The Hamster -vs- RBoS

[Kurt_Hamster]

It just occurred to me...?

 

In my original PoC I never claimed for my Allocation Fee. Is that automagically added to the claim total should the court decide in my favour or is it something that has to be specifically asked for?

[Kurt_Hamster]

Well today I got my first 4 figure offer from Mr Douthwaite, a paltry £2642.00 (where do they get these figures from???). It arrived with a lecture about their T&Cs being fair yada, yada, yada.

 

The letter that accompanied the offer had a very lecturing tone, so I thought I'd respond in kind.

 

Here's my draft response. I'd appreciate any comments, amendments or suggestions.

 

Dear Mr Douthwaite,

 

Thank you for your letter offering me the sum of £2642.00 as final settlement of my claim against the RBS.

 

There are several reasons for me being unable to accept this offer. First and foremost, the sum is considerably lower than the sum being claimed. Additionally you give no reason for its amount (no method of calculation, no indication of what aspects of my claim it covers), as such I can only presume that it is an arbitrary amount. There is no mention of coverage of my court costs or of the statutory interest that I will be awarded should a judge award in my favour.

 

In your letter you state that you “believe” that your charges are “fair, reasonable and transparent”. Unfortunately your “belief” is immaterial; you are governed by the law just like the rest of us. Likewise you can put any terms and conditions you like on your accounts but if they contain unlawful elements then those conditions are unenforceable. It is on this basis I have made my court claim against the RBS.

 

As far as “transparent” goes, to meet that criterion you would have to be truthful as to how much it does actually cost the RBS to deal with penalty charges. Constantly refusing to produce these figures does not meet the definition of “transparent” in any dictionary I am aware of.

 

I also notice that the enclosed form did not have an option for me to NOT accept your offer. This I find insulting, as such I have dispensed with its use.

 

Currently the monies owed to me by the RBS are as follows:

 

Unlawful Charges from 8th March 2001 – 8th March 2007 = £2150.00

Statutory interest @ 8% (daily) = £652.38

Court costs = £220

Unlawful charges incurred since commencing court proceedings (14th March 2007 – 9th May 2007) = £780.00

 

Total Owed = £3802.38

 

Though as a “goodwill gesture” I will round it down to £3800.00 for easier accounting.

 

This is the amount I will accept. I will not accept any conditions that may or may not come with your settlement offer, other than the premise that you aren’t admitting liability.

 

As regards the threat at the end of your letter, concerning my “borrowing facilities”. My response is that whilst your charges remain unlawful, unreasonable and opaque I shall continue to attempt to reclaim any that are levied. We all have to abide by the law… and yes, although it may come as a surprise, even the banks!

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

Kurt Hamster

 

 

[Kurt_Hamster]

Whoops, forgot to add the paragraph on the end.

 

I don't know about anyone else but I despise bullies who threaten people.

[crazyworld]

Whoops, forgot to add the paragraph on the end.

 

I don't know about anyone else but I despise bullies who threaten people.

 

Same here Kurt. Those letters are fantastic, and state your case in no uncertain terms. I found this thread through the reporting a solicitor thread, certainly some great advice and useful tips here.

 

Best wishes with your case.

[Zactheboy]

Well if nothing else you cheered me up after a day marking essays - Hamster you are a star!

 

I will be giggling all evening.

 

Chaeers mate

 

Z

[Kurt_Hamster]

Thanks guys.

 

Well the letter went off today, so I'll just sit back and wait for a response from customer services.

 

Alas there is still no feedback from Cobbetts, but the AQ deadline was today so I'll phone the court tomorrow to see if they got theirs in in time. I haven't have a copy sent me yet so I suspect that they may not have done.

[Kurt_Hamster]

Yippee, I got my Cobbetts offer letter... well actually it's more like a damp squib than a yippee as it's pitiful both in the value and the conditions that come with it.

 

As one of the conditions was to gag me, and as the letter is headed Strictly Private & Confidential I of course have scanned it into a PDF for anyone to look at (after masking out my personal details of course!) should they want to.

 

http://www.britcom.org.uk/cag/Cobbetts_Offer_opt.pdf

[Kurt_Hamster]

...and here's the response I intend sending to Cobblers.

 

I'd love to hear any comments, suggestions or alterations.

 

 

Dear Sirs,

 

With reference to the above matter.

 

Thank you for your offer letter dated 4th July, 2007. Please find enclosed the cheque you sent with the letter. The cheque is enclosed as I respectfully decline your offer, the cheque and the conditions that come with it.

