AL59 Natwest Claim

[Al59]

Hi all, just catching up before I leave tomorrow.This is the POC that I filed with,this was done before I found this site.

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

1. Between the dates of 25/11/02 the Defendant applied numerous default charges to the Claimants bank account.

2. The charges applied constitute an unfair penalty Under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations,which state: "A TERM IS UNFAIR IF IT REQUIRES ANY CONSUMER WHO FAILS HIS OBLIGATION TO PAY A DISPROPORTIONATELY HIGH SUM IN COMPENSATION" The amount charged does not reflect the cost of the breach.

3. Under the law of penalties, the charges are an unlawful "extravagant" penalty. Referring to the case of 1896 Wilson v Love a charge is a penalty if it does not reflect an items true cost.

4. Under the County Courts Act 1984, the claimant is entitled to interest at a rate of 8% per annum from the date they were first deprived of the money to the date of the claim. This amounts to a total sum of £541.95,continuing to accrue at the statutory daily rate of 0.021% until judgement or earlier payment.

The Claimant requested a list of charges from the Defendant for the past 6 years under the Data Protection Act-Subject Access Request. The Defendant sent the Claimant 4 years charges. The Claimant has therefore estimated charges for the remaining period.

5. The Claimant therefore asks the Court to enter judgement in their favour for the sum of £3341.00 plus interest, amounting to a total of £3882.95
So thats it guys if I made a mistake and that is why they are asking for a new POC. ???????????

[Tempty]

Hi Al
the POC itself looks ok, the only thing I'm unsure of is the part where it says "charges for the remaining period have been estimated"!!
but I think Ame has mentioned that part is ok when she went through your deffence... so should be ok on that one ( i know nothing about that part of things I'm afraid)

The only other thing I could think of was your schedule of chrages spready
did this have a collumn for a descriptction of charges?

The reason I ask this was my defence reads allmost word for word the same as yours. I got my information before I'd found this site through Money Saving Expert and had used the information and the charges calculator they have on the site to file my claim. What I had'nt realised was the charges calculator does not provide enough inormation... you have to state what the charge was for as well as just giving the date and amount taken.
I re sent a schedule of charges using the spready on here providing all the information...and bingo... my problem sorted.

hope that helps
Tempty

[Al59]

Home to call from Cobbetts & Notice Court date.help needed

Hi all.
Firstly last week while I was away Cobbetts called they did not say what claim it was for my own account or the joint??
They have asked for a list of my charges,surely when I supplied the court with the three copies would they not have gotten one do I have to send them another one ?

Secondly if you remember I turned down an offer for my own account I have had a letter from the court re the joint account.

District Judge Humphreys-Roberts has considered the statements of case and allocation questioners filed and allocated the claim to the small claims court track.
The hearing of the claim will take place at 15.10 on the 31st Oct 2007 at Southport County Court and should take no longer than 10 minutes
The Original documents shall be brought to the hearing
1 Claimant do within 21 days of the date of this order, serve a schedule setting out the amount of the individual charges, the dates they were applied to the account and the reasons for such charges.

2 Allocation questionaires dispensed with.

3 Your claim has ben refered into the district judge for allocation as the amount is above £1500 an allocation fee for £100 payable by August 15th If fee not received your claim will be struck out.
This is the account that I estimated the charges because they did not send all the statements
Is this the judges answer to all the crap that Cobbetts sent me a couple of weeks ago (there defence)
Also I sent a letter on July 10th to Nastywest asking for a copy of terms and conditions when I opened my account. No Reply!! Can I now write to Cobbetts asking them for a copy of the terms I agreed to saying if not received within fourteen days I will be forced to make application for disclosure? As I said on the other thread I have to get things moving before tuesday as I go way again to work. Al

[Amy]

Did you complete a spreadhsheet for the charges you do have?

How many statements are you missing?

[Al59]

Trying to catch up

On my schedule of charges everything was listed, dates charge,what the charge was for unpaid dd, unarranged borrowing ect. I have spent the whole morning recalculating my charges as we found more statements that they sent in the last batch. At first there was 17 months missing. They sent an extra month then after reporting them to ICO they sent another 7 months so I am now miising 10 months.I estimated the missng months on my original claim and put in a £700 estimate on the N1 now that I have gone through the 7 months statements I have an extra £261 in charges , have lowered the estimate after averaging the charges on the 7 months but now my claim is £3875.07 instead of £3882.95 this is with the 8% added So it has come out slightly less. The estimate of charges has dropped to £326. I have got to get my act together now and get these alterations into the court within 21 days as the Judge has also asked for a shedule setting out the charges ,dates ect ect. I know I now have to fill in an N224 is it? but I just looked at one on site and could not make head nor tale of it. The there was a call from Cobbetts asking for a detailed list of charge but they didnt say for what claim,I wil ring them tomorrow then its away again Tuesday.

[Al59]

Re: AL59 Natwest Claim

This is the letter from the court received while away.

