Nationwide

[Toadie1953]

In 2004 I asked Nationwide to transfer some money as I was buying shares, despite due diligence when researching the shares, I discovered within a few hours of arranging the transfer that the share issue was a con/scam. I immediately emailed Nationwide and instructed them to stop the payment, followed up by a telephone conversation with their call centre who advised that this would be done. I then sent another email to confirm that the call centre had also been advised. I went to the main Nationwide office early the next morning, and was told that it was impossible to stop a transfer!.

I discovered 5 years later that this was infact a lie, and the payment could be stopped, Nationwide used HSBC for the transfer, but HSBC cliamed that they had no records, nor did Nationwide (5 years after the event) I reported this to the Ombudsman, who sided with Nationwide (I didn't have all the facts that I now have, at that time) Meanwhile I suffered a huge financial loss, and used my credit cards to live on, one of these was Nationwide.

I came to an agreement to pay them a monthly sum, which I have done, and increased as and when I have been able.
Out of the blue I received a court summons. I filed a defence, quoting above, and that fact that I had agreed to pay monthly and have been doing so without fail. I think they are trying to get an order against my house. After almost 2.5 months Nationwide's solicitor have asked me to drop my defence. They have threatened that I will be liable for substantial additional costs. Should I drop my defence that they lied to me 11 years ago, and they caused me to lose over £10K.

They have given me 7 days to respond. Incidentally they have been appalling at answering letter, and always send via normal post, I always send recorded delivery to them.

Help this is stressing me, I had a heart attack 2 years ago, and they are aware of this too

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Nationwide

Welcome aboard

I came to an agreement to pay them a monthly sum, which I have done, and increased as and when I have been able.
Out of the blue I received a court summons. I filed a defence, quoting above, and that fact that I had agreed to pay monthly and have been doing so without fail. I think they are trying to get an order against my house. After almost 2.5 months Nationwide's solicitor have asked me to drop my defence. They have threatened that I will be liable for substantial additional costs. Should I drop my defence that they lied to me 11 years ago, and they caused me to lose over £10K.

First of all, how much is the value of the claim? Is it above or below £10k? Has it been allocated to a track, either small claims or fast track?

A crucial difference is that a court can order costs against the losing party if the claim is dealt with in the fast track but not in small claims (with very few exceptions).

Is there any chance you could post up your defence? :typing:

[Toadie1953]

Re: Nationwide

Hi, I don't have the file with me, but the claim from them is around £7K, so below £10k.
I am considering filing a claim against them for the £10k transfer that they didn't stop, although as its so old would it be ruled inadmissable?
I will answer your other points when i get home this evening

thankyou so much

[Debt Camel]

Re: Nationwide

The fact that you are making the agreed monthly payments is not a defence against a CCJ.

I'll leave it to the others to comment on your chance of succeeding with a counterclaim against Nationwide for their failure to stop a transaction 11 years ago when you have taken the matter to the Ombudsman and not succeeded.

It's worth remembering that very few charges result in an order for sale, see the statistics in here http://debtcamel.co.uk/charging-order-sale/

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Nationwide

Hi, I don't have the file with me, but the claim from them is around £7K, so below £10k.

In that case those guys are just trying to scare you. In small claims each party is responsible for their own costs. One exception was this case where costs were awarded in the small claims track because there was a contractual clause: http://www.thesolicitorsgroup.com/Do...aims-Costs.pdf

There have been a handful of other cases where costs have been awarded in small claims but usually against claimants rather than defendants as in the case quoted above.

The rules for costs in small claims are set out under CPR 27.14 : https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...s/part27#27.14

(2) The court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party’s costs, fees and expenses, including those relating to an appeal, except –
(a) the fixed costs attributable to issuing the claim which –

I am considering filing a claim against them for the £10k transfer that they didn't stop, although as its so old would it be ruled inadmissable?

You could have filed a counter-claim with your defence. You say all this happened five years ago, if so, you'd still be within the limitation period which is six years. If you take a look around you'll find many creditors issue claims right on the edge of the six year period. I'd probably keep the claim just below £10k for the reasons noted above. If your claim was above £10k it would be allocated to fast track and you could potentially be liable for their costs if you lost.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Nationwide

The fact that you are making the agreed monthly payments is not a defence against a CCJ.

Indeed not, as was shown in this rather well-known case where the defendant was making the agreed payments: https://paulatwatsonssolicitors.word...nder-v-mayhew/

• The Defendant ran into financial difficulties and in July 2009 she failed to make the minimum payment due on the card. She informed the Claimant of her problems in February 2010 and it was agreed that she would make payments of £5.44 a month from March 2010.
• On 12^th October 2010 the Claimant served a default notice with a final demand being sent on 11^th November 2010. These proceedings were issued on 20^th December 2010.

Now then, Di Mayhew received a Default notice and she ignored it, why? well she received the Default and then a couple of days later she received a letter saying “please ignore the
previous correspondence and maintain your payment arrangement” so she did, she just carried on paying. She did not stop paying and tell Santander to get lost, she did not ever intend to avoid paying this debt, what she got was sued by Santander and put in such a position where she needed to seek legal assistance.
Di Mayhew is a pensioner, she did not go out to avoid paying her debt, in fact this lady said to me when we had been given the judgment “do i still need to keep paying because i feel that i
should because i borrowed the money”

However, as in the case above which was won by the defendant, even if payment arrangements are not legally binding, there may be other grounds to defend the claim, which is why I asked the OP to post up their defence. In this case I'd have thought the grounds would refer to Nationwide's conduct of the affair rather than the fact he'd been making payments.

