mcuth v RBoS ***WON***

[thecornflake]

Interesting that they're going to try and pay it anyway even if you decline (if I've read it properly). I haven't seen that before. They clearly don't want this one in court.

[HydraUK]

Interesting that they're going to try and pay it anyway even if you decline (if I've read it properly). I haven't seen that before. They clearly don't want this one in court.

 

That's the way I read that also. So if they come in the night and slide £10 notes under your door they can just apply for a judgement because you've received a 'refund'? (Your footprint on this peice of paper signifies your acceptance.)

[Guest bong]

does this little snippet from cobbetts' letter drop them in it I wonder?

 

Whilst this letter is written without prejudice save as to costs, in the event that you decline this offer, we will seek to pay you this amount in any event and apply to the Court for summary judgement on the remainder of your claim based on the fact that you have no real prospect of succeeding on the remainder of the claim.

 

are they admitting here that you have a real prospect of succeeding in proving the unlawfulness of the charges within the 6 year timeframe, and that their only defence is the SOL?

 

Although I suppose the fact that the letter is Without Prejudice means that you wouldn't be able to use this in evidence

[Guest bong]

oh and something else

 

how can they say this

Acceptance by you of this goodwill payment will be in full and final settlement of your claim against our client and strictly on the basis that: -

 

1. you agree not to disclose to any third party the fact of, or any details relating to, this payment:

2. you write to the Court withdrawing your claim.

 

and then this

in the event that you decline this offer, we will seek to pay you this amount in any event

 

is it a genuine offer - they are imposing terms on the offer and then saying if you don't agree to the terms they will pay it anyway. what I'm trying to get at is if this is not a genuine attempt at settlement they don't enjoy the privilege of the without prejudice that is stated on the letter, as Glenn has recently pointed out to us in one of his claims.

[Glenn UK]

I am no expert in this, as much as it might not be the answer you are seeking, this is IMHO, a valid offer of settlement 9just because we dont like it doesnt mean its invalid)

 

I doubt a court would see it any other way, they have pointed out their belief about your entitlement to claim based on Sec 5 Limitations acts and offered to pay. So i think that you cannot produce this in court without potentially causing yourself huge embarrassment not to mention the wrath of the judge.

 

And yes they can attempt to pay you, they could lodge the sum in court should they so wish i believe.

 

However, where i believe they are on dodgy ground is that for them to say your claim has been settled they would have to pay or offer to pay, the full amount of the charges claimed i believe, at the moment they are offering partial payment and therefore the claimant can proceed on the basis of the rest of the claim.

 

When it gets to court it would then be up to Mcuth to make his arguments about the limitations act and the principle of laches to offset the banks arguments.

 

Has this claim been allocated yet?

 

If it hasn't then the arguments are likely to be presented by the defence at the AQ hearing, if one is held, to try to prevent Mcuth from presenting all the arguments/evidence as to the unlawfulness of the charges.

 

Personally i would suggest that if you hasvent been allocated that you prepare you case for allowing the charges odelr than 6 years.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[mcuth]

Hit'n'run post from work...

 

As far as I can see, it's a valid offer under their (mistaken) belief that the pre-6yrs amount isn't allowed. However, I'll be arguing that most vehemently, and producing the letter from their client offering the £2711

 

It's not "Without prejudice" either

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[Glenn UK]

Michael

 

Be warned though, if you dont already know, that even if this letter is not marked WOP, it can be deemed so, especially if subesquent letters are marked as such and this one is deemed to be part of that chain.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[livelylad]

Relevant Para.

Privileged, Without Prejudice, and Without Prejudice Save As to Costs documents. - Alway Associates

Without Prejudice.

“Without Prejudice” documents (which are also “Privileged” documents) are those documents that relate to all negotiations genuinely aimed at a settlement between the parties.

Any communications which are intended to be part of a genuine settlement attempt should be clearly marked “Without Prejudice” at the top of the letter.

The courts have held, however, that the principle of “Privilege” can protect subsequent and even previous letters in the same chain of correspondence. Strictly speaking, therefore, it is not necessary that every letter be marked “Without Prejudice” if it is clear that the communication is intended to be part of the settlement negotiations.

The converse of this being that, just because documents are marked “Without Prejudice”, unless they are intended to be part of a genuine settlement attempt they will not actually enjoy “Privileged” status and they will not be protected from disclosure.

[Josamolly]

Michael

 

Which track has it been allocated to? Or have you already posted that and i've missed it?

 

Interested because my claim goes in tomorrow with contractual...

[mcuth]

Which track has it been allocated to? Or have you already posted that and i've missed it?

 

No track allocation yet, we're just starting with the cat & mouse stare-out stuff

 

It's not "Without prejudice" either

 

Durrr - where did I get that from? Strange how I missed that at the end of the letter - oh well

 

Here's my reply to their missive about the Limitations Act & derisory £95.00 offer:

 

Cobbetts LLP

Ship Canal House

King Street

Manchester

M2 4WB

Dear Sir/Madam

Your ref: XXX/XXXXXX.XXXX

In the Swindon County Court

{mcuth} v The Royal Bank of Scotland plc

Claim Number 6SN05490

Thank you for your letter of 16th January 2007, the contents of which I note.

