Fred_Funk v NatWest

[Fred_Funk]

Guys

 

I'm on the point of putting in a claim against NatWest for unlawful bank charges, as well as contractual interest (compounded) under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity.

 

I've sent of my prelim letter and my LBA - both of which went unanswered - and am now ready to submit my court claim.

 

I understand, I think, the pros and cons of asking for contractual interest (compounded) having spent many hours reading around the forum. However, I'm desperately trying to find a copy of someone else's Particulars of Claim for while I think I've got my head around all the arguments, I'm not great at writing in legal jargon.

 

Now, I know that someone on here someone who's gone for contractual interest (compounded) must have posted a copy of their Particualrs of Claim but I'm buggered if I can find 'em - and, yes, I have tried using the search facility.

 

If anyone can pint me in the right direction - ideally with a link - it would be very much appreciated.

 

Thanks in anticipation

 

Fred_Funk

[Fred_Funk]

Bankershost

 

Thanks for sharing your Particulars of Claim. Since posting yesterday, I've stumbled across the POCs used by Midzai and Lucid - who were also claiming contractual interest (compounded).

 

I've pasted theirs below and would be intersted in the opinion of you and others as to which is most appropriate.

 

Thanks in anticipation

 

Fred_Funk

 

Originally Posted by Mindzai & Lucid (Particulars of Claim)

 

1. The Claimants have a joint account xxxxxxxx ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around [DATE].

 

2. During the period in which the Account has been operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimants and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimants understand that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimants.

 

3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.

 

4. The Claimants contend that:

 

a) The charges debited to the Account, as outlined in the attached schedule, are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimants; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit. In the event that the charges are not a penalty, they are unreasonable under The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 section 15. The Defendant has declined to justify the charges.

 

b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) paragraph 8 and schedule 2(1)(e), The Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 section 4 and the common law.

 

5. Accordingly the Claimants claim:

 

a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £1162 and interest charged thereon in the sum of £138.23;

 

b) Court costs;

 

c) the additional costs incurred by the Claimants in the writing and sending of letters to the Defendant pursuant to this claim in the sum of £18, as set out in the attached list of costs.

 

d) the Claimants claim contractual interest at a rate of 29.85% per annum, from the date of each transaction to 7th September 2006, which is £285.11, as set out in the attached list of charges. The Claimants further claim interest, on the resulting total of £1585.34, at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment, at a daily rate of £1.30 per day.

 

The account’s Terms and Conditions specify the interest payable on unauthorised drawings from the account. The Claimants hold that this applies to unauthorised drawings by the Defendant as well as to unauthorised drawings by the Claimants. Should the court deem this incorrect, the Claimants claim the rate to be justified under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity, and is based on the Defendant’s unauthorised overdraft interest rate that would be applied under the terms of the above mentioned account.

 

Should the court find that this interest rate is not applicable, then in the alternative the Claimants claim contractual interest at a rate of 18.2%, from the date of each transaction to 7th September 2006, which is £170.43, as set out in the attached list of charges. The Claimants further claims interest, on the resulting total of £1470.67, at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment, at a daily rate of £0.73 per day.

 

The account’s Terms and Conditions specify the interest payable on authorised drawings from the account. The Claimants hold that this applies to authorised drawings by the Defendant as well as to authorised drawings by the Claimants. Should the court deem this incorrect, the Claimants claim the rate to be justified under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity, and is based on the Defendant’s authorised overdraft interest rate that would be applied under the terms of the above mentioned account.

 

Should the court find that this interest rate is not applicable, then in the alternative the Claimants claim interest under Section 69 of the County Court Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum calculated from 3rd November 2003 to 7th September 2006, which is £72.82 and continuing until payment or the date of judgement at a daily rate of £0.28.

 

We believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true.

[Fred_Funk]

Okay guys, how about this for the 'Brief details of claim' section?

 

Claimant has had a contract with the Defendant, which is conducted according to its standard terms and conditions, since 1986. 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. Claimant has repeatedly asked the defendant to justify its charges but it has declined to do so. The claimant claims contractual interest (compounded) at a rate of 29.5% per anum from March 2001 to June 2007 under the principal of mutuality and reciprocity and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £7.58.

 

Clearly, that's all pretty bog standard up until the point at which I mention compound interest. My question, then, is whether my final sentence is okay? Moreover, is it satisfactory to give a numerical figure rather than a percentage rate for any further interest which may accumulate?

 

Thanks in anticipation

 

Fred_Funk

[Fred_Funk]

The problem I see here is that you say "plus the interest it has levied on these charges".

 

Are you actually able to calculate that interest?.

 

Yes, I've used Mindzai's spreadsheet which calculates the interest that has arisen as a direct result of the charges unlawfully levied.

 

If you are not then you should say something like: "plus interest on those charges at the bank's unarranged borrowing rate".

 

I think you're misunderstanding. This sentence, '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', refers not to the contractual interest (compounded) I'm asking for under the principles of mutuality and reciprocity but the interest I have incurred as a direct result of the unlawful charges.