General Form of Judgement or Order.

Before District Judge ------- sitting at --------- County Court.
Upon the courts own motion. The court has made this order of its own initiave without a hearing.If you object to the order,you must make an application to have it set aside,varied or stayed within seven days of receiving it.

IT IS ORDERED THAT
1) your claim has be referred into the District Judge for allocation. As the amount you are claiming is above the £1500.00 an alocation feeof £100.00 payable by 29th August 2007.If the fee is not received by this date,your claim will be struck out.

2) The Defence be struck out as an abuse of process.If the Defendant seeks to set aside the strike out,The Defendant shall, with its application attach a schedule of all cases where a similar defence has been filed and were they allowed the claim to go to trial and did not setle giving details of the action number,the court and the date of the adjudication by the court.

3) The Claimant do by 21 days from service of this order file at court and serve on the defendant a schedule setting out the amount of the individual charges,the dates they were applied to the account and the reasons given for such charges.

4) refer back to District Judge after 21 days.

Will post Cobetts letter in the morning, been travelling all day got to get to bed.

[Al59]

Re: AL59 Natwest Claim

Here is the letter from Cobbetts

urgent by fax and post
To be placed before judge Belamy as a matter of urgency

We are instructed on behalf of the Defendant. We would be grateful if this letter and its attachments could be put before Judge Belamy as soon as posible.
We note the contents of the order dated 6th Auust 2007 The attachments are enclosed with the hard copy of this letter.

For the reasons set out in detail below,the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court stay this claim forthwith pending the judgementin the Commercial Court Proceedings in OFT v Abbey National plc and others ( Claim number 2007 Folio 1186) In view of the below,and the court order dated 6th August 2007, we would be grateful if you could communicate the Courts respose to this request on an urgent basis.

As you are probably aware, on 27th July a "Test Case" was comenced between The Office of Fair Trading ( "OFT ") and a number of Banks ( namely Abbey National PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Clydesdale Bak PLC, HBOS PLC, HSBC Bank PLC,Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, Nationwide Building Society and The Royal Bank of Scotland group which owns Natwest Bank PLC. Together the " Banks " in relation to charges paid by current account customers to the Banks in circumstances were the customers seek to make payments for which they do not have the funds (commonly known as "unauthorised overdraft charges").

You may be aware,not least from the recent significant media and press coverage,that the Banks are encountering a very large volume of complaints and claims brought by the both existing and former current account customers in relation to unauthorised overdraft charges. The essence of the claims is to seek a refund of such charges paid by the customer,typicaly on the basis that the relevent charge was an unenforceable penalty at comon law and/or unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 ( the "1999 Regulations")

We understand that the sheer volume of claims commenced has placed an extraordinary burden on the resources and the administration of the Court system,as well as on the Banks as participants in the litigation.

In the light of the continuing increase in volume of these cases,the Banks and the OFT have sought to find a means of achieving a quick, cost efficint, fair and orderly way of resolving through the Courts what all acknowledge to be important and complex issues. The FSA has also been involved in this dialogue as a result of the FSA's regulatory responsibility as lead regulator of the Banks, in particular with their handling of complaints.

Accordingly ,The Banks and the OFT agreed that the OFT should commence proceedings against the Banks for the determination of certain key issues relevant to a vast to the vast majority of these cases. On 27 July 2007 proceedings were issuued in the Commercial Couert for this purpose. Specificaly it is intended and agreed that the first stage of these proceedings will encompass preliminary issues as follows.

1. The OFT has issued a claim that the relevant contractual charging terms are not excluded from assesment for fairness under the 1999 Regulations by reason
of regulation 6(2)(a) and /or(b) thereto;

2 the Banks will counterclaim against the OFT for declarations that;

(i) relate to the defination of the mainsubject matterof the contract,and/or

(ii) provide for renumeration for services supplied by the Banks in exchange,rather than payment of a sum by the customer for breach of contractual duty owed to the Banks

and accordingly, are excluded from assesment for fairness under the 1999Regulations by reason of regulations6(2)(a) and /or (b) thereof and by reason of (ii) above,are not capable of amounting to a penalty at comon law;

(b) alternatively, if the relevant terms fall to be assesed for fairness under the 1999Reglations,it is a necessary (but not sufficient) precondition to such terms being shown to be unfair within the meaning of regulation 5(1) of the 1999 Regulations that they be shown to be contrary to the requirement of good faith and a declaration as to the true meaning of "good faith" for the purposes of the 1999 Regulation.

We attach a copy of the Test Case litigation agreement ( together with a copy of a further agreement executed by The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC) and an example of the Claim Form for your information. The Commercial Court proceedings will be progressed speedily with a view to resolving these key issues at trial. The timetable for exchange of pleadings is set out in the litigation agrement. The case Management Conferece has now been listed for 12 Occtober 2007 and the trial for two weeks commencing on 14 January 2008

In order to address the recognised public interest in resolvng these issues in an orderly way, the curent claims and complaints enviroment needs to be addressed. As stated above ,the purpose of this letter is to respectfully request the court stay this claim without need for formal application in this regard.

