New Member Advice

[John3421]

Re: New Member Advice

Have received a letter from Natwest please see below.

" I write in reference to your dispute with Name of Supplier.
Please find enclosed a copy of the Banks defence.
For your information our offer of £3000.00 and £100 court fee still stands.

Natwest Defence.
IN THE NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT CASE NO:
BETWEEN:

CLAIMANT

NATWEST BANK DEFENDANT

DEFENCE OF THE DEFENDANT

1. The Defendant admits that on or about the 23 March 2009 a transaction for the sum of
£2011.62, in favour of The Supplier, was debited to the Claimants NatWest Credit
Card account.
2. The Defendant is a Bank who has issued a credit card to the Claimant
3. The Defendant admits that the contract under which this card was issued is a regulated
consumer credit agreement as defined by Section 12 of the Consumer Credit Act in respect
of which Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act applies.
4.The Defendant had been provided with documentation, which shows the Claimant placed
an order for a fireplace at a total cost of £4523.25. The Claimant paid a deposit of £2011.62
using the defendants issued credit card.
5. The Defendant understands that the Claimant was not happy with the quality of the work
carried out by, (the supplier) and therefore did not pay the balance due to (the Supplier) of £2011.63.
6. The Claimant alleges that the fireplace was not safely installed by (the supplier) and
has supplied an independent report with estimate to carry out works to correct the alleged
faults. The estimated cost being £3000.00.
7. The Defendant has corresponded with the Claimant in order to resolve this matter, but the
defendant was unable to reach an agreement with the claimant.
8. The Claimant feels that the sum of £4523.25, being claimed by the claimant, is
unreasonable in that if the claimant receives this sum in full he will be unjustly enriched. The
Claimants paid a total of £2011.62 for the fireplace and the estimate to repair the alleged
faults is £3,000. As the defendant understands from the claimant that it is his intention to
keep the fireplace he would profit from this claim.
9. Save as admitted in clause one above the Defendant has no first hand knowledge of any
of the matter; relating to this transaction and consequently the Claimants claim is
specifically not admitted and the Claimant is put to strict proof thereof.
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this statement are true.

Your views on the defence please.

I am not sure of no 4.

4. I did not place an order for £4523.35 this is the cost of the claim including fire, fees and compensation.

Thanks
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Forgot to mention piont 8.

8. I am the claimant and I do not feel that £4523.45 is unreasonable.
Think they need to check things before sending them out.

[John3421]

Re: New Member Advice

Just copied this from money claim online.

The Defendant disputes the whole amount you have claimed. Your claim cannot proceed online and will be transferred to the appropriate court for continuation. You will receive confirmation to where the claim has been transferred to shortly.

[Guest]

Re: New Member Advice

Perfectly standard response and largely meaningless, however, did you tell them that you intend to keep the fireplace and that you intend to have the faults rectified and that this will cost £3000? In addition, what did your Particulars of Claim contain and what else did you provide them with that would lead them to these conclusions?

The next thing that will happen is that the claim will be passed to your local court by the Bulk Centre in Northampton and you will be contacted in order that you can complete and file an Allocation Questionnaire, should it get that far.

Frankly I would not be unduly concered about this. NatWest defended tens of thousands of bank charges claims as well and look how that worked out for them.

Section 75(2) creates a statutory cause of action in favour of the creditor against the supplier which allows them, since they have been compelled to discharge the liability of another, recovery from the supplier on the basis of unjust enrichment, which I suspect is the root of this defence.

[John3421]

Re: New Member Advice

Hi Cetelco, No I have never told them I am keeping the fire. I have had a price to correct the faults of £3000. I rejected this stating there was no warranty with the fire.This is where they are getting their offer for that amount from. My claims particulars were as you laid out for me and stated nothing about keeping the fire.
However it would be better if I was to keep the fire at this stage. Cost of fire to buy is £2000 so if I was to get the £4523.45 and be forced to return fire I would only have £2523 instead of the £3100 on offer at the moment.

[Guest]

Re: New Member Advice

If you accept £3100 and NatWest choose to avail themselves of the indemnity in section 75(2) you may find you are worse off still.

You either want the fire or you do not. If you want it, why are you suing NatWest at all?

[John3421]

Re: New Member Advice

There is nothing wrong with the fire itself. It is the way it has been installed which is the problem. If I accept the £3100 on offer i can have this fire re fitted correctly. The total cost of the job will then have been £1900 instead of the £4000.
Going back to the begining of all this all I was after was a refund so I could have the job done by another company.

What do you mean by avail themselves of the indemnity in sec 75 (2)?

[WendyB]

Re: New Member Advice

Hi Cetelco, No I have never told them I am keeping the fire. I have had a price to correct the faults of £3000. I rejected this stating there was no warranty with the fire.This is where they are getting their offer for that amount from. My claims particulars were as you laid out for me and stated nothing about keeping the fire.
However it would be better if I was to keep the fire at this stage. Cost of fire to buy is £2000 so if I was to get the £4523.45 and be forced to return fire I would only have £2523 instead of the £3100 on offer at the moment.

No you wouldn;t only have £2523, you would have 4523, which is basically where you started before you paid for anything. ie you wouldn't have a balance on your credit card of the 2011 deposit you paid and you'd have another2.5k left over. So even if you did have to return the fire you'd be no worse off than you were in the first place. Except you would be colder. And didn't I read somwehere in this thread that you'd had the fire correctly installed?

[Guest]

Re: New Member Advice

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 provides what is called "connected lender liability" and it is this which enables you to pursue the card issuer for breach of contract or misrepresentation when you use your credit card to purchase items.

Parliament considered that in cases where a lender provides credit for the purchase of goods or services pursuant to arrangements between himself and the supplier the two of them can be considered in commercial terms as joint venturers since the arrangements operate to their mutual benefit in the promotion of their businesses. It was therefore recommended that in such cases the debtor who has a claim for misrepresentation or breach of contract against the supplier should have a remedy against the lender as well. Connected lender liability is expressed in section 75(1) of the Act.

Section 75(2) as I mentioned in post #78, creates a statutory cause of action in favour of the creditor against the supplier. This means NatWest may choose to pursue the supplier in order to recover what they are going to pay to you. In turn the supplier may then look to you for the return of the fire.

In your post #40 you stated that the fire has now been fitted correctly. Presumably this is the same fire, but fitted by a different company. If this is the case, why state in post #79 that you rejected the £3000 price to correct the faults because there would be no warranty? Furthermore, your post #81 states that you "...can have this fire re fitted correctly."

Is it fitted or not?

Since you are not entitled to double recovery, as I pointed out in post #6 but are seeking to cancel the contract, you may need to give up the fire. A cancelled contract is treated as if it had not been made and as a consequence each party has to give back what he received under the contract. The contract is unwound.

[Budgie]

Re: New Member Advice

John,

Any update for us please !!!

Rgds Budgie

[John3421]

Re: New Member Advice

Sorry for the delay in posting update on this, but i wanted to get it sorted out as was getting a bit confused with the advise. I have settled out of court for the sum of £3100 and an agreement that i can keep the fire. Have had the fire refitted and have the same warranty on it. This in my view was the best financial gain for me. Paid £2000 deposit claimed £3100 back and had fire re fitted for £2000. Total cost of job was £900.
I thank all that have advised me on this through out as I had no idea on the way to go with it. Your knowledge and experience in these matters certainly helped me to reach this out come.
Thank you all once again Merry Christmas & Happy New Year
John.