Kafka v NatWest

[Kafka]

Hi folks

I'm doing some work for this old business claim for charges, which has been brewing for the last 3 years in closed forums at PCF and PAG. In brief, its for penalty charges applied over many years on a account that has long been closed. They offered me a measly settlement, and continued to offer this, even when all the charges had passed the 6-year limit, but despite letters they are adamant that they will not increase the offer. Perhaps significantly, they came back with the same offer last year, despite my having rejected the same during their offer period two years earlier. Its as if they recognise that they can't easily close this one off.

Being a business account the UTCCR arguments were never relevant, and being NatWest it falls under RBS group. In the Commercial Court ruling, RBS were alone of the 8 in that the judgment was not clear that they were 'incapable of being penalties', so the standard bank defence against penalty arguments is still debatable as the ruling was never appealed.

My question is whether anyone has tried to use the penalty charges argument against RBS group since the Commercial Court ruling, given that it was the one banking group without a clear ruling. So far I have only seen attempts to revamp the UTCCR and CCA dimensions and I'm not aware of any attempt to try this route with RBS group.

I will be happy to provide more details of this on a closed forum if appropriate, but at present I am just trawling for ideas on any precedents for this. Thanks in advance.

[SpringerSpaniel]

Re: Kafka v NatWest

If the turnover is below £1million for your business, it can be possible to use UTCCR - does this apply to you ?

[TUTTSI]

Re: Kafka v NatWest

Not sure about business account bank charges Kafka, but there is a case going on at the moment which might have a significant change in the way we can claim the bank charges. I do not have any further details at this time but I guess it is a waiting game.

Good luck with your claim hun, I will be watching with interest as hubby has loads of business bank charges.

[Kafka]

Re: Kafka v NatWest

SS

Its taken me 10 mins to stop laughing! Income on the business always very low.

As I see it, my main argument is about the penalty aspect for RBS so the fact that its a business account is not significant. Lets see what response we get and I'll happily provide more details in closed forum as this is an unusual claim in several ways.

[leclerc]

Re: Kafka v NatWest

Kafka, the element in which RBS did not get a clear argument re charges was based around debit card charges ie what they termed Card Misuse since the terms of the card in one period of time had the possibility of being penalties. Am not sure that it offers a particularly strong route in the courts.

[Kafka]

Re: Kafka v NatWest

Re this business claim, I'm working on details of this with the main thread at PAG but others here and at PCF.

There is also PPI on this one running for 12 years to cover the OD and I intend to reclaim all of that with interest. This is also significant because the drawing of PPI payments allows me to claim for consequential loss against the default charges that were applied as a result. All of this requires very complex combined spreadsheets but it is coming together.

I intend to include as many other arguments in support regarding the default charges and I am particularly interested to hear of any examples or ideas relating to the following:

1) Any attempts to challenge RBS group regarding penalties since the Test Case, as they were alone among the 8 defendants in that their charges were stated to be "not incapable of being penalties".

2) Any developments with business claims for default charges since the Test Case, in view of the fact that they are very different from personal current accounts and already have charges included for services such as paying in and out.

3) Anything else that I should know or might be able to include to strengthen the claim.

With contractual interest and a timeframe of more than 20 years this is a humungous claim in size, as well as complexity, so it will need as much power as possible in view of the likely defence that NatWest will mount to stop it.

Thanks.