Veilside going to court after all......help....lol

[Sapphire]

Good the worst one there is old Grouty he nicked me years ago over the poll tax fiasco. 25 of us did the conga through the court room. Some peeps just don't have a sense of humour do they.

sapphire

[veilside01702]

Tempty...cheque went into HSBC......so it is safe....lol
Archer.....The letter cobbetts sent says in full and final settlement of case no 7SS00620....
But that case was only for charges until I filed the N1 form....
I had about £600 more since it started.....
Cobbetts added these to settlement figure......but they were not part of my case....
So not sure if I can reclaim for them......cobbetts mistake for not putting it in writing??
Surely if they have said it was for the case settlement.....it can't be ruled as they have already repaid them???
Saphire.....can you ask cetelco to take a look at the posts??
And I also got 2 barristers for Lloyds TSB to admit the charges are wrong....lol
They want to claim themselves.....so they are going to pop on here and join.....lol
As well as a few peed off peeps in the waiting room......lol

[enaid]

So it was a productive day then after all, for here if not for you Russ Enaid x

[Sapphire]

Brilliant I will pm Cetelco for you hun. Oooooh Barristers eh thats good, you should have had some cards and handed them out hun.

Keep me posted please.

sapphire

[Tempty]

Lol VS who said you need banners to advertise........ we have our very own walking advertisment right here

I honestly don't think you'd get very far if you tried to claim charges that they have allready paid in settlement, they must have some record of what the amount covered!!!

I admire your spirit though hun
but then again I'm a self confessed airhead when it comes to anything legal!............ so what do I know

[veilside01702]

lol...enaid.....
Was funny....the 2 legal minds defending for TSB.....and they both sat next to me and said...."god I think I will check my statements as all these people are getting settlements!"......everyone else was grinning.....lol
I said to them about legal beagles site and said it was free.....they looked very shocked....lol
Then they said they would take a look and possibly use the site.....lol
I might get some A5 flyers done and drop them into my friend at the Citizens Advice Bureau.....they might give them out as the site is free and helping people claim???
Russ

[veilside01702]

Tempty....if I can get away with it I might try....after not getting my wasted costs.....lol

[Fendyweather]

Oh goodness Veilside........... what a day. You have been soooooooo put through the mill. I think had the bank not settled he was probs gonna give em a roasting, but I think the crux of the matter is that because they had settled, he really didnt think anything else worth fighting for. Im sure had they not settled then he may have been a bit different. All they are interested in is getting settlement and clearing up the huge bank claims backlogs in court. I really think thats all that concerns them and as yours had settled, then in their eyes, subject matter closed, finished, done, finito. Dont take it personally Veilside, even though it must be a bit tempting to. You did fantastic, you went there, you stood up, you spoke to the judge, you got your point across, you made some good barristers acquaintances along the way, gave everybody in the waiting room, a giggile and more importantly HOPE, so all in all, a fantastic days work done big bear. Really.............. I take my hat off to you. You are not fraidy of ANYTHING. You are big strong veilside.................DADDY BEAR OF BEAGLES.......... beagles protector. We love ya veilside, and fantastic for turning up. Many would not, but wait and see what Cetelco comes back with. Big hugs................. Fendy xxxxxxxxxx

Oooooh youre my new hero after today. Lol Lol Lol xxxx as well as Nattie of course, Lol Lol xxxx

[veilside01702]

I am now offering my services for advertising.......lol
T'shirts, posters......lol
Russ

[Sapphire]

I pm'd Cetelco for you hun, I don't know if he's read it yet, but rest assured he'll get to you a.s.a.p.

sapphire

[veilside01702]

I am going to get a few T'shirts printed up and pop into court.....lol
As well as my bank when I drop some of me winnings in to pay off overdraft.....lol
Might get my friend who is editor for newspaper to come with me......lol
Photographer......reporter.....lol
Russ

[Guest]

You cannot claim charges that have already been paid to you - notwithstanding the fact that the claim was not amended, the extra charges have been paid to you and you have accepted them - therefore you cannot claim them again. The fact that Cobbetts did not specifically refer to them would not hold up, payment is clearly for the claim and the extra charges otherwise, why would they have paid you that particular amount? It was not merely an arbitrary sum, it was calculated to be your claim plus the extra charges you brought to their attention.

Regarding the failure of Nat West to provide you with your full SAR details, then you may issue a claim against them under s.7 and s.15(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998, look here for details of how to do that.

http://www.legal-beagles.co.uk/forum...ompliance.html

Now, onto costs.

The very protection that the Small Claims Track affords you and that which enables you to make these claims without the fear of huge costs awards being made against you should you lose also protects the other side. Costs may be awarded on the Small Claims Track but only in exceptional circumstances.

CPR 48.6 deals with costs for Litigants in Person and we may claim two thirds of the costs of legal representation and CPR 27 deals with costs on the small claims track and specifically 27.14 “(g) such further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably.”

It does not strike me that Nat West have behaved unreasonably, in fact, I would venture to suggest that they have been more than reasonable as they need not have paid you any more than your claim and simply let you issue a second claim for the new charges.

By all means take your complaint to the ICO and make a formal complaint about Nat West closing your account purely as retaliatory action against the claiming by you of unlawful bank charges.

In summary therefore;

You cannot claim for charges that have already been paid to you
You need to sue them for DPA non-compliance using the template in our library
You may attempt to recover costs, but this is not the intention of the Small Claims Track which is why the Judge, quite correctly, told you what he did.

Finally, how have you managed to run up such huge costs for printing and postage?

[Guest]

does it say in full and final settlement anywhere?if it does then u cant claim anything

Just to clear this up.

For any agreement to be binding in English law each party to the agreement must provide what is termed 'consideration'. This simply means something of value in the eyes of the law. When we accept a lower offer in full and final settlement our consideration consists of a promise not to sue for the remainder of the charges. However, the bank does not provide any consideration because they are only giving back what in law belongs to us. The law does not enforce onesided promises. In order to establish that they have provided consideration the bank would have to prove that the charges were lawful and we know that that just is not going to happen.

So any agreements made that state they are full and final and confidentiality agreements are not worth the paper they are printed on unless they are made by deed.

[peed 'orf]

Hi Cetelco, this would mean I can go back for the Pre 6 year charges Nat West left off mine. Start a fresh claim from the begining? And can I hit 'em for CI this time?

[Guest]

It might, but you would need to be prepared to argue the Limitation Act 1980, it would not be enough merely to plead it.

As for CI, that is a whole new area again and you must be sure that you know precisely what you are doing as it would be quite likely that a claim for pre-six year charges and contractual interest would not be heard on the Small Claims Track, regardless of the value, which, in any case, would have to be over £5k to make the risk of bringing the case worthwhile.