 

That is to say that if you have been o/d and know the interest rate for every month since you became overdrawn and calculate that rate applied to the penalty charges and accrued interest, you would be correct in using that wording.

 

It is, however, extremely unlikely that you could accurately calculate such a figure and if you cannot do so I would have thought you would be on dodgy ground saying that is what you were doing.

 

To give you an idea of the complexity of the calculation, it would require, each month, that you (using the banks actual rate for the month), calculated the daily compounded interest on the outstanding sum of charges and accrued interest at the start of the month and added it to a sum of each charge for that month multiplied by the compounded daily rate for the month for the appropriate number of days that the charge existed during the month.

 

Not impossible, but by no means an easy task, and one that would require some skill at producing a spreadsheet of other programatic means of doing the calculation.".

 

As I've intimated above, I think you're getting the wrong end of the proverbial stick. Firstly, the only part of my 'Brief details of claim' which has anything to do with contractual interest (compounded) is the final sentence. Moreover, that aside, the bank's contractual rate of interest at the particular time a specific charge was levied is irrelevant. I've taken NatWest's unauthorised borrowing rate as of the day I submitted my preliminary letter. Under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity, I'm charging them at that rate for, in effect, borrowing from me without my authorisation because that's what they've done to me.

 

This is, of course, just my opinion. But I intend to use the 'principal of mutuality and reciprocity' to assert that the bank should pay compound interest at its own unarranged borrowing rate for each day each illegal charge was taken by them since that is exactly what they would charge you.

 

This makes sense though, with respect, most of what you wrote before didn't. I'd like to think I'm fairly well versed in all of this - I've spent many months reading through the forums - and unless I've got completely the wrong end of the stick some of your comments, above, are misinformed.

 

Be that as it may, thanks for your contribution - it's only through this kind of dialogue that we each improve our understanding of the process. Moreover, it may be that it's me who's barking up the wrong tree though I'm 99.9 per cent sure that in this instance it's not the case.

[Fred_Funk]

neilwoods

 

Glad you got the wrong end of the stick as I thought I'd just about got my head around all this and your post made me fear I was horribly mistaken.

 

I don't know if you've had an opportunity to look at either Vampiress' or Mindzai's spreadsheets but both are widely acclaimed and produce two seperate figures for interest:

 

(1) The interest incurred as a result of the unlawful charges;

 

(2) The interest you are now charging the bank - either the 8% allowed by section 69 of the County Courts Act or, alternatively, your bank's unauthorised borrowing rate - as recompense for taking your money unlawfully.

 

I shan't post on the 'Why is no-one claiming the contractual rate of interest?' thread as, I'm fairly certain, this has already been established as the thing to do and I don't want to cause any more confusion.

 

Hope this clarifies things a bit?!

 

Fred_Funk

[Fred_Funk]

Stornoway

 

So, in essence, you're agreeing with me, yeah?!

 

When you refer to (2), I'm not clear, are you referring to my (2) or your (2)?! ;-)

 

Whatver, I don't think whether or not you've been overdrawn in excess of your limit for the entire period is of any relevance.

 

As I understand it, the argument, according to the principle of mutuality and reciprocity, is that the bank have seen fit to charge you interest at their unauthorsied borrowing rate when you've borrowed from them without permission. Now, you're asking for the same treatment when they've taken your money unlawfully or, in effect, without permission.

 

You can, therefore, argue that you expect contractual interest (compounded) on all the money they have taken from you - whether via unlawful charges or interest incurred as a result - regardless of the state of your account at the time.

 

Fred_Funk

[Fred_Funk]

I can understand your logical reasoning in what you were saying regarding the calculation of interest on the charges. Of course, as you say, if an account is fluctuating between it's overdraft interest rate and in-credit rate it would be extremely pedantic to calculate the interest charged or lost as a result. However this sum might be easier to calculate in the instance of credit cards where the claimant is always in debt to the provider and paying a constant rate of interest for the privalige.

 

Again, unless I'm missing something - and I don't think I am but stand to be corrected - it's completely irrelevant whether or not your account is being operated within your overdraft facility.

 

As far as I'm aware, all the spreadsheets provided via this site - and certainly this is true of Mindzai's and Vampiress' - calcualte the proportion of your overdraft that is attributable to unlawful charges and then, in turn, the proportion of the interest you've incurred that is attributable to those charges and can, therefore, be reclaimed.

 

Whether this interest was charged at 10%, 20% or 30% is, therfore, of no relevance whatsoever.

 

Fred_Funk

[Fred_Funk]

There is confusion on this point, possibly on my part.

 

Just to confirm, as I took it, the point in question was not regarding contractual interest, but claiming back the actual interest that would have been charged (or lost if in credit) on a charge.

 

Simplified Example:

 

The banks overdraft interest rate if 10% APR.

Their in-credit rate is 1% APR.

