Cobbetts counterclaim not seen this before !!!

[jax007]

Re: Cobbetts counterclaim not seen this before !!!

Nat West 2002 to present time

jaxx

[Amethyst]

Re: Cobbetts counterclaim not seen this before !!!

Jax, I would honestly hold off on any business claims.

What you need to do before doing anything on this tho is go through the T&C's of the Natwest account for every year and cross reference them, in wording and placement, with those of the personal account for the same years.

I would hope somebody, somewhere has done this already....just a matter of finding it !

[Kafka]

Re: Cobbetts counterclaim not seen this before !!!

I'm not aware of anyone who has done this yet.

Martin3030 is perhaps the best-informed person re NatWest business claims at present and is having some good success with a long-running battle, the full details of which he is not free to publicise yet. He was recently at PC suggesting that people relook at NatWest business claims, so he may be able to help here.

I know that Stephen is also keen to rethink business claims (in general) in the light of recent developments.

[Amethyst]

Re: Cobbetts counterclaim not seen this before !!!

Martin3030 is claiming against Barclays, CAG have some secret forums to help with Business Claims so might be making some progress there, but then they also refused to publicise the Barclays losses with costs on business claims, which annoyed me, might be worth asking Martin how his Barclays one is coming along anyway, and if they have looked properly at Natwests T&Cs it could help. Thread on PC is Natwest Business claimants pre 2001. Is pre 01 but will count 01-03.

Reminds me actually I need to chase up the Law Commission on their review of the UTCCR to include SME's. See if I can get around their wanting to charge for the info

Thank you for your email and your request for the following information:

I would like to request information and copies of documentation relating to all discussions between BERR (now the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) and the Law Commission/Scottish Law Commission with regards to the Unfair Contracts Bill, and the Law Commissions' Report on Unfair Terms in Contracts (published 24 February 2005) for the period since July 2006, to include, but not be restricted to, memorandum, letters, emails, minutes of meetings, relating to any regulatory impact assessment.

I am sorry but we are unable to comply with this request as the effort to administer your request would exceed the limit prescribed by Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act. This is £600, which represents the estimates the estimated cost of spending 24 hours in determining whether the Department holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information. Above this, we are not obliged to comply with a request.

The scope of your request is wide and to comply we would have to carry out searches over an approximate three year period with any official, including ministers, who may hold documentation, such as emails, correspondence etc, relating to discussions with either the Law Commission, or the Scottish Law Commission, with regards to the Unfair Contracts Bill, and the Law Commissions' Report on Unfair Terms in Contracts. This I am satisfied would exceed the cost threshold.

However, if you were able to revise your request it will be reconsidered. When attempting to revise your request you should take into consideration timeframes and types of documents, or be specific to one group. This may help you revise your request within the cost threshold. Although we are happy to consider any request further, there is no guarantee that we will be able to comply. If you have any queries about this email, please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

David

David Evans
Policy Adviser
Consumer and Competition Directorate
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Bay 421
1 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0ET

phone: 020 7215 0335
fax:020 7215 0357

[Mayo lad]

Re: Cobbetts counterclaim not seen this before !!!

In all the arguments about fairness relating to bank charges one point appears to have been overlooked. In their letters informing customers that they have exceeded their limits the banks letter (LloydsTSB) specifically states that the charge (£35.00.) is "to help towards the banks administration costs" therefore, are they not obliged to use the money charged for this specific purpose only and if the charge exceeds their admin costs (very likely) are they not obliged to refund the difference and isn't failure to do so a criminal offence (s15 Theft Act 1968???? - deception, this may not be the right legislation. It's been a long time).

Any comments?

[Kafka]

Re: Cobbetts counterclaim not seen this before !!!

As I recall, Admin Fees was an old excuse used to justify penalties. As it became clear that this was untenable they shifted the ground to the argument that they were 'fees for a service', effectively cloaking the charges as legitimate service fees that do not need to reflect actual costs (such as the £2.50 monthly fee attached to old NatWest business accounts).

Now with the Supreme Court appeal, they have changed again to become part of a 'package of services' so they are harder to separate out.

Unfortunately, the OFT never pursued the fact that the charges are clearly penal and never focused on the actual costs involved, nor the clear differences between standard current accounts, basic current accounts (where ODs are expressly ruled out in any form) and businesses. I feel that had the cloaking argument and genuine costs been investigated, the current position might have been very different - but I'm not a legal expert (this is based on common sense not legal expertise LOL).

