StevePM v NastyWesty ***WON***

[stevepm]

I finally I can register my own fight against the bank.:o

 

This has been ongoing now since September and gone through everything everyone else has. Well today recieved a LETER form Cobbetts asking for a copy of the data sheet. Unfortunately since they where not so nice they will get two one from me, I e-mailed it but th eseond from the court re-submitted with the AQ and Sugessested Draft Orders. WEll suppose will not hear anything now till after Easter but then it gets really good I have submitted another five data requestes for the rest of my familly so lets face it what goes around comes around.8-)

[zootscoot]

Good luck Steve!

[stevepm]

Recieved my Court Date today it will be the 25th May the Judge has allocated quite along time for the case I requested 1 Hour Cobbetts requested 3 hours the judge decided it would take 15 minutes. Now lets just wait and see.

[zootscoot]

Is this the full hearing or an allocation or direction hearing?

[stevepm]

Just a note recieved this from OFT to dayThank you for your email to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) regarding the problems you have been experiencing with Natwest. Your complaint has been logged for our records in order to further our understanding of this market. I am sorry to hear about the difficulties you have experienced but unfortunately the OFT is unable to assist you on this occasion. The OFT does not have the power to provide advice on individual complaints and neither is it able to help individual consumers to seek redress. Our primary duties include the enforcement of competition law, the regulation of the consumer credit market through a licensing system and the application of consumer protection legislation in respect of matters which adversely affect the collective interests of UK consumers. As you may be aware, the OFT has previously looked at the issue of credit card default charges and has now turned its attention to charges on bank current accounts. For more information, please see the following press release: The Office of Fair Trading: OFT announces 'quick fix' on bank charges will disadvantage consumers Please note that the OFT will not consider whether a further detailed investigation of the fairness or level of individual bank default charges is needed, or what solution might be required, until the end of this study. In general, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) is responsible for the banking sector. It has responsibility for the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (‘the Regulations’) in respect of personal banking contracts. However, the OFT and the FSA have agreed that the OFT is taking the lead on the fact finding exercise relating to bank charges.

[stevepm]

Hi not sure about what you are talking about the top of the letter saysNOTICE OF ALLOCATION TO THE SMALL CLAIMS TRACK (HEARING)Deputy District Judge S**** jas considered the statements of case and allocation questoinnaires filed and allocated the claim to small claims track.Ther hearing of the claim will take place ******does this mean that this is the court date or what

[zootscoot]

That sounds like its the full hearing. Looks like the court doesn't expect it to go to court having only allocated 15 mins. I wonder what makes them think that? Lol

[stevepm]

Thanks for this well lets just wait and see only recieved the letter yesterday, Thanks for the help

[stevepm]

Just a question the rate of 8% interest is upto OLMC am I right in thinking that this rises to 3.5% per day after that or doe it stay at 8%. Obviously the reason is that I have to calculate the interest charges up to when they pay because I am not going to accept anything less than full payment with costs and interest upto payment date.

[Michael Browne]

There are 2 others today, with the same order, both at Plymouth here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/80174-suz-llyodstsb-help.html#post745147

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/72152-housekeeper-ltsb-3.html#post745265

[stevepm]

Mine is in Swindon Wiltshire but I stress that I had the whole works AQ the lot. I even requested that the Banks defence be struck out but that did not happen. I request draft orders but it looks like the judge did not accept these. I am just being paranoide but I have started to put together my court pack in plenty of time, Yep paranoide because they probably will offer to settle soon.

[scott150663]

Mine is in Swindon Wiltshire but I stress that I had the whole works AQ the lot. I even requested that the Banks defence be struck out but that did not happen. I request draft orders but it looks like the judge did not accept these. I am just being paranoide but I have started to put together my court pack in plenty of time, Yep paranoide because they probably will offer to settle soon.

 

Hi Steve

 

You have plenty of time to prepare for court,My claim is very similar to yours and i got a cheque for the full amount completly out of the blue.

 

You will get your money

 

Just be patient

 

one day soon you'll get your money

 

Good luck Scott

 

have aread of my thread it might help you

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/81964-nat-west-owe-me.html

[Suzy75]

Hi not sure about what you are talking about the top of the letter saysNOTICE OF ALLOCATION TO THE SMALL CLAIMS TRACK (HEARING)Deputy District Judge S**** jas considered the statements of case and allocation questoinnaires filed and allocated the claim to small claims track.Ther hearing of the claim will take place ******does this mean that this is the court date or what

 

Hi Stevepm i know our cases are not exactly the same but when i read the above it was near enough the same as the letter i received yesterday, Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track, case should take no longer than 15mins. My hearing is on the 20th June and as yours is before mine i'm very interested to see how you get on, lets hope they pay up before the court date, which in alot of cases they seem to be doing. Can i ask if you have or are going to send in any court bundle before the hearing date?? That's the bit i'm unsure about. Thanks and good luck Suzy.

