Natwest Terms and conditions

[stevepm]

It looks like Natwest have pulled the Archives from the wayback machine as it is dead I cannot get anything from it.StevePM

[stevepm]

Somebody must have a set of T&C pre November 2006 I would consider these to be essential for us at htis point. I agree wit Steven it looks like NatWest have changed the T&C in an atempt to head of reclaims.Can anyone help. StevePM

[stevepm]

By the way Steven4064 received a cheque on Friday for over £5000 sent it back as refused. They actually said in the letter "in settlement with the AGREED TERMS AND CONDITIONS DISCUSSED WITH COBBETTS" what discussion I rejected it when they offered it the day before and just before the hearing. They really know how to push itStevePM

[stevepm]

Coppercat who has posted 2001 can you gibe me a link I would be thakfull

 

StevePm

[stevepm]

Garforth amd jhamb

 

YOu need to include your staement of evidence.

 

I have posted one here

 

 

NatWest Bank Plc

(Defendant)

 

_________________________ _____

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE

_________________________ _____

 

1. The claimant submits that the charges levied to his bank account, as set out in the enclosed schedule, are, notwithstanding the defence of the defendant, default penalty charges arising from and relating directly to breaches of contract, both explicit and implied, on the part of the claimant. As a contractual penalty, the charges are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Unfair Contracts (Terms) Act 1977, and the common law.

 

2. It is admitted that the Defendants charges were levied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the account in question. However, it is submitted that the Defendants charges are not related to or intended to represent any actual loss arising from a breach of contract, but instead unduly and extravagantly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such penalty charges with a view to profit.

 

3. The Claimant cites the case of Robinson v Harman [1848] 1 Exch 850, which states that a contractual party cannot profit from a breach of contract and that the charge for a loss suffered from the breach should be the amount necessary to put both parties in the same position before the breach occurred.

 

4. Lord Dunedin in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co [1915] AC 79 set down a number of principles in definition of a penalty clause and how such clause may be ascertained from a liquidated damages clause. These principles include -

 

"It will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greater loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach" and;

 

"The essence of a penalty is a payment of money stipulated as in-terrorem of the offending part; the essence of liquidated damages is a genuine covenanted pre-estimate of damage"

 

5. The Claimant will further rely on numerous recorded authorities dating throughout the 20th century up to the most recent case of Murray v Leisureplay [2005] EWCA Civ 963, all of which have upheld and reinforced the principles set down by Lord Dunedin defining contractual penalty clauses and the unenforceability thereof.

 

6. Further, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, schedule 2 (1) includes to define an example of an unfair clause as -

 

"(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;"

 

7. The breaches of contract in this case relate to exceeding the contractually agreed limits of an overdraft facility, and having insufficient funds available to pay a direct debit or a standing order. On one occasion in December 2002 the balance of the account was £20.43; the bank then applied their charges, which took the account overdrawn by the amount of £1.18, which invoked further charges of £16.95 taking the account overdrawn to £18.12. The claimant holds this charge and indeed every other charge in question, to be punitive in nature, and wholly disproportionate.

 

8. It is not disputed that the Defendant is entitled to recover its damages following the claimant’s breach of contract, and it is entitled to include a liquidated damages clause. The Claimant contends that the charges made by the defendant are disproportionate, excessive, exorbitant and extravagant, and believes it to be unconscionable that they represent, are a pre-estimate of, or are in any way related to; its actual loss suffered as a result of the Claimants breaches of contract.

 

9. The defendant has declined to answer the Claimant’s written requests for information regarding its administrative costs, or other such costs, incurred as a result of the contractual breaches from which its charges arise. Further, the Defendant has declined to offer any explanation whatsoever in regard of how its charges are calculated, or any other such justification thereof, despite repeated requests to do so.

 

10. In a recent study undertaken in Australia, (Nicole Rich, “Unfair fees: a report into penalty fees charged by Australian Banks”) it was estimated that the cost to an Australian Bank of a customers direct debit refusal was estimated to be in the region of 54 cents. By reviewing the banks’ charges against the above figure, the study estimated that banks could be charging between 64 to 92 times what it costs them to process a direct debit refusal. The study’s key findings stated that in its opinion the Australian Bank’s cheque and direct debit return charges were likely to be penalties at law.