I'll leave it to the others to comment on your chance of succeeding with a counterclaim against Nationwide for their failure to stop a transaction 11 years ago when you have taken the matter to the Ombudsman and not succeeded.

I thought it was five years ago, if it was 11 years ago then they could argue limitation, and unlike a PPI reclaim where you can say you've only just become aware of the fact it was mis-sold, that wouldn't apply here.

[Toadie1953]

Re: Nationwide

Hi , I think that it may be worth launching a counter claim, but for £9,999.00 as this has been ongoing, I have offered to meet Nationwide but shoosmiths turned my offer down point blank, and said I had to deal with them, I imagine to ensure they make maximum fees. They always wait months to reply to my letters , but always give me 7 day deadlines, usually the write on a thursday, post on a Friday, so I get the letter Monday evening, or Tuesday evening, ( I live in a village) so effectively I get one or two days to draft and send my reply. They took 2 months to find the CC agreement, but then gave me 7 days to reply unfortunately I was out the country at the time working.. I will post some documentation this evening as soon as I get home. thanks for all the words so far though, I no longer feel quite so alone

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Nationwide

Hi , I think that it may be worth launching a counter claim, but for £9,999.00 as this has been ongoing, I have offered to meet Nationwide but shoosmiths turned my offer down point blank, and said I had to deal with them, I imagine to ensure they make maximum fees. They always wait months to reply to my letters , but always give me 7 day deadlines, usually the write on a thursday, post on a Friday, so I get the letter Monday evening, or Tuesday evening, ( I live in a village) so effectively I get one or two days to draft and send my reply. They took 2 months to find the CC agreement, but then gave me 7 days to reply unfortunately I was out the country at the time working.. I will post some documentation this evening as soon as I get home. thanks for all the words so far though, I no longer feel quite so alone

If all this dates back to 2004, you'd be out of time.

[Toadie1953]

Re: Nationwide

Hi Flaming Parrot,
Yes I was afraid I was out of time, mainly due to Nationwide lying to me about being able to stop a transfer, and HSBC "Losing" the documents" I have realised that the demand from Shoosmiths wasn't posted until 9th, sent second class, and I received it on 13th, so impossible for me to reply within 7 days. Their deadline is 4pm today, totally unreasonable demand, again. They have stated that all the payments that I have made have been received without prejudice, although they set the level of payment, surely there is a common law of contract, offer and acceptance?? They even gave me their bank details to pay them instead of Nationwide

[Toadie1953]

Re: Nationwide

Due to the length of time taken to reply to my defence,(Defence was received on 27th April) I notice that the claiment must contact the court within 28days, otherwise the judgement will be stayed, so presumably Nationwide will now have to apply for an order lifting the stay, prior to applying for my defence to be struck out?

[nemesis45]

Re: Nationwide

Due to the length of time taken to reply to my defence,(Defence was received on 27th April) I notice that the claiment must contact the court within 28days, otherwise the judgement will be stayed, so presumably Nationwide will now have to apply for an order lifting the stay, prior to applying for my defence to be struck out?

Phone the court I suspect the claim is stayed, you are not informed when this happen. the court will stay a claim if the
claimant a not responded to a defence.
nem

[Toadie1953]

Re: Nationwide

Hi Nemesis 45, yes the case was stayed on 1st June, I just spoke to the court. I presume Shoosmiths want me to withdraw my defence so they can apply to a judge to get the stay lifted? I must say I think that the costs for Nationwide must be very high now.

[nemesis45]

Re: Nationwide

Hi Nemesis 45, yes the case was stayed on 1st June, I just spoke to the court. I presume Shoosmiths want me to withdraw my defence so they can apply to a judge to get the stay lifted? I must say I think that the costs for Nationwide must be very high now.

It's more likely that Shoosmith's have nothing to " back up the claim".

You can give Shoosmith 7 days notice that you intend to apply for the claim to be struck out
and will seek the cost of the application from their client.

nem

[skilganon]

Re: Nationwide

Hi all,

apologise in advance if this appears to be 'hijacking' this thread but i thought it may become relevant in this case ?

i have seen, and been involved quite recently with 1 or 2 cases where a similar thing has happened, quite often the claimant fire in a claim via nccbc when the alleged debt is close to being statute barred.

they have no documentation to back up their claim, and when requested to provide said documentation they either refuse or cant.

the claim then becomes stayed, as nem says the defendant is not informed that the claim is stayed, on more than one occasion after the claim has been stayed an application has been made to either order the claimant to produce documents or for the claim to be struck out

but when a proper application has been made using their correct procedure and the correct fee being paid , NCCBC have returned the payment stating that the claim is stayed and such an application is not possible without the defendant first applying for the stay to be lifted !!??

is this correct ?? it hardly seems fair ??

[nemesis45]

Re: Nationwide

Hi all,

apologise in advance if this appears to be 'hijacking' this thread but i thought it may become relevant in this case ?

i have seen, and been involved quite recently with 1 or 2 cases where a similar thing has happened, quite often the claimant fire in a claim via nccbc when the alleged debt is close to being statute barred.

they have no documentation to back up their claim, and when requested to provide said documentation they either refuse or cant.

the claim then becomes stayed, as nem says the defendant is not informed that the claim is stayed, on more than one occasion after the claim has been stayed an application has been made to either order the claimant to produce documents or for the claim to be struck out

but when a proper application has been made using their correct procedure and the correct fee being paid , NCCBC have returned the payment stating that the claim is stayed and such an application is not possible without the defendant first applying for the stay to be lifted !!??

is this correct ?? it hardly seems fair ??

Not fair and not anything I've ever seen, do you have any confirmation of such an event please?
nem