The rationale for the agreement between the OFT and the banks is set out (in part) in recital C of the litigation agreement. As recorded there, it is recognised thet the issues involved are important and complex. This is reflected in the fact that the Preliminary issues as set out above have been listed for a two week trial in the Commercial Court. If it is necessary for the Court to resolve the Substansive issue ( which will only happen if the OFT succeeds on the Preliminary issues) of the fairness and penal nature or otherewise of the charges it is anticipated that the trial of those issues would take significantly longer. The Banks submit that the appropiate forum for the resolution of these issues ia the Commercial Court Proceddings. Dealing with the issues raised in the County Court Claim would not be an efficint use of resources and would also give rise to the risk of an inconsistent judgement.

You should be aware The Finacial Ombudsman Service has agreed not to proceed with the consideration of merits of relevant complaints that are referred to it pending the final detirmination of the Test Case and The Financial Ombudsman Service has confirmed it will put on hold its own work on complaints
about thes charges,pending the final determination of the Test Case. In addiition the FSA has conditionaly agreed to grant the Banks certain rule waivers in relation to the regulatory requirements with respect to the handling of customer complaints. We attach a copy of direction dated 27th July 2007 from the FSA and a copy letter dated 27 July 2007 from FOS for your records.
We would draw your attention in particular to clause 12(12) of the FSA Direction, the effect of which is that ,for limitation purposes, time will not run whilst the Direction is in effect.

Finally , we understand that LJ Moore-Bick has written to Designated Judges in relation to the Test Case and the ongoing handling of "live" claims. We understand that in an exchange of emails between LJ Moore-Bick and the designated Civil Judges LJ Moore-Bick expressed a view that he would be suprised if a stay of the proceedings did not comend itself as the appropriate course in most cases pending a decision in the Test Case

We confirm that a copy of this letter (without enclosures) has been sent to the Claimant.

[Tempty]

Re: AL59 Natwest Claim

Hi Al
first of all you will need to pay your allocation fee, so that you can get a court date for the hearing.
I already had my court date before the OFT test case was announced so I don't know how we'll go in trying to avoid a stay. but your case was well under way before the announcement was made so we can but try here.

Pm me with your email addy hun and I'll send you the doc Kafka sent me for overthrowing a stay. read through it.... adjust where necessary.... and send it in with your allocation fee. I'll also send you a list of cases natwest have settled before court to attach to it. (will add a bit more weight to your argument) if you need help with it let me know. I've adjusted it slightly as I included it with my bundle...so I've read it through more then a few times now...lol
it seems to put forward a fairly strong argument to disallow a stay (although I do have a slight advantage here as benefits were being taken from my account)

[Al59]

Re: AL59 Natwest Claim

Hi Tempty will get on to it later usual mad rush catching up on things, wifeys birthday as well today so got to make a fuss as I am away so much.

[Tempty]

Re: AL59 Natwest Claim

Lol np everyone deserves a fuss on their birthday

got your pm.... info has been sent
hope it helps

[thephoenix]

Re: AL59 Natwest Claim

Hi, i know i've not been involved from the off but you say PPI CLAIM, i've just skimmed this thread and it seems to be about penalty charges.

[thephoenix]

Re: AL59 Natwest Claim

oh i see :okay:
had another look and can't find anything regarding a PPI claim
I'll wait for one of the others ...... sorry

[thephoenix]

Re: AL59 Natwest Claim

k. I'll see if i can help when i find the PPI threads

[thephoenix]

Re: AL59 Natwest Claim

Hi All,
Help needed with this one this one, a letter from Cobbets this morning re the default judgement that I got for the misold ppi.
Application Notice

Part A intend to apply for an order that The judgement in default for the claimant dated 11th July 2007 be set aside and enforcement of the judgement to be suspended pending the outcome of the application hearing.

because pursuant to the part 13.3 ( 1) CPR, the defendant believes that it has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim, and there is some other good reason why the Judgement should be set aside and the defendant be allowed to defend the claim

part b wish to rely on the attached witness statement (nothing attached)

So thats it guys were do I go from here everything else seems to have ground to a halt on the charges I keep looking on the site while I am away to see if any news breaks. I would appreciate some advice on this ppi claim.
Many thanks

wot i can say is, if they want to set aside the judgement, they should have done it pursuant to :

CPR 13.3 (2) In considering whether to set aside(GL) or vary a judgment entered under Part 12, the matters
to which the court must have regard include whether the person seeking to set aside the
judgment made an application to do so promptly.
(Rule 3.1(3) provides that the court may attach conditions when it makes an order)

[Amethyst]

Re: AL59 Natwest Claim

I'll have a go at sorting your threads out today babes x