[PPMAN159]

Cobbetts surely must know by now that they will not get allocated 3 hours of the courts time-do they do this just so that they can justify to Nasty Vest the fees that they charge?.

[stevepm]

Suzy75 I am not going to take any chances I have already started putting together my court pack. I do not expect to have to use it though

Steve

[stevepm]

Hi allI have just completed my Court Pack to send to both the Court and Cobbetts. This actually took me over 8 hurs to produce with the help of the site, thsnks goodness for all the help one gets here. I have not recieved anything from Cobbetts at this point with th efinal date for delivery of the data to be on the 11th of May. I will keep you all in the picture as to what goes on.

[stevepm]

One thing I am gonig to go for the works on applying for cost. Some Where on the site I saw that you can claim so much per letter and for each hour you spend on preparation. Does anybody know what the details are.StevePM

[Michael Browne]

Costs: Template Application Letter

Application for costs

Costs : Wasted Costs Order

Wasted Costs order

[stevepm]

I need a bit of help . The date for Cobbetts to submit their papers to court has now expired. I submitted mine to cobbeets by recorded mail and the court in person. What is the situation can I apply to the court to have summary judgement without waiting for the court date. My personla opinion is that both Cobbetts and NayWest should be fined by the court for delibratly wasting the courts time.

[Guest ChloeJane]

Hi Steve,

 

A good link is here -

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/85726-wasted-costs-order.html

 

I assume that at this stage - that the court date has passed or is coming up?

 

CJ

[stevepm]

Thanks I have seen these. However I would say that something needs ot be done about Cobbetts this is blatant waste of Public Money, i.e. our money, and a delibrate waste of our own time. I for one hope I make it to the judge because I cetainly will be putting these points forward.

[rory32]

Couldn't agree more steve.......good luck with the case

[stevepm]

Hi all PLEASE READ AND BE VERY AWARE

I was in court to -day for a DIRECTION HEARING not the full case.

1. The point of having NatWest defence thrown out, the judge dismissed Mullin Vs Council as irrelevant

2. I have now been ordered to complete a CP Pt 18.

3. The bank then wanted the full case heard I have had that reversed at least to a second direction hearing.

 

 

In essence they succeeded in convincing the Judge that they did not have enough information to conduct their defence. The Judge has ordered the following:

 

 

1.1 In relation to each charge please identify:

 

 

(a) the dates when the charge was charged

(b) the amount of the same

© the reason(s) given for the charging of the same

 

 

1.2 In respect of each charge, please clarify the following:

(a) is it the case of the claimant the same should not have been charged

(b) if yes; please explain why the claimant contends that the same should not have been charged

© if no; is tit the case of the claimant that the same should not have been charged in this amount

(d) if yes; please explain why the claimant contends that the same should not have been charged in this amount and identify the sum the claimants contends should have been charged

(e) if no please state the claimants case

 

 

2 In your claim you state "the charges are an unlawful extravagant penalty".

 

 

2.1 Please specify whether these charges applied were due to a breach of contract by the claimant

 

 

2.2 Please identify in each case the particular breach of contract (by reference to appropriate terms of the contract and the charge relates to

 

 

3. In your claim you state that the charges" applied constitutes an unfair penalty under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999"

 

 

3.1 Please supply all of the facts relied on by the claimant in support of the contentions in Paragraph 2 above and in particular please identify the contractual provisions that the claimant alleges are invalid by reference to the Regulations.

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

I hope that this make sense to some one the Judge did point and accept that the answers would have to be in generic terms as we do not have the exact pricing structure of actual cost incurred by the banks.

 

 

Can anybody help in part or all

 

 

I Have 14 days to resubmit

 

 

Note The next is also a Direction hearing and I hope I can turn it to requesting actual administration cost that are incurred from the banks I think this may turn things.

 

 

Thanks

 

[hedgey06]

Hi Steve, PM a mod with a link to this thread - I think you need some really good advice here. Try Jonni2bad (if his light's on) - or check on the main page to see who's online at the moment.

 

Good luck - post back on here once you've been advised further. Hedgey xxx :-?

[Michael Browne]

This should do for a start, but get a Mod to give you further advice

 

1.2 In respect of each charge, please clarify the following:

(a) Is it the case of the Claimant the same should not have been charged?

