Nimrod10 v Abbey/ Court orders stays to be lifted.

[noomill060]

Very interesting.

 

Right behind you Nimrod!

[Nimrod10]

Paid my £300 court fees and asked if Abbey had filed anything. The Court says no. Now we just wait and see and prepare the bundle.

[MARTIN3030]

Was there directions given with the hearing dates for filing bundles ?

[Nimrod10]

Bundles have to be with the Court and Abbey 14 days before the hearing date.

[noomill060]

BBC NEWS | Business | RBS-NatWest slash overdraft fees

 

Maybe this has something to do with the court's change of stance...

 

Theres more to this than meets the eye.

 

 

RBS-NatWest slash overdraft fees

 

 

The new Supreme Court will rule on overdraft fees later this autumn

 

Banking group RBS-NatWest - majority owned by the taxpayer - has broken ranks with the rest of the industry and decided to slash its overdraft charges. The move comes ahead of a decision of the new Supreme Court on whether or not the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) can regulate these charges.

From 1 October, RBS and NatWest customers will be charged only £5 for having a cheque bounced, down from £38.

The fee for paying an item on an overdrawn account falls in half to £15.

"This is good news for customers, not least because the fees for unarranged borrowing have been an area of ongoing concern for them," said the chief executive of the bank's UK operations, Brian Hartzer.

"As we look ahead there are many issues to consider, but we thought it was time to move this particular customer concern forward by cutting our charges.

"As it relates to past charges we are awaiting the outcome of the industry-wide bank charges test case ," he added.

[Nimrod10]

Very interesting. Whilst I'm sure it's coincidence it will make an interesting point at the hearing. I note they aren't doing anything about past charges though.

[noomill060]

Not yet and certainly not until they have to...

[MARTIN3030]

Very interesting. Whilst I'm sure it's coincidence it will make an interesting point at the hearing. I note they aren't doing anything about past charges though.

 

 

Actually it was reported not too long ago following a leaked internal memo-that they have a "War Chest" stashed in anticipation of having to pay those.

[Nimrod10]

Hi, time is moving on and I've had no word from Abbey and neither have the courts. I'm starting to look at getting my bundle together and have dug out all my old paperwork. The POC dates back to July 2007 and certainly refers to common law and punitive charges. Do I have to change anything? Is there a pre-prepared bundle like I used before and has this been updated to reflect any of the court case? Do I need to review my bank charges and include any that have been applied over the last two years and do I need to do a new interest charges breakdown? Any help would be gratefully received.

[citizenB]

Nimrod, I have linked you to the Bank Templates library. All the finformation you require should be in there, if not.. just yell.

 

I think you will need to amend your original POC. THere is an announcement in section 1 of the link below. I suggest you read each section to ensure you dont miss anything.

 

The Consumer Forums - Bank charges templates (consumer)

 

HTH

[Nimrod10]

Thanks but the link takes me to an error message!

 

I've checked my POC and the statement I made was:

The Claimants contend that:

a)The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of the cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alledged 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 alledged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the defendant which excercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

b) The contractual provision that permits the defendant to levy such charges is unenforcable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.

 

I also put in the statement:

Alternatively, if the charges are a fee for a service, then they must be reasonable under S15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act (1982).

 

Do you think I need to amend my POC as there is no actual reference to penalties? Do I have time to do so as Abbey are not responsing at all and I have to submit my bundle by 17th October?

[citizenB]

You might need to copy it into your browser.. it works for me ok.

Edited September 28, 2009 by citizenB
Queston asked was answered in previous post

[Nimrod10]

Thanks, I've tried copying it into my browser but still getting 404 error message indicating the link is out of date???

 

I've looked in the templates but the witness statement etc. refers to penalty charges. Do I just leave this bit out? Is there any point in making reference to the other big banks reducing their fees already?

 

Abbey also refer to their new terms & conditions in their defence but I don't think this is relevant as all the charges are pre the date of issue.

 

Can I submit a new charges list and add in any charges from the two year period in between AQ and hearing? Do I need to rework my interest calculation spreadsheet?

 

Do I sound a little panicked???

[Nimrod10]

I've looked at all the template links to court bundles but am concerned that everything relates to "penalty" charges. I am right in thinking the banks have won this argument and they are not classed as "penalty" charges but unfair terms and conditions?

 

Should I just submit the bundle suugested back in 2007 or do things need amending to support the continuing argument?

 

Confused in need of help!

[noomill060]

bump

[noomill060]

nimrod needs an answer- and quick.

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Nimrod might consider clicking on the red triangle asking the site team if the legal bods could be directed to the thread

[noomill060]

done -red triangle clicked

[Nimrod10]

Thank you both for your interest.

[IdaInFife]

i think you have to ask for your claim to be amended

 

 

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/48-bank-templates/600-you-must-amend-your-claim-from-penalties-to-utccr

 

ida x

[Nimrod10]

Thanks Ida. My POC stated "I've checked my POC and the statement I made was:

The Claimants contend that:

a)The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of the cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alledged 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 alledged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the defendant which excercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

b) The contractual provision that permits the defendant to levy such charges is unenforcable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.

 

I also put in the statement:

Alternatively, if the charges are a fee for a service, then they must be reasonable under S15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act (1982).

 

As it mentions the UTCCR I am hoping it's OK as we have to exchange bundles in the next two weeks so I don't have time to amend my POC. Thought I might clarify in my witness statement and point out that my POC was submitted in July 2007 before the court case was even started. My biggest concern is that the court bundle template still refers to penalties and hasn't been reviewed since 2007.

 

Lesley

[steven4064]

I have not checked but I think the original bundles had arguments based on both penalties and unfair charges under UTCCR1999. You could just chuck out all the penalty stuff and see what is left.

[Nimrod10]

In the Judge's Order granting a hearing I am being asked to provide in my documents "a skeleton of their legal argument as to the lack of application of the matters proceeding to final appeal in their claim 2007 Folio 1186 in the Commercial Court to this claim".

 

I presume therefore I have been granted a hearing on the Human Rights Act assertion. Can anybody help with the skeleton argument apart from the obvious reference to the Human Rights act and timeliness?

[Nimrod10]

Well I'm in court tomorrow and the only contact I've had with Abbey is to say they will discuss the change to PoC at the hearing..... don't have any idea of what they are proposing so I'll let you know in the next couple of days. It's a shame the Supreme Court ruling hasn't been announced.

[noomill060]

good luck, nimrod