[gaz2006]

Re: Cobbetts counterclaim not seen this before !!!

gaz

There are a few comments to make about this.

Smith's findings on penalties were not appealed by the OFT and so they are unaffected by the Supreme Court judgment.

The SC judgment only relates to sec6 of the UTCCR, so that doesn't preclude using other aspects of UTCCR, if you were able to argue the joint personal/business use as mentioned above. I haven't seen this tried myself.

There is another claim for NatWest business running on another forum that is having some success in showing a way forward. In view of the new spirit of collaboration across the forums, perhaps the time is right to pool thoughts on business accounts. NatWest have the additional angle of the penal issue so may be worth focusing on.

I myself have a NatWest one for 1992-2005 LBAd but never filed because I expected it would be wrongly stayed during the test case. If there is a plan to pool resources for NatWest business claims then you can count me in. We have recently discussed at Penalty Charges taking a closer look at business accounts in light of the SC judgment and new thinking, so this fits nicely.

If you want to see my draft POC for ideas I will be happy to send this to you off-forum :typing:

I suggest this might be better moved to the Business Claims Forum too?

Hiya I need to revise poc case management conference coming up can you send me anything by pm that u think will help regards Gaz

[Amethyst]

Re: Cobbetts counterclaim not seen this before !!!

Have you spoken with Martin3030 on CAG about your business claim gaz ?

Did you dig out the natwest 2001 business account t&c's and compare them to the personal account ones ?

When (around about) is the case management conference ?


Now to be annoying I have an issue with the penalty argument which I dont think we've discussed as yet. If this was a t/as account and thus arguably subject to the UTCCR and the SC has ruled out fairness under 6(2) price (Which conversley means you can use the 5(1) and cca arguments but am just thinking about the penalty aspect here), then I think that statute is 'clarifying' common law isn't it ? SO if the charges are deemed to be part of the price for a package of services under UTCCR there is no way the Penalty under common law argument can succeed - even with the 2001 terms classed (pre UTCCR judgment) as capable of being penal.

Does that make sense?

[gaz2006]

Re: Cobbetts counterclaim not seen this before !!!

see ******* comments
Have you spoken with Martin3030 on CAG about your business claim gaz ?
*********** hes asked me for poc so im sending tonight as I am at work at present

Did you dig out the natwest 2001 business account t&c's and compare them to the personal account ones ?
******this is friends claim he has no terms and conditions for either busines or personal so cant compare
When (around about) is the case management conference ?
*******less than 10 days


Now to be annoying I have an issue with the penalty argument which I dont think we've discussed as yet. If this was a t/as account and thus arguably subject to the UTCCR and the SC has ruled out fairness under 6(2) price (Which conversley means you can use the 5(1) and cca arguments but am just thinking about the penalty aspect here), then I think that statute is 'clarifying' common law isn't it ? SO if the charges are deemed to be part of the price for a package of services under UTCCR there is no way the Penalty under common law argument can succeed - even with the 2001 terms classed (pre UTCCR judgment) as capable of being penal.

Does that make sense?[/quote]
************* bit beyond me that thought Justice Smith said some of Nat West t & cs "might be classed as penal " ? Regards Gaz

[Amethyst]

Re: Cobbetts counterclaim not seen this before !!!

I think the only chance this claim has is argue it is a personal account (as sole trader/trading as account) and use the 'new' arguments under UTCCR/CCA etc. I don't think the penal 2001 natwest terms has any legs. for the reasons I stated below.

If the account charges transaction fees (eg for paying in cash/cheques etc) then it would be classed as a business account and UTCCR wouldnt apply. If it operates the same as a personal account and is just used for business then the argument should be valid.

But yes send Martin your POC and see what he recommends, he's been handling business claims on CAG for the last year or so so should have a much better handle on things than me

[gaz2006]

Re: Cobbetts counterclaim not seen this before !!!

Thanks for your advice regards G

[gaz2006]

Re: Cobbetts counterclaim not seen this before !!!

Update a few days before case increased offer which has been accepted
regards Gaz

[Amethyst]

Re: Cobbetts counterclaim not seen this before !!!

Good news. Any more details?