askl - Natwest

[askl]

Hi,

NatWest is claiming >£20K "excess overdraft" charges including interest from me in a court action.

These charges were made in 2000 and 2001 to a business, when the account was well below the facility levels guaranteed.

I have counterclaimed for loss of trade.

The Judge has ordered the Claimant to breakdown its excess overdraft charges, with a sanction that the claim will be struck out if the order is not followed.
All I have received so far is a list of charges, not a breakdown of those charges - the claim is yet to be struck out.

I have a direction hearing soon.

What is the best way of ensuring the claim is struck out and remains so. I have no legal training. Any help would be extremely appreciated, and could help us all force NatWest, that is afterall 70% owned by the taxpayer, to disclose it's actual costs.

Yours,

askl

[enaid]

Re: NatWest claim £28,500 for bank penalties incl. interest

Well firstly aski, a warm welcome to Beagles.
I am going to put your post in the Natwest forum where it will get more response.
Hopefully then someone will be able to offer you some advice.
Enaid x

[TANZARELLI]

Re: aski - Natwest

Do you have the Terms & Conditions for the account?

It would be interesting to compare the wording of yours and those of the Personal Current Accounts, because as I am sure your aware the test case relates to PCA's.

I'll see if I can dig out the 2001 Terms.

Edit: here are some business T&Cs from 2001: http://www.penaltyactiongroup.co.uk/...p?f=119&t=1860

Some from 2002 various: http://www.penaltyactiongroup.co.uk/...p?f=119&t=1861

[Amy]

Re: aski - Natwest

The Judge has ordered the Claimant to breakdown its excess overdraft charges, with a sanction that the claim will be struck out if the order is not followed.

When did the Judge order this to be done by?

[askl]

Re: aski - Natwest

Hi,

The first Order was made at a Direction Hearing in April '08, then repeated at one in September. I asked what sanctions the Judge would impose if NatWest failed to comply a second time and was told their claim would be struck out. That has yet to happen.
I will be asking the Judge to follow through with his order or sanction in a couple of days at the next Direction Hearing.

The things is what happens next if the claim is struck. Do they get a second chance, or does the case automatically go onto my counterclaim? Which I am determined to fight for as NatWest brought down an otherwise profitable company that would be worth a vast amount more now than the damages I am asking for.

[askl]

Re: aski - Natwest

Hi,

This afternoon's Direction Hearing went well in that the Judge agreed to make the previous Court Order clearer – from my notes;

The Claimant shall provide answers to the following by 4pm 28 February 2009;
a) the method of calculation, or breakdown that give rise to the Cheque Return Fees being claimed in the £30 per item,
b) the method of calculation, or breakdown that give rise to the sum claimed against the defendant as Excess Borrowing.


ASKL

[Sapphire]

Re: aski - Natwest

Well a lot of people will be interested in what Nat West come back with there then.

Well done hun for getting this far.

[Amy]

Re: aski - Natwest

Excellent, good work xx

[TANZARELLI]

Re: aski - Natwest

I for one will be interested in this.

[enaid]

Re: aski - Natwest

You won't be on your own there Tanz and well done aski.
Enaid x

[askl]

Re: aski - Natwest

Thanks for the support.
I'll post the actual wording when it arrives.

[TANZARELLI]

Re: aski - Natwest

Thanks for the support.
I'll post the actual wording when it arrives.

Or you could scan it up minus any identifying marks or personal info

[jax007]

Re: aski - Natwest

I too will keep my eye on this one.

Thanks
AskL

[askl]

Re: aski - Natwest

Update;

In January the Court Ordered;
1) The Claim shall be stayed pending;
a) resolution of the OFT/Abbey Litigation, or,
b) upon the Claimant's application that the foregoing litigation is not relevant to this claim,
2) Subject to Paragraph (1) permission to either party to lift the stay or seek further directions.
3) The Claimant shall serve in writing in upon the defendant's answer to the following by 4pm on 28th February 2009;
a) the method of calculation, or the break-down, that gives rise to "cheque return fees" being claimed in the sum of £30.00 per item;
b) the method of calculation, or the break-down, that gives rise to the sums claimed against the defendant as "excess borrowing"."


Update 1
No answer from NatWest, so in March I applied to the court to stike out the Claim on the basis that the Bank hadn't provided the answers to 3 a & b above and that this was fundamental because Mr Justice Andrew Smith conclusion on 21/01/2009 that NatWest 2001 conditions were capable of being penalties.
The hearing is set for 7 July 11.30 Lambeth County Court.


Update 2
NatWest have just applied to have heard at the same hearing on 7 July;
1) To lift the stay of proceedings "because the case is not affected by the OFT Test case in relation to charges",
2) Summary judgement against me "because the Defendant has no real prospects of successfully defending this claim",


It appears NatWest accept that the case is no longer part of the OFT case as NatWest 2001 charges have already been concluded by Mr Jutice Andrew Smith as capable of being penalties, and are trying a final bully in the hope that I will capitulate.

Any thoughts, fears, tactics or suggestions would be appreciated.

ASKL

[natweststaffmember]

Re: aski - Natwest

can I ask whether your Particulars of Claim was.
Is this personal current account or business account?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
oops, it's a business.
Are you using penalties in law argument/UTCCR 1999/ or UCTA 1977?