 

11. The Defendant, or indeed any of the UK banks, has never published any information to support how their charges are calculated, or what their actual costs associated with such breaches are, or what revenue they derive from such charges.

 

12. For their recent BBC2 documentary “The Money Programme”, the BBC appointed a commission of former senior banking industry figures and business academics to attempt to ascertain the actual costs to the UK banks of processing a customer’s breach of contract. They concluded that the absolute maximum conceivable cost that could be incurred by a direct debit refusal or overdraft excess is £2.50, and of a returned cheque £4.50. They did state however, that the actual cost is likely to be much less than this. The commission also estimated that the UK banks collectively derive as much as £4.5billion in profit a year from their charging regimes.

 

13. It is submitted that the Defendants charges are applied by an automated and computer driven process. It is therefore impossible to envisage how the Defendant can incur costs of £38, current charge, by carrying out a completely automated and computer driven process. This process consists of a computer system ‘bouncing’ the direct debit, and sending out a computer generated letter. Note that the letter received notifying of a charge is identical in every instance, and if multiple breaches occurred on the same day, a separate letter will be sent in each instance.

 

14. Additionally, I asked the Defendant to provide me evidence of any manual intervention that may have occurred in relation to my account, under a Data Protection Act 1998 right of subject access request. No such information was forthcoming.

 

15. The claimant also cites a radio interview in 2004 with Lloyds TSB’s former head of personal banking, Peter McNamara, in which he states the charges are used to fund free banking for all personal customers as a whole.

 

16. The claimant cites the statement from the Office of Fair Trading (April 2006), who conducted a thorough investigation into default charges levied by the British financial industry. While the report primarily focused on Credit card issuers, the OFT stated that the principle of their findings would also apply to Bank account charges. They ruled that default charges at the current level were unfair and unlawful within their interpretation of the UTCCR’s.

 

17. On 22nd May 2006, the House of Commons passed an early day motion which welcomed the OFT's statement that default charges should be proportionate to the actual loss incurred. The house described such default charges as "exorbitant" and "excessive".

 

18. Further, under the UTCCR:

 

“5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

 

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

 

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.”

 

Schedule 2 also includes such clauses (to define examples of unfair clauses) as:

 

“(i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;

 

(j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;

 

(m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract.”

 

The defendant is a multi-national corporation. The term regarding charges was inserted unilaterally in contract. The contract was pre and mass produced and I had no opportunity to negotiate the clause, or indeed any of the contract.

 

The cost of NatWest charges imposed as a penalty by NatWest have risen on numerous occasions during the period of the last six years have increased multiple times during the period in which my account was held, on NO occasion was I given the opportunity to negotiate, or even notified of this increase, even though within their T&C NatWest say that they will inform you in writing, Section 1a Alterations and Amendments. This means the bank has unilaterally altered the terms of my account contract to my detriment, and to their advantage.

 

19. As set out above, the Defendant’s charges can in no way be considered to be liquidated damages. They are not a pre-estimate of, or in any way related to, the Defendant’s loss incurred as a result of the breach of contract. The charges are punitive, held "in-terrorem", and unduly, substantially and extravagantly enrich the Defendant. As such, they are disproportionate contractual penalties and

unenforceable at law.

20. It is also a fact that Nat West has currently already paid out a sum in excess of £1,347,495.00 in RE-PAID BANK CHARGES to its customers.

 

I, the Claimant, believe all facts stated to be true.

 

 

4 June 2007

The portions in BLUE you need to change to an item in your own account.

The portions in red makes sure you have these included within your bundle.

BUT PLEASE PLEASE K=MAKE SURE THAT YOU NUMBER YOU PAGES AND CAN REFERENCE THEM DURING THE HEARING THI IS A MUST.

StevePM

If you find this useful please tip my sclales.

[stevepm]

Steven

 

Thanks for these just what Cobbetts need Oops sorry I mean dont need.

 

StevePM

[stevepm]

Steven

 

thanks for these just what the cobbie ordered

or not

 

 

StevePM

[stevepm]

All

on th esubject of CPR 18 on Cobbies I ave not heard anything at this point in time they only have a few days left. If they do not deliver I am going to write to the court and request an early direction to either force them or have the defence thrown out.

 

StevePM

[stevepm]

Jec

not sure what this game is. Have you started court action yet if not then this is just delay tactics.

 

If you have started court action then tell thenm it is not acceptable