The Claimant is aware that each charge has been debited by the Defendant from the Claimant’s account pursuant to the terms and conditions signed by the Claimant when the account was opened. However, please see my replies below.

 

(b) If yes; please explain why the Claimant contends that the same should not have been charged?

 

The Claimant does not contend that the same should not have been charged; merely that the charge made should have represented the Defendant’s liquidated losses and not the fixed charges applied by the Defendant according to the terms and conditions in force at the time the charge was made.

 

© If no; is it the case of the Claimant that the same should have been charged in this amount?

 

This is exactly the Claimant’s case. Each charge debited by the Defendant from the Claimant’s bank account should not have been charged in the amount that was charged. It is the Claimant’s case that each charge is a disproportionate penalty in that each charge does not truly represent the actual cost to the Defendant. The Claimant reminds the Defendant that it has been put to strict proof in previous correspondence and/or the Particulars of Claim that the amount charged for each charge debited does truly reflect the Defendant’s costs and that they are not making a profit from such charges – in the absence of any documentation to support the Defendant’s contention that each charge debited represents the Defendant’s liquidated losses, the Claimant contends that the Defendant has no defence to the claim that each charge is disproportionate and therefore unenforceable in common law, or by the previously claimed Acts, Statutes and Regulations pleaded.

 

(d) If yes; please explain why the claimant contends that the same should not have been charge in this amount and identify the sum the claimant contends should have been charged.

 

The Claimant cannot specifically reply to this request in that the amount that should have been charged cannot be specified because the Defendant has failed to reply to the Claimant’s request for a breakdown of costs incurred by the Defendant in applying charges to the Claimant’s account. The Defendant’s contentions that the charges are fair, reasonable and transparent are denied because of this material failure to disclose this information. Had the Claimant been made aware of the breakdown of each and every charge debited, the Claimant would have been able to reply to this particular request.

 

(e) If no; please state the claimant case.

 

The Claimant has already stated a case in the Particulars of Claim (or as amended) and repeats the same claims as if they were repeated in this reply. The Claimant also refers the Defendant to the answer at 1.2© above.

 

2 In your claim you state "the charges are an unlawful extravagant penalty".

 

2.1 Please specify whether these charges applied were due to a breach of contract by the claimant

 

The Claimant avers that the circumstances giving rise to the levying of charges by the Defendant are all breaches of the provision relating to Operations on the Account and which sets out a mandatory requirement in respect of the maintaining by the Claimant of cleared balances on the accounts. As such failure to adhere to that contractual requirement is a breach of the agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant.

The Claimant further contends that the Defendant is only entitled to be compensated by the amount it would be able to secure in a claim at common law in the event that the Claimant was individually sued for breach of contract by the Defendant. Accordingly the charges that result from the breaches are by their nature are therefore unreasonable and/or unenforceable and/or in terrorum in respect of each and every occasion that they have been debited to all of the Claimant’s accounts.

 

 

2.2 Please identify in each case the particular breach of contract (by reference to appropriate terms of the contract and the charge relates to

 

(need to refer to the relevant terms and conditions .)

 

 

3. In your claim you state that the charges" applied constitutes an unfair penalty under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999"

 

3.1 Please supply all of the facts relied on by the claimant in support of the contentions in Paragraph 2 above and in particular please identify the contractual provisions that the claimant alleges are invalid by reference to the Regulations.

 

The Claimant specifically pleads that the charges debited to the Claimant’s account by the Defendant are automatically unfair because, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract (which the Claimant pleads is invalid in any event) to the detriment of the Claimant. “Good faith” (as defined by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999) means that that the Defendant must deal fairly and openly with the Claimant. The Defendant has not dealt fairly and openly with the Claimant. Further, as the contractual term (i.e. each and every charge debited from the Claimant’s account according to the “contract” entered into by the parties pursuant to the Defendant’s terms and conditions, as well as the terms and conditions themselves) was not individually negotiated and was drafted in advance, the Claimant was unable to influence the substance of the term, making it unfair. In the absence of a breakdown of the Defendant's liquidated losses and/or actual costs of each and every charge applied to the Claimant's account, the contractual term in force at the time of the charge forced the Claimant to pay a disproportionately high sum to the Defendant in compensation for the Claimant’s alleged failure to fulfil his obligation.

 

If the defendant contests this does not amount to a breach of contract the claimant will contest that charges appear to represent an unfair term of contract which is contrary to the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Para.8 and sch.2 (1) (e).The claimants account falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 as I am a consumer. These charges constitute an unfair penalty under reference to paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 of the said regulations:

Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair:

1. Terms which have the object of effect of - (e) requiring any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.