B Hedge v. Natwest

[bhedge]

Hi,

 

Firstly, thanks to everyone who has been good enough to post their experiences they have been very helpful.

 

Secondly my situation, I have sent the 'request for repayment of charges' letter and the LBA including schedule of charges both of which were ignored by the Natwest. I have therefore issued a claim in the County Court and received a Acknowledgment of Service from Cobbett's.

 

I have been away over Easter and when I returned I found an offer letter dated 4th April from Natwest Customer Relations sap Stuart Higley offering me a 'goodwill' £2904 (the claim is for £3089.50). However I also received Cobbett's defence (pretty standard letter I think) dated 5th April.

 

My questions are; am I right to reject this as a full settlement and pursue the additional 8% statutory interest and court fee? Is this a common tactic by them to try and wrong-foot us?

 

Thanks in advance

B Hedge

[Michael Browne]

am I right to reject this as a full settlement and pursue the additional 8% statutory interest and court fee?

Yes, you can either ignore it, since this will be in reply to your LBA and things have moved on since then or send (I think no.6) this:

Rejecting Offers

[Guest NATTIE]

yes you can reject this as it is not a full settlement, is this a tactic? no there are many occasions when a call to the bank can reveal the offer that will be made(usually charges minus interest).

[bhedge]

Is it worth mentioning on th Allocation Questionnaire that they have already made an offer? It's like them holding their hands up after all.

[Deller]

Allocation Questionnaires - A guide to completion

 

You could also propose a Draft Directions Order:

New strategy for Allocation Questionaires

 

Other Information - Section G:

 

I am respectfully requesting that my claim be allocated to the small claims track.

 

This issue is not a complicated one; it is an issue of fact and not of law. The issue is only whether the money levied by the Defendant in respect of its customer’s contractual breaches exceed their actual costs incurred. I am happy to pay their actual costs and I am surprised the Defendant did not counterclaim for these, because I would have paid them without argument.

 

However, the continuing problem is, (in common with the 100s of other cases currently being brought by other bank customers), that the banks refuse to reveal the details of their penalty-charging regime. As the banks have a fiduciary duty towards their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly and in utmost good faith.

 

Accordingly, I would respectfully ask that the court in this case, not withstanding allocation to the small claims track, order standard disclosure. I understand that it is in the courts discretion to do so. This would bring a rapid end, not only to this litigation, but would also likely bring an end to much of the litigation in progress against other high-street banks.

 

It's a bit of squeeze, but very important you enter all the details.

 

Include copy of schedule

 

Cheque to HM Courts Service

 

Fee will be added automatically to your claim

 

Send copy of your AQ to Cobbetts

 

Hope this helps!!

[bhedge]

Thanks, yes I've seen that. I just wondered whether the existence of

a previous offer could have a positive bearing on it too.

[Deller]

To be honest I dont think it would. There have been several people who've made more than one claim against the same bank and the fact that they've recieved settlement from one didn't make the second claim any quicker, so cant really see the mention of an offer speeding things up in anyway!!

[bhedge]

Thanks for everyone's continued help, another query though:

 

Today I received the Defendants AQ with this in the "other info" section:

 

"The claimant has not shown that they have reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and despite the Defendant requesting that the Claimant remedy the lack of particularity pleaded in the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant has failed to do so. Case management directions cannot be processed until the Claimant fully particularises their Claim. In light of this, the Defendant may amend its Defence or apply to strike out."

 

I've searched on this but can find no consistent course of action.

 

My POC were cut and pasted from the templates section on this site (with slight modifications) with a schedule of charges, and my AQ was completed in line with the "New strategy for AQs" thread.

 

My questions are, is this just a delaying tactic, is it worth resending Cobblers a copy, should I be worried about a potential striking out application or should I stand firm and ignore it?

 

Plus they've filled in an N149 but the court sent me a N150, is this relevant?

 

Thanks very much in advance.

[scott150663]

Thanks for everyone's continued help, another query though:

 

Today I received the Defendants AQ with this in the "other info" section:

 

"The claimant has not shown that they have reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and despite the Defendant requesting that the Claimant remedy the lack of particularity pleaded in the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant has failed to do so. Case management directions cannot be processed until the Claimant fully particularises their Claim. In light of this, the Defendant may amend its Defence or apply to strike out." dont do anything

 

I've searched on this but can find no consistent course of action.

 

My POC were cut and pasted from the templates section on this site (with slight modifications) with a schedule of charges, and my AQ was completed in line with the "New strategy for AQs" thread.Both OK

 

My questions are, is this just a delaying tactic, is it worth resending Cobblers a copy, should I be worried about a potential striking out application or should I stand firm and ignore it?Delaying & ignore it

 

Plus they've filled in an N149 but the court sent me a N150, is this relevant? Doesn't matter

 

Thanks very much in advance.