 

July 31st 2006: Account balance 10GBP

 

August 1st 2006: 2 x 30GBP charges are applied to the account, causing it to go 50GBP into overdraft.

 

Lets assume there is no other activity on the account until 1st September 2006 at which point the client pays 60GBP to cancel out the charges.

 

The client has therefore suffered overdraft interest at 10% APR on 50GBP for one month. Was at a loss of 1% credit interest due on 10GBP.

 

-----

 

I think this was the chain of thought Neil had. Hope this has clarified it.

 

I understand, I think, what you're sying here though I'm not convinced it was what Neil was trying to say.

 

Be that as it may, isn't this just making things unnecessarily complicated. As I've said, if you use either Mindzai or Vamp's spreadsheet then it really doesn't matter wether the interest levied on your account is charged at an authorised or unathorised rate as the calculations are done on a pro rata basis.

 

That's to say, in the example you've given above, all the interest levied on the £50 you are overdrawn would be attributable to unlaful charges and, as such, reclaimable.

 

If your point is that you've also missed out on earning interest on the £10 you would otherwise have been in credit and that the spreadsheets fail to make provision for this then I do, at last, see where you're coming from.

 

Thanks in advance for some clarification.

 

Fred_Funk

[Fred_Funk]

My POC are here if you want a look.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/citicards/91232-stornoway-citicards-incl-contractual.html

 

 

Thanks for that, it's much appreciated.

 

It seems your POC are not dissimilar to Mindzai and Lucid's. I shall examine both more closely tomorrow and then set about preparing my own.

 

One further question, there is, it seems to me, plenty of discussion about POC but relatively little about the 'Brief details of claim' section of the N1 form. Why is this? Presumably it's important this too is correct?

 

That being the case, do you think my suggested wording - see sbove - is appropriate?!

 

Thanks again

 

Fred_Funk

[Fred_Funk]

Hi, Fred.

 

Having spent a lot of time poring over this question (claiming the return of actual interest as well as charging contractual interest), I still think that there is a problem with trying to claim back both.

 

The principle of mutuality and reciprocity (PMR) says that because the bank deprived you of the use of your money you are entitled to charge them interest in exactly the same way as they can charge you for depriving them of the use of their money (where that money is provided to you as an overdraft).

 

However, in the case where the unlawful fees caused you to become, or become more, overdrawn, you were NOT deprived of the use of the money since they had lent it to you.

 

Firstly, I appreciate the case for asking for contractual interest (compounded) is not clear cut. However, it seems to me, an argument can be made for it - under the principles of mutuality and reciprocity - and, this being the case, I'm determined to go down that route though I will, of course, ask for s.69 interest should the judge deem my request for contractual interest (compounded) inadmissible.

 

Of course, fingers crossed, it won't get as far as a courtroom. ;-)

 

I appreciate what you are saying about one not being deprived of the use of the money if its charging only caused you to become overdrawn or more overdrawn.

 

Now, I'm thinking aloud here - and ready to be shot down in flames - but could you not argue that the bank charged you at its unauthorised borrowing rate for going beyond what was mutually agreeable, ie staying within your overdraft facility, you are now doing the same by penalising it, at the same rate, for levying unlawful charges on you.

 

Tell me, does such an argument have any merit or does it have no basis in law?

 

Whilst it's true that you are undoubtedly entitled to the return of any fees levied in interest on that money, I don't see how you can also expect contractual interest on any part of the penalty that was loaned to you by the bank.

 

On that basis I am only claiming contractual interest, relying on the fact that although the bank lent me some of the unlawul fees for some of the period, the interest charged on that overdraft would (apart from minor rate fluctuations) be exactly offset by contractual interest, to avoid the all but impossible calculation of actual interest charged.

 

Again, I understand where you are coming from here, and I might be missing something, but would contractual interest exactly offset the interest charged on your overdraft? I'm not convinced it would; surely charging the bank contractual interest (compounded) now on the unlawful charges it has deducted from your account some years ago will yield a sum far in excess of the interest actually levied on the overdraft?!

 

Fred_Funk

[Fred_Funk]

I was all ready to send in my first claim letter, in my case simply asking for the return of fees and compound CI.

 

However, a moderator has now waded in saying that he or she does not agree with CI because he or she knows of no legal reason for it.

 

He or she then promptly went off line so questions as to whether this opinion should be lent any weight or whether it is just some personal prejuice born of ignorance remain unanswered.

 

neilwoods, I wouldn't allow you to deflect this from your intention. As you will see, I've been on this site for more than a year now and while one or two of the moderators may have an issue with the case for contractual interest (compounded), he/she would appear to be in the minority.

 

Dare I say it, perhaps the persone who PMd you is someone whose claim was settled before the case for requesting contractual interest (compounded) became prevalent. ;-)

 

In any case, at least one of the threads imploring people to ask for it was started by BankFodder who, as I'm sure you're aware, is the founder of this site.

 

I suggest you stick to your guns! ;-)

 

Fred_Funk

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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