Default against Natwest

[HarryJackson]

I won a case recently against Natwest. For some odd reason they sent a card reader to an address I have in the USA, a postal box. I had been waiting for a package and had the it sent to me in another country (I work abroad a lot). Only to discover this card reader. I have not been a Natwest customer for a good decade. So I called them from abroad, and could get no good answers as to why they sent this thing. I asked for my postage and call costs to be compensated, and my time, as per* the Financial Ombudsman's guidelines. They refused to even lodge a complaint. So I litigated. Won the £330 by default as no acknowledgement of service was put in, let alone a Defence. This was a fortnight ago. Yesterday an email arrives telling me they have just seen the Judgement, and not the original claim. They are "still investigating". Ordered me to sign something dismissing the Judgement, and send my original POC, by 4pm (email sent 11am) or they would make an application to dismiss it and have me pay the costs for that application, "which will be more than the actual Judgement amount."* I emailed them back, telling them I did not take kindly to bullies, and would not co-operate given the threats. Told them I was depending on the payment for my holiday money in July, and if they did not confirm payment by 4pm, I would take them to Court again for Loss of Opportunity and the cost of the ruined holiday. They filed with myself and the CCBC at 5pm yesterday, asking to dismiss the Judgement and have costs awarded against me for the lack of co-operation. Oh, and stated I took the wrong entity to Court - should have been Natwest something or other, not Natwest Group. Even though they have not seen the original POC yet?!? In any case I took the correct entity on. I am confident of that. So, thoughts?

[HarryJackson]

Thought I might get one reply, at least...

[MIKE770]

hold on people have lives as well as volunteering here.*

[des8]

Well hang on in there
peeps posting on here all have other lives.

Why are you so sure you initiated the claim against the correct entity?

As they did not acknowledge service or enter a defence you would have been wise to agree to their request for set aside.
It is more than likely they will be successful and obtain an adverse costs order as you did not cooperate with a reasonable request.
Your original claim will then be heard, but you can expect them to request its dismissal on the grounds of the wrong entity being sued

And they know who you named in the original claim because they have received the judgement!

[R0b]

I emailed them back, telling them I did not take kindly to bullies, and would not co-operate given the threats.

This is very much a common statement by litigants in person. The bank is merely protecting their position and if you have issued a claim against the wrong entity, then they have every right for that judgment to be removed.

Told them I was depending on the payment for my holiday money in July, and if they did not confirm payment by 4pm, I would take them to Court again for Loss of Opportunity and the cost of the ruined holiday.

I'm afraid that is an immediate non-starter. You can't bring a claim for further losses on a judgement that you've already received, you would have been laughed away at court (and Natwest were probably thinking the same). Obtaining a judgment order is a finality, the best you could do is claim interest and enforce the judgment through one of the specified enforcement methods.

Oh, and stated I took the wrong entity to Court - should have been Natwest something or other, not Natwest Group. Even though they have not seen the original POC yet?!? In any case I took the correct entity on. I am confident of that. So, thoughts?

I'd be concerned about your confidence. I don't profess to understand Natwest's corporate structure but if I was to hazard a guess, Natwest Group is the parent company and assuming you are a banking customer which related to this issue, the correct entity is National Westminster Bank Plc which is the name of their banking entity, and that is the entity I presume they are referring to.

Unfortunately, many litigants in person seem to think that because a corporate structure has many business entities, they can sue whatever one they please to suit their own benefit. However, centuries old law has dictated that you can only sue the entity that you contracted with and that will be the one described in the terms and conditions. If you are really that confident your contract is with Natwest Group Plc, you should have no problems getting this application dismissed, but if I were to bet on this, I'm siding with Des and agree you are unlikely to stand a chance unless there's something you have omitted in your original post that we are not aware of.

[HarryJackson]

I can tell you without doubt that I have taken the right entity to Court. I checked first. Information on the Natwest pin sentry they sent me is detailed on the same webpage as the company number for Natwest Group, and I double-checked this with a lawyer. As I have not been a customer of Natwest for decade, and having spoken to them about it, it seems that my name was not taken off a central database at their Group head office, despite my account having been closed on the Bank's computers for a decade.

[HarryJackson]

I read that it is not a good enough reason to claim not having received post and that the Court's believe that the mail will have arrived safely and trust the Post Office to deliver? Also, I can't see how a Judge would be minded to order costs against me? Surely anyone who was late dealing with their affairs could just order the other side to agree to drop their Default and allow another chance for them to defend after they mucked up the first time, otherwise?

[HarryJackson]

In this case, they could very easily have accessed the claim on MCOL, where it was filed. But they made out they nothing about it and ordered me to accept the Default would be reversed or they would have a Judge make me pay for an application which would exceed the cost of actually paying the Judgement? How is that proportional or reasonable, as per CPR? Further, they gave me five hours to accede to their bullying. I did not have access to any of the paperwork at that time,* nor was I happy to be threatened in that way. They have since written in their application that theCCBC told them it would take weeks to get a copy of the POC to them, which they did not tell me in their threatening email, so I had no idea they did not know that they could simply log in online to see the case file/POC, and as they are lawyers, I assumed they would know this anyway?*

[HarryJackson]

Finally, in my Defence,I had no idea what an application entailed, how it worked, etc, as this forum thread shows. I could not possibly have found out in five hours what my legal position was as I was working when they sent me their threat. So I think it it unfair that they chose to give me only five hours to accede to their demands.

[des8]

So you have now entered the realms of the law!
Can be rather daunting!

lawyers will be forceful when dealing with the uninitiated, and so without seeing the exact words of their "threats" it is difficult for us to comment other than to warn you of the pitfalls.

You posted that you told them you would not cooperate...not wise as the courts expect reasonable behaviour in an attempt to settle matters out of court.
You reckon they threatened you...I expect it was forceful language warning you of the possible result of not cooperating.

They gave you 5 hours before filing, as they have to initiate action for set aside without delay.
Your lack of knowledge is not their problem, and unfortunately is not a defence, even if people are sympathetic.

[HarryJackson]

Thanks des8*so what do you suggest I do now?

[HarryJackson]

btw, I am coming at this from the POV of someone who* has done everything right and does not accept that they have not seen the original POC, as Royal Mail are likely to have successfully gotten it to them.*

[HarryJackson]

Also - from what I have read, an application would have had to be made in any case, to remove the default. Something called relief from sanctions, which has a set cost i.e. £255. Why do they need my permission? Seems they are just trying to coerce me not to fight it, to make up for their shortcomings.

[pt2537]

I can tell you without doubt that I have taken the right entity to Court. I checked first. Information on the Natwest pin sentry they sent me is detailed on the same webpage as the company number for Natwest Group, and I double-checked this with a lawyer. As I have not been a customer of Natwest for decade, and having spoken to them about it, it seems that my name was not taken off a central database at their Group head office, despite my account having been closed on the Bank's computers for a decade.

Double checking with a lawyer doesnt always guarantee that it is right.

I took a case to the High Court that another lawyer said would have no hope at all. The case is in my signature below ( Harrison v Link) so you cannot just rely on the lawyers say so, they may be wrong.

[pt2537]

Also, be careful, if you issued during the pandemic then you could end up with some difficulties with your case, you may want to look here https://www.civillitigationbrief.com...23-march-2020/ as this case ended badly for the litigator who entered judgment