 

 

All standard stuff from cobblers

 

Dont worry

 

Scott

[bhedge]

Thanks for very much your reply.

 

Just an update: the AQ deadline was Monday 30th April and I phoned the court this morning to see if Cobblers had missed it. It seems they have as they have not yet filed their AQ, so I'm hoping the judge will be thoroughly sick of banks and their shenanigans and penalise them in some way.

 

I'm a bit peeved that they can use the court system in this way.

[bhedge]

I have received the "Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing)" letter on it there is no mention of any 'directions'. It does say all documents to be relied upon must be submitted etc. which I guess is the standard bit. Am I to assume my draft order for directions was not ordered?

 

It has been allocated 10 minutes (only 10?) on 5th June.

 

Thanks for everyone's continued advice.

[bhedge]

A quick question.

 

If Cobblers settle before it gets to court do you still get the s.69 interest? I ask because my court date is Tuesday and I've just got back from a week away to find a special delivery note telling me there is a letter to sign for at the sorting office which I hope is from them (or is that wishful thinking?).

 

Thanks in advance

B Hedge

[hedgey06]

Quick answer - yes!

 

And if they don't, hold it for it at this stage.

 

Good luck - hope the letters a full settlement offer of charges, interest and court cost. xxx

[bhedge]

I'm probably putting the cart before the horse here but if it is not the full amount what is considered the best means of approaching them, a telephone call? Do I suggest they do a BACS transfer if they want to avoid court on Tuesday?

 

Thanks

B Hedge

[stevepm]

bhedge Just a few words of warning. Of course dependant on which court you are in be prepared. Did you answer the Cobblers CPR 18 y/n if you used the standard NO then be prepared for cobblers to ask for a direction first to make you respond to it. I fell for that one. Is your court bundle to spec. Are the pages numbered and contents list to match. If the judge gives direction for you to comply to the CPR 18 then ask for 14 days to comply.Then as for the next hearing to be a directions hearing saying that you can only answer the CPR18 in generic terms because NatWest has failed to supply you with all the information as request within your Access Letter. This will then open the door for you to slap a CPR18 on NatWestThis he should grant. You can always request that the case be sent to Crown Court this will probably be thrown out and at least Cobbetts will argue for it not to go.In any case Cobblers will probably phone you at about 15:30 on Monday and make an offer. This offer will be less than your total so then it is up to you if you take it or not.StevePMIf you find this helpful please check my scales.

[bhedge]

Hi Steve,

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

I hope my bundle is up to scratch. Although I didn't number the pages I did make sure my contents were comprehensive and did it indicate the order of the bundle. Cobblers haven't submitted one and with the court date being two days away (Tues 5th June 2.00pm) I guess they can't.

 

As for CPR18, they never sent me one. I think they may have been wrong footed by the court date being so soon - I followed the new method for the AQ and asked for a Draft order of Directions but the judge didn't order it instead in reply he gave us a court date which was only two weeks away - I suppose that had a similar effect as the Draft order as it cut the potential time scale significantly.

 

What is an Access Letter Is that the S.A.R? I didn't send one, only the Data Protection letter, should I have done?

[stevepm]

arnt you the lucky one no CPR18 but I would guess they will try to spring this on you at the court

 

Good luck

 

StevePM

 

if you need help just scream

[bhedge]

Can they realistically use the court given that they haven't submitted a bundle and I wont give them permission to use any evidence they haven't already submitted?

[bhedge]

Well I'm pleased to say that the two Special Delivery letters waiting for me at the sorting office were the NastyWest paying up the full amount, £4200 (the day before the hearing as usual)! So this thread can be marked as settled or won or something.

 

The letter said they'd win if it went to court blah blah but I found it funny that the 'revisal fee' I tried to claim back they wouldn't pay as they claim it is a 'legitimate' charge, oh, so does that mean they others were illegitimate?

 

I was claiming back fees for a dissolved company so for anyone else about to do this, the way I did it was to claim in my name (not on behalf of...) but still delete all references to consumer law and on your schedule of charges put the account name as your company name. This way you're not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes, so when the time comes you should still get a cheque made out to you rather than your dissolved company. Well it worked for me anyway.

 

Thanks again for everyone's invaluable help, I would have found it a lot more stressful without it.

 

Regards

B Hedge

[hedgey06]

Well done mate.......... CONGRATULATIONS to you!!!!

Another fine win for the CAGGERS!!!!

Enjoy the cash, best wishes, hedgey

xxx :D

[WendyB]

CONGRATULATIONS :D

[scott150663]

CONGRATULATIONS

WELL DONE SCOTT

[stevepm]

bhedgey

well done anothe one bites the dust

 

Stevepm