Firstly, notwithstanding your claims with regards to the Limitations Act 1980, I would note that your client offered a payment of £2711.00 to be credited to the bank account in question in full settlement of my claim. I accepted this offer as partial settlement on an unconditional basis only, and that it must be paid separately by cheque. This chain of communication, and the offer therein, was not followed up by your client - I enclose copies of the relevant communication for your reference. NB - the reason that the offer was only accepted on a partial basis was because your client made no consideration of the accrued interest since the charges were deducted from the account.

Secondly, I consider your belief that my claim has no real prospect of succeeding, to be flawed. Not only am I confident that I will be able to proceed with my claim under s32 of the Limitations Act 1980, I am also confident that the claim will succeed for the reasons set out in my Particulars of Claim.

Accordingly, with this in mind, I accept your offer of £95.00 only in partial settlement of my claim, but I reject the conditions that you impose on the offer.

With regards to confidentiality requirements on this and any future offer, please be advised that I see neither a legal necessity for a confidentiality clause, nor any reason to request one. Confidentiality is a service which I may be prepared to offer, but this would be subject to a separate and negotiable fee. Until said fee is agreed upon and paid, I absolutely and completely reject any confidentiality agreement. I would also note that, as laid out in my Particulars of Claim, any payments made with regards to this claim must be made by cheque made payable to myself.

The above should not be taken as an implication that I am unwilling to negotiate a settlement on this matter - I am a reasonable person and will consider reasonable offers to settle this claim without troubling the court. However, please note that settlement out of court in a case that I am bringing against The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC must be on my terms and satisfactory to me

Finally, I would note that I am currently composing my Reply to your Defence, and this will be with you presently.

Yours faithfully,

{mcuth}

 

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[chezt]

Your letters are just fab! love reading 'em & I'm sure I'll be nicking bits (with your prior permission of course!) when/where possible!

[mcuth]

Your letters are just fab! love reading 'em & I'm sure I'll be nicking bits (with your prior permission of course!) when/where possible!

 

Thanks chezt

Of course, you'll be welcome to them - that's why I post 'em up here

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[livelylad]

Nice letter mate.

[happyolddog]

I'm still following mate, they seem determined to drag this one out but the longer they do the more intrest is added. I have a good feeling about this one. Now the other question! can I nick some of your letters, as it would take me months to draught mine as I am rather slow on the old comp.

Looking foward to your next update, Keep fighting.

 

happyolddog.

[mikejohn77]

we are all behind you on this!

 

keep it going. they deserve to face the mighty mcuth in court, just so that they offer you a job due to your letter writing abilities!!!!

[mcuth]

Thanks folks, much appreciated, I hope they do the trick

 

Happy - you're more than welcome to

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

Received AQ in this morning's post - it's an N150 (nice ) and I've got til 12th Feb to return it, with £100.00 of course.

 

So, if anyone can help out with this request so I can send in my reply to defence with the AQ, I'd be most grateful

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[livelylad]

Received AQ in this morning's post - it's an N150 (nice ) and I've got til 12th Feb to return it, with £100.00 of course.

 

So, if anyone can help out with this request so I can send in my reply to defence with the AQ, I'd be most grateful

 

Cheers

 

Michael

 

I am still working on it Michael.

[chezt]

Can you use the new strategy for AQ on this one??

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/53570-new-strategy-allocation-questionaires.html

[mcuth]

Can you use the new strategy for AQ on this one??

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/53570-new-strategy-allocation-questionaires.html

 

It's a distinct possibility - plus some other additions methinks

 

I intend to spend most of this weekend going over the whole thing with a fine toothcomb....

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[chezt]

Good stuff! If you could use that then there will be no need to submit your reply to the defence just yet will there?

[mcuth]

Good stuff! If you could use that then there will be no need to submit your reply to the defence just yet will there?

 

Maybe, but I want to get my reply done and submitted. With them threatening strike out on the SoLA stuff, I want it in there and sorted before we get anywhere near any allocation hearing

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[chezt]

That makes perfect sense! Good luck with the fine toothcomb

[Harassed]

Hi. Am new to this site but am really enjoying reading the RBOS threads. Have sent of initial letter to bank requesting refund of bank charges for the past 6 years. Was lucky enough to still have all my statements. So will keep touching base as and when they communicate with me.

[mcuth]

Hi. Am new to this site but am really enjoying reading the RBOS threads. Have sent of initial letter to bank requesting refund of bank charges for the past 6 years. Was lucky enough to still have all my statements. So will keep touching base as and when they communicate with me.

 

Good stuff, welcome to the site

The first thing you should do is create your own thread in this forum - then you can keep all the information on your case in one place

 

Cheers

 

Michael