retaliatory and vindictive' and may constitute an 'abuse of process'. How best I use this to my advantage? Is it enough to copy the letter I send to Equidebt to NatWest and Cobbetts or ought I also, for instance, to write and inform the court? Point it out to the courts and point it out to them. I would write to the courts who you put a claim with and advise that even tho the case has been stayed they are asking ppl to chase you for money. provide the courts with all the evidence of this, leters will need to be photocopied, then see what the court says.

You could always ask the courts for a hearing about this and see what they can/ are will to do.

Apologies for all the questions. As ever, your thoughts and opinions will be very much appreciated. We dont get anywhere unless we ask questions and gain info. So l dont think you need to say sorry for the questions.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

....................

[JonCris]

Sorry to be contradictory But don't phone anyone not even the so called 'regulators' Send an email or write letters & keep a copy

 

My advice is don't bother with them at this stage. Your just complicating matters for now

 

KISS - Just write straight to the court where they have issued proceedings not the one you have (unless it's the same of course) with copies to the Solicitors, DCA & the creditor

[Penfold92]

Hi Fred,

 

Well firstly, I am surprised that Nasty West are sending out offers at this stage...Maybe they know exactly what we all suspect will happen in a few weeks/ months when the Judge gives his judgment...

 

As for what it is saying, you are spot on...If you accept you cannot then say I want more after the test case...BUt then "bird in hand" springs to mind and really depends on what they offered you in the first place...I wish HSBC would offer me even half my claim, I may (and I said may) well accept right now....

 

Good luck,

 

Penfold

[sallysas]

2 of mine have been extended to 30 September. Light at the end of the tunnel maybe........................

[Fred_Funk]

Guys

 

I've already filed a claim against NatWest for charges they unlawfully levied on my current account having, somewhat fortuitously, kept all my old statements.

 

The thing is, now there's an impasse in that case, pending the verdict in the test case in the High Court, I'm keen to revisit the loan agreements I had with NatWest, as I'm certain this would reveal yet more unlawful charges and, I dare say, some mis-sold PPI.

 

With that in mind, I'm intending to send off a Subject Access Request (SAR) but, for the life of me, can't find a decent template letter anywhere on the website. I know I've seen 'em in the past - I'm keen to use a letter that spells out the fact, in no uncertain terms, that I want absolutely everything I'm legally entitled to as opposed to the bare minimum NatWest would like to give me - and was hoping someone might be able to provide a link to such a letter.

 

I have tried using the search facility but, alas, to no avail.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

[rory32]

As you're wanting a full SAR for PPI and charges I would use this one http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/payment-protection-insurance-ppi/118145-r-subject-access-request.html

[**Tilly**]

Hiya Fred

 

These are the only one's i could find. maybe you could tweak them.

 

Data Protection Act - Subject Access Request Generator *** New ***

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....s-library/516-

 

 

Tilly

[Fred_Funk]

Saw this in yesterday's Independent on Sunday and thought it made interesting reading - wondered what others thought?!

 

Crunch point in charges saga

 

Will the banks fight to the last on unauthorised overdraft fees or will they have to recognise that customers are now their shareholders?

 

The Government's bailout plan for British banks could have major consequences for the continuing campaign for the return of unauthorised overdraft fees. Currently, seven banks and the Nationwide are set to appeal through the High Court against the right of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to rule on whether the levying of fees – sometimes as high as £35 a time – on customers who go overdrawn without permission is fair or unfair.

 

 

The charges net the banks an estimated £2.6bn a year but have been the subject of a consumer rebellion, with thousands threatening to take their banks to county court for recovery of fees levied over the past six years. Yet these claims have been put on ice, with the blessing of the Financial Services Authority, as the banks have been allowed to conclude their case with the OFT.

 

 

The banks lost in the High Court in April and are poised to appeal. A result is not expected until next year, although a seperate ruling given last week by the judge in the case may allow banks to dismiss many of the consumer claims currently put on ice. But the original ruling that the OFT has a right to decide on the fairness or otherwise of unauthorised overdraft fees remains untouched.

 

 

Nevertheless, with many of the banks involved in the case likely, in the future, to be partly owned by the Government, there are growing calls for a quick settlement. "We now have different branches of the Government, the OFT and some of the banks fighting each other, very expensively, in the courts," says David Kuo from financial advice site Fool.co.uk.

