mcuth v RBoS ***WON***

[Guest bong]

I may be wrong progenic (usual disclaimer:p ) but we are not saying that the terms are unfair or that they are at issue. It's that the banks are supposed to be charging us their actual costs.

[Glenn UK]

I agree entirely with Bong, if their fees were in fact a true reflection of their losses then we would have no claim.

 

The term is 'acceptable' in law as long as it works both ways of course, its the scale of charges that are unlawful.

 

Glenn

[mcuth]

I may be wrong progenic (usual disclaimer:p ) but we are not saying that the terms are unfair or that they are at issue. It's that the banks are supposed to be charging us their actual costs.

 

I agree entirely with Bong, if their fees were in fact a true reflection of their losses then we would have no claim.

 

The term is 'acceptable' in law as long as it works both ways of course, its the scale of charges that are unlawful.

 

Good points both, of course, thanks

I think I need to go on holiday for a little while - now, if only Cobbetts would pay up....

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[marcelle]

I am soooooooooooooooooo rooting for you mcuth as i, as well as thousands of others, have been following your thread from the beginning. Good Luck!

[Mama Bear]

can anyone tell me what the difference between the standard interest at 8% and CI is please? and how do you work it out, and when can you use it?

[HydraUK]

Michael, I could use some input, if you have a moment.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland/28596-hydra-rbs-2.html#post588187

 

 

Cheers

 

Phil

[marcelle]

can anyone tell me what the difference between the standard interest at 8% and CI is please? and how do you work it out, and when can you use it?

 

Hey Mama...shouldn't hijack mcuth's very intense thread so I'll respond quickly...

 

8 per cent interest is charged only when you take the bank to court (statutory) and CI in when you charge the bank the same interest as they've charged you. Good luck!

[progenic7]

Hi all,

 

bong and glenn, i think maybe you miss my point im not saying it is necessarily the Terms, or term if indeed any. It could be something else all together.

But i really do think that when you make a legal case in a court, its always good practice to specifically point out what you have an issue with and what you are actually challenging.

If its the charging regime per se then thats fine, but dont you think you should actually say that, or do judges now use ESP lol J/K

 

Johnny

[mcuth]

Just spoken to the court to see if there's any update - everything's still in front of the DJ.

 

Apparently, if the DJ orders a hearing for the "Application to Strike Out", that would delay any judgement application on my part regarding the non-filing of the AQ (i.e. the Defendant may be holding back on the AQ until the result of the Application is given) *sigh*

 

Though conversely, if the DJ dismisses the Application, I would be able apply for judgement on the basis that the AQ wasn't filed as per the DJ's order.

 

Of course, if it was me in the Defendant's position, I would've filed the AQ anyway, just so I was covered. Especially given the inaccuracies within the Application itself

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[HydraUK]

Re-subscribing...clicked the wrong link in the email ;0)

[mcuth]

Apparently, if the DJ orders a hearing for the "Application to Strike Out", that would delay any judgement application on my part regarding the non-filing of the AQ (i.e. the Defendant may be holding back on the AQ until the result of the Application is given) *sigh*

 

Interesting though, CPR26.3 doesn't allow them leeway with the AQ because of an Application to Strike:

PART 26 - CASE MANAGEMENT – PRELIMINARY STAGE

 

Also, the AQ was due in 4 days before their Application was submitted...

 

Hmmmm, what to do, what to do....

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[Guest bong]

Is it down to you to decide what to do, or the DJ?

[mcuth]

Is it down to you to decide what to do, or the DJ?

 

Oh I'm sure it's down to the DJ, I just don't want him/her missing anything

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[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?

 

Just to go back to this point, I found this in the CPR yesterday (while finding out how Cobbetts have breached 26.3):

PART 15 - DEFENCE AND REPLY

"15.8 If a claimant files a reply to the defence, he must –

(a) file his reply when he files his allocation questionnaire; and

(b) serve his reply on the other parties at the same time as he files it.

"

 

Glad I did filed mine when I did now, and something to bear in mind for anyone else wanting to file a R2D

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[HydraUK]

(a) file his reply when he files his allocation questionnaire;

 

Oh Sh*t! :o

[mcuth]

Oh Sh*t! :o

 

Well one thing to take heart from is that it's not compulsory to file a R2D....

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[HydraUK]

Is there any provision for late submission?

[mcuth]

Is there any provision for late submission?

 

Not sure - it doesn't appear so in the CPR, but I guess the CPR are pretty flexible and at the court's discretion. Might be worth calling your court office if you want to submit?

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

Prepare yourselves for a bit of a laugh - I couldn't post this last night because I couldn't get back up off the floor - received this yesterday from The Forthstone:

 

Dear {mcuth}

 

Thank you for your correspondence received here on 11 January 2007 (oh only 6 weeks ago? LOL) relating to your claim for a refund of charges appled to your account (Royalties Account XX-XX-XX/XXXXXXXX).

