Fred_Funk v NatWest

[Fred_Funk]

Okay guys, one final question before I subit my N1 (like Neilwoods I'm going to do it sooner rather than later, before I get bogged down in the minutaie again)...

 

Given I'm asking for either contractual interest (compounded) or, should the court deem this inadmissable, s.69 interest and making reference to both options in my Particulars of Claim, is it acceptable to attach two separate spreadsheets, one for each, assuming I make clear which is which?

 

Thanks in anticipation

 

Fred_Funk

[neilwoods]

That would seem not only sensible, but really the only way to proceed.

 

There's no logical difference between one spreadsheet with two sets of calculations on it (possibly printed on more than one page) and two separate spreadsheets (certainly printed on two separate pages).

 

If I've got the right end of the stick

[Fred_Funk]

Was hoping someone might be able to advise my whether I'm within my rights to ask NatWest for a copy of the CCA relating to my overdraft?

 

I've just read somewhere that a bank should be able to provide a properly executed credit agreement for any overdraft facility. Unfortunately, there are so many conflicting viewpoints on here nowadays that I'm just seeking some reassurance this is the case before I get too excited.

 

I'm about to issue a court claim for unlawful charges and had pretty much resigned myself to the fact that should I be successful, a significant part of my claim would go towards offsetting my overdraft.

 

However, I'm now led to believe that without a properly executed CCA this debt is unenforceable.

 

Given I have no recollection of ever having signed anything, this is an avenue I'm keen to pursue - if, that is, someone can confirm that it is indeed the case.

 

Over to you guys!

 

Thanking you in anticipation of your help and co-operation

Fred_Funk

[Parkvale]

How did you come to have an overdraft in the first instance ? Also do bear in mind that if you take your claim all the way. Nat West pay out by cheque.

[Fred_Funk]

Parkvale

 

As far as I can recall, I asked or, maybe, they offered. Whichever it was, I have no recollection of ever having signed anything relating to my overdraft facility.

 

That being the case, what would you advise?!

 

Fred_Funk

[Parkvale]

Write to them and ask them for a copy of the original overdraft agreement. You are entitled to this under the CCA.

[jubaxt]

i sent 2 seperate s-sheets

[rbrears]

Cant find it at the moment but there is another thread about contractual compound interest which quotes a high court case where the principle of mutuality and reciprocity argument failed in a contested hearing. Will try and find it and come back with a link soon.

[Fred_Funk]

Cant find it at the moment but there is another thread about contractual compound interest which quotes a high court case where the principle of mutuality and reciprocity argument failed in a contested hearing. Will try and find it and come back with a link soon.

 

This is the thread you're looking for...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/97691-contractual-interest-precedent-lost.html

 

I'm aware of that and am now going to proceed on a different basis. I was going to argue for compound interest on the basis that the banking was profitting from a fiduciary position.

 

However, having been away for a week or so, it now seems that it might not be necessary to argue that. Again, take a look at the above thread; there's some great stuff on there which I'm just beginning to catch up with.

 

Fred_Funk

[zootscoot]

If you've not already seen it there was a House of Lords ruling last week regarding awarding compound interest in restitutionary claims:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cases-library/106112-sempra-metals-irc-july.html

[jackster77]

hi folks was wondering if anyone could help me

 

I made a claim to MBNA for charges and compounded contractual interest

 

They have offered me compounded contractual interest untill the account was closed and 8% interest which they think a court might award

 

however on my claim for compounded contractual interest they have paid it untill my account was closed - but I was claiming it untill the date of my claim (may 2007)

 

They told me I could only claim untill the account was closed does anyone know if this is true

 

sorry for hijacking

[Fred_Funk]

zootscoot

 

Thanks for pointing us in the direction of these new Particulars of Claim. Clearly, they're a little more involved than the previous ones.

 

That being the case, I'm sure I'm probably not the only one who is having trouble rewriting their Brief details of Claim accordingly.

 

In the past, my Brief details of claim went something like this...

 

Claimant has had a contract with the Defendant, which is conducted according to its standard terms and conditions, since 1985. Claimant is claiming the return of money taken by the defendant in the way of charges over the last six years, plus the interest it has levied on these charges. The Defendant's charges are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law. Further, as a disproportionate penalty they are invalid under the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. Para.8 and sch.2(1)(e). In the event that the charges are not a penalty then they are unreasonable within the meaning of The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15...

 

... but I'm now unsure as to whether or not they're entirely appropriate.

 

I'm particularly mindful of the fact the new Particulars of Claim don't - as far as I can see - make any mention of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15.

 

In light of this, am I right in thinking we ought to remove that reference and, if so, what, if anything ought we to replace it with? Moreover, are there any other bits which demand attention?

 

As ever, your help and guidance is very much appreciated.

 

Fred_Funk

[Fred_Funk]

Thanks to all those responsible for providing us with some new Particulars of Claim. Clearly, they're a little more involved than the previous ones.

 

That being the case, I'm sure I'm probably not the only one who is having trouble rewriting their Brief details of Claim accordingly.

 

In the past, my Brief details of claim went something like this...

 

 

Claimant has had a contract with the Defendant, which is conducted according to its standard terms and conditions, since 1985. Claimant is claiming the return of money taken by the defendant in the way of charges over the last six years, plus the interest it has levied on these charges. The Defendant's charges are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law. Further, as a disproportionate penalty they are invalid under the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. Para.8 and sch.2(1)(e). In the event that the charges are not a penalty then they are unreasonable within the meaning of The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15...

