askl - Natwest

[askl]

Re: aski - Natwest

I'll post my particulars tomorrow.
However in brief;
I guaranteed the banking facility for a Company in 2000.
In 2000/ 01 the bank did not honour this guarantee, artificially forcing cheques to bounce and charged penalty fees.
The Company was profitable, had repaid all monies owed to the bank and would have been owed money by the Bank had it not been for these penalty charges it imposed on the Company.
The Company had to stop trading as a consequence of these penalty charges.
The Bank charged £2,000 for bouncing 30 cheques and £2,000 for supposedly going over facility limits, which the company did not,
During the period of disagreement the bank charged 33% interest, effectively doubling the amount every two years, so £4,000 became £8,000 in 2003, £16,000 in 2005,
In 2007 the Bank Claimed £14,000 penalty charges from me in person, using the bank guarantee it had previously refused to honour.
It then asked for the case to be stayed and using 33% interest over the period of stay, doubled its claim from £12,000 to £28,000 and £20,000 legal costs - this is their claim for what started as a disagreement over £4,000 penalties.

OH YES, AND THE AMOUNTS CHARGED WERE PENALTIES, OVER AND ABOVE THE COST TO THE BANK AND UNEFORCABLE AND THE INTEREST RATE OF 33% WAS EXCESSIVE CONSIDERING THE DISAGREEMENT WAS OVER PENALTY CHARGES.

I am counterclaiming for loss of earnings from the profitable company.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: aski - Natwest

ok, this is a business account not a personal account. What were your Particulars of claim?

[askl]

Re: aski - Natwest

Thanks I particularly value your ex-banker insight.

To quote Ian Pollock; "
Mr Justice Smith, a High Court judge has ruled that the bank's terms and conditions, used from 2001 to July 2003, may have included unfair penalties for going overdrawn.


The judge only said Natwest's 2001 charges may be penalties, not that they are penalties. This means the customer would need to show that the charges were actually penalties by proving that the charge did not reflect the bank's costs.

The Judge at the last direct hearing in January agreed and ordered; "The Claimant shall provide answers to the following by 4pm 28 February 2009;
a) the method of calculation, or breakdown that give rise to the Cheque Return Fees being claimed in the £30 per item,
b) the method of calculation, or breakdown that give rise to the sum claimed against the defendant as Excess Borrowing."

As yet NatWest have not supplied a single cost - we now told by Jonathan Sumption QC to the five Law Lords hearing the appeal that overdraft fees involved a large element of cross-subsidy.

Therefore it presumably follows that 2001 NatWest Charges (which these are) are unenforceable penalties.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: aski - Natwest

can I ask whether your Particulars of Claim was.
Is this personal current account or business account?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
oops, it's a business.
Are you using penalties in law argument/UTCCR 1999/ or UCTA 1977?

[askl]

Re: aski - Natwest

Update;

In January the Court Ordered;
1) The Claim shall be stayed pending;
a) resolution of the OFT/Abbey Litigation, or,
b) upon the Claimant's application that the foregoing litigation is not relevant to this claim,
2) Subject to Paragraph (1) permission to either party to lift the stay or seek further directions.
3) The Claimant shall serve in writing in upon the defendant's answer to the following by 4pm on 28th February 2009;
a) the method of calculation, or the break-down, that gives rise to "cheque return fees" being claimed in the sum of £30.00 per item;
b) the method of calculation, or the break-down, that gives rise to the sums claimed against the defendant as "excess borrowing"."


Update 1
No answer from NatWest, so in March I applied to the court to stike out the Claim on the basis that the Bank hadn't provided the answers to 3 a & b above and that this was fundamental because Mr Justice Andrew Smith conclusion on 21/01/2009 that NatWest 2001 conditions were capable of being penalties.
The hearing is set for 7 July 11.30 Lambeth County Court.


Update 2
NatWest have just applied to have heard at the same hearing on 7 July;
1) To lift the stay of proceedings "because the case is not affected by the OFT Test case in relation to charges",
2) Summary judgement against me "because the Defendant has no real prospects of successfully defending this claim",


It appears NatWest accept that the case is no longer part of the OFT case as NatWest 2001 charges have already been concluded by Mr Jutice Andrew Smith as capable of being penalties, and are trying a final bully in the hope that I will capitulate.

Any thoughts, fears, tactics or suggestions would be appreciated.

ASKL

[jax007]

Re: aski - Natwest

I too will keep my eye on this one.

Thanks
AskL

[TANZARELLI]

Re: aski - Natwest

Thanks for the support.
I'll post the actual wording when it arrives.

Or you could scan it up minus any identifying marks or personal info

[askl]

Re: aski - Natwest

Thanks for the support.
I'll post the actual wording when it arrives.

[enaid]

Re: aski - Natwest

You won't be on your own there Tanz and well done aski.
Enaid x

[TANZARELLI]

Re: aski - Natwest

I for one will be interested in this.

[Amy]

Re: aski - Natwest

Excellent, good work xx

Re: aski - Natwest

Well a lot of people will be interested in what Nat West come back with there then.

Well done hun for getting this far.

[askl]

Re: aski - Natwest

Hi,

This afternoon's Direction Hearing went well in that the Judge agreed to make the previous Court Order clearer – from my notes;

The Claimant shall provide answers to the following by 4pm 28 February 2009;
a) the method of calculation, or breakdown that give rise to the Cheque Return Fees being claimed in the £30 per item,
b) the method of calculation, or breakdown that give rise to the sum claimed against the defendant as Excess Borrowing.


ASKL

[askl]

Re: aski - Natwest

Hi,

The first Order was made at a Direction Hearing in April '08, then repeated at one in September. I asked what sanctions the Judge would impose if NatWest failed to comply a second time and was told their claim would be struck out. That has yet to happen.
I will be asking the Judge to follow through with his order or sanction in a couple of days at the next Direction Hearing.

The things is what happens next if the claim is struck. Do they get a second chance, or does the case automatically go onto my counterclaim? Which I am determined to fight for as NatWest brought down an otherwise profitable company that would be worth a vast amount more now than the damages I am asking for.

[Amy]

Re: aski - Natwest

The Judge has ordered the Claimant to breakdown its excess overdraft charges, with a sanction that the claim will be struck out if the order is not followed.

When did the Judge order this to be done by?