 

We explain all of our terms and conditions including our fees and charges at account opening and they form the basis of your agreement with us. Full details are available at any time on our website (actually, the full ts&cs aren't) and in our branches, and updates are sent out regularly to our customers. For your convenience, I am enclosing our current terms and conditions (including fees and charges) that apply to your account.

 

RBS has for a number of years provided many every day banking services to customers free of charge when accounts are in credit or within a previously agreed overdraft limit. These services include access to our branch network, cheques, Direct Debits, Standing Orders, UK debit card transactions and UK ATM withdrawals. It is also important to us that our customers have every opportunity to arrange suitable borrowing facilities with us should they require extra funds whether through our branches, online or via our UK based call centres.

 

Whilst many of our services are provided without a corresponding charge, we do make charges when customers, by their actions, request an increase to or the creation of an overdraft in excess of their previously agreed limit. By reviewing such requests we provide an additional service to customers, in many instances allowing items to be paid either by creating or increasing an overdraft. These charges can be avoided entirely by arranging suitable borrowing facilities in advance.

 

For these reasons, we do not agree with the basis of your complaint. We believe that the charges we levy are for providing services and that they are not penalties or charges for default.

Furthermore we believe that these charges are fair, reasonable and transparent.

 

You have put forward a claim of £17895.68. However, having investigated your claim and looking at your statements for this account (XX-XX-XX/XXXXXXXX) for the past six years, I was only able to trace charges levied to £50 that relate to unauthorised borrowing. The amount claimed in your letter refer [sic] to amounts that could not be found in your statements, or interest and/or monthly packaged account fees for Royalties, Royalties Gold or Royalties Premier (clearly it doesn't, and they find it impossible to read the letter they refer to). Therefore, we are prepared to offer the amount of £50.00 paid direct into your account.

 

To accept this offer in full and final settlement of your complaint please let me know by completing the attached form and returning it to us in the reply paid envelope provided. If you would like to discuss this offer please contact the number quoted above.

 

Any charges that properly accrue in the future will be applied to your account in line with our published tariff and in accordance with your agreement with the bank. Should you be unwilling to accept any such charges, then we may need to consider if we are prepared to continue to provide you with your existing banking 'facilities (big whoop, this account's been dormant for several years and is only used to service a RBoS loan). Instead we may offer you a simple account that does not offer borrowing facilities or other services that can result in charges.

 

I trust that this will resolve your complaint, however for the sake of completeness I am enclosing a leaflet explaining the options available to you should you wish to take matters further.

 

Financial Services Authority guidelines state that we can regard your complaint as closed if we do not hear from you within eight weeks of this letter. If you do need to take your complaint forward, please let me know within this time.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Jacqui Tuck

Customer Relations

 

ROTFLMFAO - I'm going to have fun drafting a reply to this

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[HydraUK]

Similar but much more in-depth to the one I received from Sandy Watt on the day I received Cobbetts AQ....

[mcuth]

Here's my response:

 

Dear Ms Tuck

CURRENT ACCOUNT NUMBER XXXXXXXX

SORT CODE XX-XX-XX

Your ref: XXXXXXXXXX

Thank you for your letter of 23rd February 2007, received yesterday.

It is clear that neither my letter of 8th January 2007, nor any of the preceding correspondence on this matter has been read & understood. The sum claimed of £17895.68 (which is now also subject to interest since court proceedings began) does not include account/package fees – in all correspondence, the attached schedules make it perfectly clear what is being claimed (charges since 1999, resulting overdraft interest, and contractual interest under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract). The timeframe that the claim covers exceeds the last 6 years because the charges applied are unlawful – further to this, I am confident that in court, it will be seen that the Limitations Act 1980 does not apply in this case.

Your threats of withdrawing banking facilities would not only appear to be in breach of the Financial Ombudsman’s recent advice, but are also ineffectual given the account’s status and previous history.

Referring to previous correspondence, you should also be able to see that your colleague, Tommy McLean, offered £2711.00 in his letter of 21st November 2006. I accepted this sum as a partial settlement of the claim on condition that it was paid as a cheque (see my letter of 27th November 2006), but I heard no further on this.

As I have stated previously, I am a reasonable person and would be happy to negotiate to bring proceedings to a close, but I must completely refuse your derisory & insulting offer of £50.00. You should further note that, as I have continually stated in all my correspondence with yourselves, crediting any sum agreed to the account is not satisfactory – any payments must be made by cheque made payable to myself.

In closing, as I detailed in my letter of 8th January, you should be aware that a county court action was issued on 15th December 2006 in Swindon County Court under claim number 6SN05490. Your solicitors, Cobbetts LLP, are defending – however, I must advise that in the absence of any serious attempt at settlement, I will continue to pursue this claim in the most vigorous manner.

Yours sincerely,

{mcuth}

 

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[bigmama59]

excellent letter:)

[innocent]

Indeed ANOTHER excellent letter

[mcuth]

Spoken to the court just now - Cobbetts filed their AQ on 27th Feb, just in time for the DJ's order

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[innocent]

Only the 'norm' for them unfortunately eh?

 

 

Still it does mean another step closer to completion.....

 

Innocent