 

It seems that you aren’t aware that the amount of £2642 was offered to me by Mr Mark Douthwaite of The Royal Bank of Scotland Customer Services Department in a letter dated 5th June, 2007. I declined that offer as well. I’ve enclosed a copy of the letter I sent Mr Douthwaite in response to the offer. It outlines what I will accept and what I won’t accept. I will attempt clarify the situation though…

 

I will accept either £3142.38 (which includes 8% statutory interest plus court costs of £220) which is the amount being claimed at court, or, to save everyone the time, trouble and money of a second court action the above amount plus an additional £780 which is as a result of charges levied against my account since issuing my claim at court. This comes to a total of £3922.38.

 

If your client wishes to settle with the first amount then I shall be forced into making another claim at court for the additional monies.

 

As you can see from my letter to your client (as well as the letter dated 19th May that I sent to yourselves I will not accept any conditions that come with any offer other than your client not admitting liability. I will most certainly NOT accept any offer that has the effect of gagging me.

 

As regards your assertion that I am not entitled to claim beyond the six year mark, in this instance I believe your interpretation of the Limitation Act is wrong. It is my assertion (as I stated in my letter of 19th May) that your client has deliberately and repeatedly concealed the true cost and lawfulness of their default charges and as such they have lost the protection of the LA as per s32 1(b). This assertion will be part of my court bundle and I am perfectly happy for a judge to make a ruling on the matter.

 

Now given that I haven’t claimed back the interest your client has earned on these unlawful charges (and is continuing to do so) and that I haven’t claimed for payments as far back as 1995 I believe that my demands are not excessive

 

As I stated in my letter to of the 19th May yourselves I am considering entering a claim for wasted costs due to your deliberate stalling and intimidatory tactics and given the amount of wasted costs orders that are being granted countrywide I suggest that you should inform your client that they can save themselves more money by concluding these proceedings in an expedient manner. Additionally I am still considering whether to make an official complaint about Cobbetts to the Law Society and to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for your constant abuse of process. It is clear that neither yourselves or your client have any intention of going to court either with my case or anybody else’s. May I remind you that as Officers of the Court your first priority should be to the Court and not your client. Your “assault course” tactics on hundreds of claimants is deplorable and unethical and I feel it is my duty to bring this to the attention of the LS and the SRA. Similarly I will be bringing your unethical tactics to the judge’s attention as part of my case.

 

I also note that you have not responded to my request for a copy of the signed agreement I made with your client when I started banking with them. Neither have you responded to my request for copies of the notations or logs related to the schedule of charges I supplied.

 

You mention in your letter that you client believes their charges are “fair, reasonable and transparent”. I would be grateful if you could let me know what your client’s definition of “transparent” is. Additionally in order for me to fully understand how the charges are fair and reasonable I would be grateful if you could supply me with a costing breakdown of the charging structure of RBoS so that either I, or the court, can see transparently how close their charges are to how much it actually costs them, especially given that I have not received one charge related letter from your client whenever a default charge has been levied on my account. Given that you have failed to provide me with logs or notations or similar proof that there has been human intervention in the levying of these charges it’s fair to assume that they have been generated automatically under computer control. If this is the case I fail to see how a £38 charge can be fair and reasonable when a computer made the decision. Needless to say I will be pointing out these disparities in court.

 

Yours faithfully

 

[Yanni]

Hi Hammy

 

Small typo at beginning of last paragraph - "You mention in your letter that you client" otherwise looks fine to me altho you may want to consider my point below on Irish banks :-

 

I believe that the example of Irish banks should be used in attacking the UK banks - if Irish banks can charge less than £5 for their "penalty" charges, why can't UK banks - the ROI cost of living is on a par with the UK and may even be higher so a low wage economy cannot be used to justify the lower Irish charges - or maybe the Irish banks are more efficient - or just honest - or there again maybe the UK banks are a bunch of thieving scoundrels - see fees below

 

 

Allied Irish Bank plc Fees

 

 

Unpaid items

•

Cheques lodged to your account and returned unpaid e4.44 = £2.97

•

Cheque, direct debit or standing order presented

on your account and returned unpaid e6.35 = £4.25

 

 

Unpaid Item Charges

 

 

You may incur an unpaid item charge of

e6.35 per item if cheques, direct debits or standing orders, presented for payment on your account, are returned unpaid.

 

And just noticed small grammatical typo in 8th para (sounds like a regiment) from top - "It is clear that neither yourselves or your client" - or should be nor

 

 

 

[Kurt_Hamster]

I think I will rewrite it tomorrow and I will certainly include the Irish Bank stuff.

 

Thanks for the typo spotting.

[Kurt_Hamster]

Having slept on it for a day or two, here's the final version that's going out today...

 

Dear Sirs,

 

With reference to the above matter.

 

Thank you for your offer letter dated 4th July, 2007. Please find enclosed the cheque you sent with the letter. The cheque is enclosed as I respectfully decline your offer, the cheque and the conditions that come with it.