... but I'm now unsure as to whether or not they're entirely appropriate.

 

I'm particularly mindful of the fact the new Particulars of Claim don't - as far as I can see - make any mention of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15.

 

In light of this, am I right in thinking we ought to remove that reference and, if so, what, if anything ought we to replace it with? Moreover, are there any other bits which demand attention?

 

As ever, your help and guidance is very much appreciated.

 

Fred_Funk

[zootscoot]

Thats quite long for the brief details of claim. Are you sure it fits?

 

I would suggest you change it to this:

 

Claimant has had a contract with the Defendant, which is conducted according to its standard terms and conditions, since 1985. Claimant is claiming the return of money taken by the defendant in the way of charges over the last six years, plus the interest it has levied on these charges. The Defendant's charges are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law and or invalid under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

 

UCTA and SGSA are not relevant. They do not need replacing as the law on penalties and UTCCR will suffice.

 

All the best

 

Zoot

[jonni2bad]

Just keep it simple...

 

The Claimant seeks the refund of bank charges made by the Defendant on the Claimant's bank account ("the Account").

A schedule of these charges are attached.

[jansus]

sorry:( to hijack thread - but I have seen the new POC for each bank - my case has been stayed - bundle due in by 14th August . I am appealing against the stay using the appropriate court form and will carry on with bundle - but wondered if I should be amending POC at same time? Or is this asking for trouble - as I dont know of any cases thrown out on MCOL POC ? is it a case of just recommending the new POC for those not yet in the court system?

 

I have asked question in A&L section but have not had reply.

 

thanks

 

Jan

[PeterAnderson]

Please see this thread - similar question

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/109977-stuck-q-re-pocs.html

[Fred_Funk]

I was more than a little surprised to receive an offer fron NatWest yesterday - given, that is, my LBA was sent some months ago and I'd had no acknowledgement of either that or my preliminary letter.

 

I was, then, even more surprised that the letter should say: "We wrote to you recently making you a goodwill offer in full and final settlement of your complaint about these charges." Did they hell!

 

It would appear the letter I have got is a bog standard one which will, one assumes, have gone to hundreds if not thousands of other NatWest claimants on the back of the legal proceedings being pursued by the OFT.

 

There are a number of issues arising as a result of this correspondence which will be pertinent only to my claim and which I will, therefore, raise on the thread I have started for that very purpose.

 

However, there is, I think, a bigger issue which will be relevant to everyone who has received this piece of correspondence from NatWest.

 

The letter is accompanied by a form to return, within 60 days, stating whether you accept or decline the offer.

 

Option 1 reads as follows...

 

I/We accept your goodwill offer in full and final settlement of my/our complaint.

 

I/We am/are aware that in accepting this offer, this will be in 'full and final' settlement of my/our complaint. I understand that this means it is unlikely that I/we would be awarded a further sum even if the test case indicates that I/we could be entitled to a potentially larger amount.

 

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't NatWest said - very publically - they will be governed by the decision of the test case? In those circumstances, is it permissible for them to make you an offer now on the proviso that should it transpire you were entitled to more they will, conveniently, be ignoring the test case... isn't that a bit like having your cake ane eating it?!

 

As it happens, I have no intention of accepting this offer but, be that as it may, am interested in the legality, or otherwise, of NatWest's position.

 

So, tell me, what do you guys reckon?!

 

Fred_Funk

[Fred_Funk]

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

[Fred_Funk]

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

[revolting peasant]

Fred

 

As I understand it, the test case is likely to drag on and on as the banks will almost certainly appeal if they lose the first round so a couple of years is probably a fair time estimate.

 

Once the legitimacy of charges has been finally ruled upon it will mean one of two things. The courts find in favour of the banks, in which case you don't have a claim or the courts find in favour of the OFT in which case your claim continues.

 

What is hoped is that in the event of the courts finding for the OFT, the banks will be ordered to repay all charges without the individual needing to make a claim. Whether this will be applied beyond the limitation period of 6 years is anyones guess and what will be ordered with regards to interest is at the discretion of the court making the final judgement.

 

If that makes sense, it is at the end of the day a long way of saying nobody really knows!

[Fred_Funk]

revolting peasant et al

 

Yeah, I understand all that. I guess I was thinking more in terms of what could, conceivably, occur when the test case judge makes his ruling... a best-case scenario, if you like.

 

In those circumstances, what kinda time frame might we be looking at before people in my position - ie ones who've already put in a claim but would almost certainly require a court date to resolve some of the issues - might need to submit our court bundles, etc, etc?!

 

Thanks again

Fred_Funk

[saintly_1]

That would really depend on your local court and when they could accomodate a court date its not like the ruling will come in and you will immediatly get a court date ...... Nobody can give any sort of time frame but you will proberbly receive ample notice.

 

I know thats not what you wanted to hear but its like asking how long is a piece of string

[Michael Browne]

Already County Courts are beginning to send out letters extending the existing stays. Only seen a couple so far, one till July and one till October.

 

No doubt more on there way.

[revolting peasant]

If it goes the distance Fred I would think that you are looking at at least 12 months before you even have to consider going to court. If the OFT win the current test case the banks will appeal and I can see this one going all the way to the Lords before we get a final and binding judgement.