 

"The Government, with the extra power it will wield, should tell the banks to drop this time-wasting case and return the money illegally taken from consumers. The banks have to realise that the same customers they have been routinely overcharging for years are now their shareholders and should be treated better," he adds.

 

 

Neil Clarke, director at independent financial advice firm Lucas Fettes, says the way banks treat their customers will have to change, and this could start with the charges issue: "Post-bailout, I reckon people are going to be less tolerant of being told what they should do by the banks and the charges they should pay. However, a lot is still up in the air. We don't know how much involvement the Government is going to have day to day," adds Mr Clarke. "Will they just move against executive pay and dividends, as they have said, or go further?"

 

 

With banks short of ready cash and the cost of refunded charges likely to run into the billions, there is a big incentive for them to resist outside pressure and fight till the end.

 

 

"I fully expect them to continue because it's even more in their interests, with the credit crisis, to delay the inevitable," says Chris Warner, campaigns lawyer from consumer group Which?. "They may have made the commercial decision that it's best to lose in two years' time rather than six months as it would damage their balance sheets."

 

 

Mr Warner adds that once the appeal is concluded, the parties may carry on their battle in the House of Lords.

[photoman]

Playing "Devils Advocate" for a moment.

Of course the other way it could be looked at, is that the Government could now feel obligated on behalf of it's taxpayer "shareholders" to rein in such Banks liabilities & outgoings, and/or in some way to maintain such practices, in order to bring them all back into a profit situation ASAP ??

[mailmannz]

Yeah, I really cant see the Government leveraging any pressure on the banks to fork out the fees they have "unlawfully" taken from their customers.

 

And while banks attitudes to customers has to change, I think it will be a cold day in hell before the banks start giving money back willingly.

 

Mailman

[Gez]

We may be their shareholders now, but that's only because Gordon Brown decided that for us. I doubt we'll get a vote, so our plight & opinions will still not matter to them. We're just here to feed them cash to make them rich & bail them out when they've screwed everything up.

[Stornoway]

In a recession many economists believe that economies need to be stimulated by either additional government spending or tax cuts to give consumers more cash to spend (which is then circulated round the economy). By persuading / forcing the banks to repay the charges the government would effectively be applying a windfall tax on the banks which is repaid directly to consumers.

 

There are also some advantages for the banks;

1) many of the charges are actually against accounts in default so by repaying the charges direct to the relevant accounts the banks would potentially be reducing their levels of bad debts (albeit at the expense of profits)

2) Most UK banks have a december financial year end and they are going to have a really bad year in 2008 in terms of profitability. It might be best to get all the bad news out this year (including charges refunds) and start afresh next year.

[Fred_Funk]

Saw a piece on The Guardian website...

 

Q&A: Bank charges | Money | guardian.co.uk

 

... which, to my mind, isn't entirely accurrate. I've already emailed [email protected] in the hope that it'll get amended.

 

Hilary

 

Hi. I’m writing with regard to your Q&A: Bank charges, which was published on the Guardian website yesterday.

 

There are a couple points which, IMO, aren’t quite correct.

 

(1) Under ‘How much can I get back?’, you suggest that if the OFT decides, for instance, that charges should not exceed £12 – as it did with credit cards – then one will be able to reclaim anything above that. However, it’s not quite that simple – either the charges are lawful or they’re not. The OFT may well suggest £12 represents a reasonable reflection of the bank’s costs but if the charges are deemed unlawful then, regardless of this (and what the banks may like you to believe), historic charges will be reclaimable in their entirety.

 

(2) You say: ‘Claims can only go back six years’. Again, this isn’t strictly true. If you have reason to believe a charge may be unlawful then you have six years from the point when you became aware of this to challenge the claim in court. This means you can claim back way beyond six years – as many people already have done with both bank and credit card charges – if you can demonstrate that you’ve only just become aware that they may be unlawful.

 

I’m no legal expert – most of my knowledge is gleaned from the Consumer Action Group website – but I am quite certain about the above and do hope you can amend the answers on your website in order that Guardian readers are as well informed as possible.

 

Thanking you in anticipation

Fred_Funk

 

 

Maybe one or two of my fellow CAG-gers could do the same and, with a little luck, the Guardian will put things right.

 

Fred_Funk