 

It seems that you aren’t aware that the amount of £2642 was offered to me by Mr Mark Douthwaite of The Royal Bank of Scotland Customer Services Department in a letter dated 5th June, 2007. I declined that offer as well. I’ve enclosed a copy of the letter I sent Mr Douthwaite in response to the offer. It outlines what I will accept and what I won’t accept. I will attempt clarify the situation though…

 

I will accept either £3142.38 (which includes 8% statutory interest plus court costs of £220) which is the amount being claimed at court, or, to save everyone the time, trouble and money of a second court action the above amount plus an additional £780 which is as a result of charges levied against my account since issuing my claim at court. This comes to a total of £3922.38.

 

If your client wishes to settle with the first amount then I shall be forced into making another claim at court for the additional monies.

 

As you can see from my letter to your client (as well as the letter dated 19th May that I sent to yourselves; I will not accept any conditions that come with any offer other than your client not admitting liability. I will most certainly NOT accept any offer that has the effect of gagging me.

 

As regards your assertion that I am not entitled to claim beyond the six year mark, in this instance I believe your interpretation of the Limitation Act is wrong. It is my assertion (as I stated in my letter of 19th May) that your client has deliberately and repeatedly concealed the true cost and lawfulness of their default charges and as such they have lost the protection of the LA as per s32 1(b). This assertion will be part of my court bundle and I am perfectly happy for a judge to make a ruling on the matter. Incidentally I think it’s a tad unethical of a defendant’s solicitor to attempt to give legal advice to the claimant.

 

Now given that I haven’t claimed back the interest your client has earned on these unlawful charges (and is continuing to do so), I haven’t claimed for the somewhat enigmatic and non-transparent “Maintenance Charge” and that I haven’t claimed for payments as far back as 1995 I believe that my demands are not excessive

 

As I stated in my letter to of the 19th May yourselves I am considering entering a claim for wasted costs due to your deliberate stalling and intimidatory tactics and given the amount of wasted costs orders that are being granted countrywide I suggest that you should inform your client that they can save themselves more money by concluding these proceedings in an expedient manner. Additionally I am still considering whether to make an official complaint about Cobbetts to the Law Society and to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for your constant abuse of process. It is clear that neither yourselves nor your client have any intention of going to court either with my case or anybody else’s. May I remind you that as Officers of the Court your first priority should be to the Court and not your client. Your “assault course” tactics on hundreds of claimants is deplorable and unethical and I feel it is my duty to bring this to the attention of the LS and the SRA. Similarly I will be bringing your unethical tactics to the judge’s attention as part of my case.

 

I also note that you have not responded to my request for a copy of the signed agreement I made with your client when I started banking with them. Neither have you responded to my request for copies of the notations or logs related to the schedule of charges I supplied.

 

You mention in your letter that your client believes their charges are “fair, reasonable and transparent”. I would be grateful if you could let me know what your client’s definition of “transparent” is. Additionally in order for me to fully understand how the charges are fair and reasonable I would be grateful if you could supply me with a costing breakdown of the charging structure of RBoS so that either I, or the court, can see transparently how close their charges are to how much it actually costs them, especially given that I have not received one charge related letter from your client whenever a default charge has been levied on my account. Given that you have failed to provide me with logs or notations or similar proof that there has been human intervention in the levying of these charges it’s fair to assume that they have been generated automatically under computer control. If this is the case I fail to see how a £38 charge can be fair and reasonable when a computer made the decision. Needless to say I will be pointing out these disparities in court. Likewise I will be pointing out, in detail, the bank costings that are common place in Ireland, i.e. the average default charge being around £5.00. Now how it costs the Irish bank £5 but it costs the RBoS £35+ is beyond me.

 

On a final note, please let me advise you that I am taking this personally. For many years the RBoS has made extreme profits (approximately 9 million dollars last year) on the backs of people like me, and by the figures bandied about, a significant proportion of the High Street banking profits are in fact as a result of these default charges..

 

I am disabled and on a fixed income. Your client has repeatedly, and knowingly, levied unlawful charges against my benefits (as per the SSAA 1992 s187) thereby denying me the ability to buy essentials like food. In a six week period this year, after I commenced this claim, your client took every single penny I was given by the DWP simply to pay default charges. Even after I informed my local branch manager that I was having to borrow from friends and family just to buy food because they were taking everything; I was ignored and yet more charges levied. This is both unlawful and immoral. Given this situation, which is easily provable just by viewing my statements, please do not expect me to accept even a penny less than the amount I am claiming.

 

At this juncture your client has two options, they can settle the total amount claimed, or they can continue on to court. Either is okay by me, but either way prevarication will not serve any purpose. Your client’s costs are increasing far beyond any interest that would be earned on any monies saved by procrastinating. My costs are immaterial as there are none over and above the costs already paid. It is in your client’s interests to see this case finished, as it is in mine. The difference being though; I would love my case to be the one that makes it possible for other people in my circumstances to no longer have to pay these extortionate charges or to experience the difficulties firms like you put in their way.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

[Yanni]

Hi Hammy,

 

Just one likkle typo that I noticed - first line para 8 down

 

"As I stated in my letter to of the 19th May ò yourselves I am considering"

 

 

2nd para, line 3, - "I declined that offer as well" - I think it reads better "I declined that offer also" or "I also declined that offer" - the "as well" implies something else is to follow. And why 3 full stops at the end of the para?

 

As regards RBS's profits you are soooo terribly wrong see :-

 

http://business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=837&id=884342007

 

Wed 6 Jun 2007

 

RBS profit for 2007 'set to top £10.3bn'

 

MARTIN FLANAGAN CITY EDITOR

 

ROYAL Bank of Scotland said yesterday that its interim underlying earnings this summer would beat City expectations, fuelling market expectations that it will make a profit of at least £10.3 billion for the whole of 2007.

This would be up 9 per cent from the £9.2bn profit in 2006. It came as Sir Fred Goodwin, RBS's chief executive, played down the need for early renewed talks with Bank of America on the ABN Amro takeover tussle.

 

So you see your (approximately 9 million dollars last year) is way under estimate - first it is "billion" not million and and is "pounds" not dollars, not to mention but I will, the ".2" - the amounts are so mind-bogglingly-big only Bill Gates understands them;)

 

Finally may I suggest you end with something like :-

 

"The difference being though, that it would give me the greatest pleasure for my case to be the trailblazer that makes it possible for other people, in circumstances similar to my own, to cease having to pay these extortionate charges and no longer have to experience the difficulties that firms like you put in their way."

 

It just your "I would love" bit is too reminiscent of Kevin Keegan's famous rant against Sir Fergie!!

 

Just a suggestion.

 

Otherwise it's good, it doesn't pull any punches but doesn't go too over the top - I always find better to write things then come back a day later and re-read them again as first time one can get carried away and say things that could actually prejudice the case, especially as you are taking things to a bit of a personal level but just take note of my post signature.

 

It's from The Godfather and is Michael Corleone's (Al Pacino) advice to his big brother Salvatore (James Caan) to calm down after the attempted assinination on their father Don Corleone (Marlon Brando).

 

It's something we should keep in mind when dealing with the banks and not to take it too personally altho in your case when they have been lamping the fees on and denying you your income, it is personal.

 

 

What annoys me is that in many ways all this is a sort of game - all this guff about their charges being "fair, reasonable and transparent" - I mean, who actually believes that? It's Orwellian newspeak where any word means what the banks want it to mean.

 

 

It reminds me of an old Benny Hill sketch where, as a barrow boy or something, he is grossly overcharging.

When somebody objects to his prices, he says "Oh my prices are very popular sir".

The customer says, "Popular?? Popular?? Popular with whom?" to which Benny replies "Well I like them!!"

 

Anyway all the best in your battle - you will win - they are wrong and are only stalling hoping you'll give up and go away.

[Kurt_Hamster]

Many thanks for the proof reading, it's much obliged. You'd noticed things I hadn't even after repeated readings. As regards the millions vs billions, I had actually intended to write billions, but thanks for the update of the actual figures I've amended the letter accordingly. I've also amended the "love to" to "with the greatest of pleasure". I'm not up on the works of Keegan ( ) but your version rings truer.

 

Additionally I've added an extra line at the end of para 2...

 

I am also confused as to the expression “goodwill” used in your letter. I fail to understand how, by any definition I can find, either yourselves or your client have shown any good will towards either myself or any other claimant I’m aware of.

The 3 full stops are an ellipsis as everything that followed the ellipsis was my attempt at clarifying the situation of how I saw things..

[Yanni]

No worries, I spent about 15 years scanning documents for errors, both legal and grammatical, so it's kinda second nature altho I fnd my own writings are just as bad as anyone's!! A case of the cobbler's kids being the worst shone.

 

Anyway glad to be of assistance.

[Kurt_Hamster]

Well the letter's gone off (with some more minor corrections and amendments), and by coincidence when I got back from the post box there was a court document informing me of a Preliminary Hearing for 16th August. No directions or anything else really.

 

I get the impression that there aren't that many bank charge cases going through Stockport County Court but don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

[hedgey06]

I'm sure you've read up on this already, but have a look through here just in case.

 

And with regards to Stockport County Court........... don't worry, I think it took us northerners a little longer to cotton on to this reclaiming lark, that's all!