askl - Natwest

[askl]

Re: aski - Natwest

Note the breakdown of the Claim;


The Bank owed the Company £442

The Bank tried to charge the company - then me....

Charges for bounced cheques -£1,942
Interest at 33% -£9,936


Charges for being over the limit -£1,681
Additional interest at 33% -£7,653


Interest incorrectly charged at 33% -£7,781

Total original claim -£28,551

[askl]

Re: aski - Natwest

PARTICULARS OF DEFENCE - Dated 19 December 2008
made in the absence of overdue information from the Claimant demanded in two Court Orders, a Part 18 Requests for Information and Subject Access Request

1 I, XXXXXXXXXX am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence and counterclaim to the re-amended particulars of a Claim started by National Westminster Bank Plc (the "Claimant") on 25 January 2007.
2 I owned and directed XXXXXXXXXX (the "Company").
3 I dispute the entire Claim of £28,551 as it results from unarranged overdraft fees erroneously charged by the Claimant to the Company and disproportionate to the Claimant’s costs, and interest applied at a disputed and excessive APR of 33%.
4 The Claimant’s amended particulars of claim are vague and are not sufficiently particularised in accordance with CPR part 16 and Practice Direction 16.
4.1 The entire Claim of £28,551 is made of unarranged overdraft charges and interest, yet even after repeated requests the Claimant has not provided a full statement of account.
4.2 But for the disputed bank charges and interest the Claimant would have owed the Company £442, which already accounts for contractual bank charges of £930, without which the Claimant would have owed the Company £1,372.
4.3 The Claimant does not provide any contracts used as its basis for making unarranged overdraft charges and interest charges, even when asked to by Court Order on two separate occasions.
4.4 The Claimant does not provide the calculation of each interest charged to the account.
5 Further to this case and in an attempt to ascertain the precise grounds the Claimant is bringing this action and to allow me to prepare my defence and counterclaim, I requested on 9 April 2008 vital information from the Claimant. I repeated this on 16 December 2008 as a Part 18 Request for Information:
5.1 A complete set of statements held in my name or that of XXXXXXXXX (the “Company”) listing the date, value and nature of all transactions including;
5.1.1 A list of all Cheque Return Fees with the amount and date of the charge, and cheque number and value to which they relate.
5.1.2 A list of all Excess Borrowing Charges with the amount and date of the charge.
5.1.3 A list of all interest charges including method by which each charge was calculated, with rate, principal and number of days.
5.2 Full copies of all contracts which [you] believe exist or have existed between myself or the Company and [your] organisation, including true copies of any documents [you] hold in support of the same.
5.3 Copies of all documents including contacts or invoices, notices, letters, emails or computer records containing information, or any records which pertain to me or the Company, this includes transcripts of all telephone conversations recorded and any notes made in relation to telephone conversations by the Claimant or agent.
5.4 Full copies or transcripts of any correspondence in postal, email or any other format which [you] have entered into with any individual, organisation or third party which contains information which pertain to me or the Company, including any information passed to a credit checking agency.
5.5 A breakdown of “the extra administrative work” stated as being be the basis of the return cheque fees found on the charge notice; “As dealing with unpaid cheques means extra administrative work, I have charge a fee of £30 to your account to cover these costs.”
5.6 Similarly a breakdown of the extra administrative work used as the basis for charging the Company daily for unauthorised overdrafts.
5.7 The overdraft facility provided by the Claimant to the Company, its variation over time and correspondence to me or the Company with regards to changes in the level of overdraft facilities offered.
5.8 Any other documents [you] seek to rely on in court.
6 I have also asked for and paid for a Subject Access Request to find another way of obtaining information including a full statement of account.
7 Further to the above information request, District Judge Zimmels sitting at Lambeth County Court, also ordered that by consent "Permission to the Claimant to file and serve by 25th April 2008 amended particulars of claim to include a breakdown of the Claimant’s charges for administering Defendant’s unpaid cheques and the daily charge for unauthorised overdraft as well as details of the contract giving use to the contractual rate of interest claimed." This Court Order was repeated at the Direction Hearing in September 2008.
8 The Claimant has not yet provided any of the information requested in the Part 18 Request for Information, Subject Access Request or Court Orders.
8.1 All I have received in relation to my Part 18 Request for Information is an email stating, "statements attached for accounts 44099606, 80531741 and 80586082 as requested" and its attachment. On the attachment is a single figure of £11,620.43. The detail is insufficient and the amount does not equate to that being claimed.
8.2 The only response the Claimant has made to either of the Court Orders is a list of charges rather than a breakdown of the Claimant’s charges. Furthermore it has only listed charges made to the company after March 2001 the date the Claimant forced the Company out of business.
8.3 It has proven difficult to compose my defence and counterclaim without disclosure of all the above requested information, especially since I am a Litigant in Person in this case.
9 I respectfully request that the Claimant be ordered to disclose all the requested documentation and that the court grant me permission to amend this defence and counterclaim accordingly.
Guaranteed borrowings
10 £21,212 of the Claim results directly from unpaid cheques and the daily charge for unauthorised overdraft. I dispute the Claimant’s bank charge for excess borrowings as the Claimant incorrectly treated the Company’s account as over its limit and refused to honour certain cheques when borrowings were less than the total guaranteed.
11 On 4 May 2000 the Claimant entered into an agreement with me in person. The agreement was for the Claimant to provide the Company with a £14,000 overdraft facility in consideration for my guaranteeing the Company’s liabilities up to £14,000. The clear agreement with the Claimant and the sole reason for me agreeing to the guarantee was in consideration for the Claimant providing the Company with total banking facilities equivalent to the total guaranteed and for the duration of the guarantee. In practice the Claimant provided me with a facility that was 35% greater than my guarantee. That is until I agreed to increase my guarantee to £33,000.
12 On the 24 October when the Company's bank balance was nearly £20,000 the Claimant persuaded the Company to take out a loan for £19,000. In addition I persuaded the Claimant to increase the banking facility to £33,000 as the Company had just won a contract worth roughly £20,000 profit and needed finance to pay contractors in advance of receiving income. The increased banking facility was in consideration for a second personal guarantee of £19,000. Increasing the borrowing facility was the sole reason for me agreeing to the personal guarantee.
13 With a clear understanding that the £33,000 borrowing facility was in place I entered into various contracts and paid some suppliers by cheque. However within a week and without written notice the Claimant refused to pay these cheques, even though the overdraft account was less than £1,000. The Claimant refused to honour the borrowings agreement and I was forced to find alternative and a more expensive means of completing our £25,000 contract.
Interest
14 £25,370 of the Claim is for interest charged at the rate of 33% APR. This includes £17,589 interest which results directly from the disputed excess borrowing charges.
15 I dispute the basis of charging interest as it is unclear and inconsistent with agreements and communications. The original Claim made in January 2007 was for £12,604 resulting from an overdraft interest rate of Base plus 6.5%. In its latest Claim the Claimant has tripled the interest charged to £25,140 by escalating the interest rate to an APR of 33% and backdating it.
Excessive fees for unpaid cheques and administering an unauthorised overdraft
16 £1,942 of the Claim, or £11,878 after interest, was the Claimant’s charge for it not paying about 30 cheques. The Claimant charged the Company £30 each time it refused to pay each cheque. The notice sent out with each charge makes it clear the Claimant's basis; "As dealing with unpaid cheques means extra administrative work, I have charged a fee of £30 to your account to cover these costs." I dispute these charges and have refused to pay them as I do not believe that the account was over its limit and don't believe the charge accurately represent the cost of the Claimant’s extra administrative work. The Claimant has refused to justify its charge even after I have repeatedly asked it to.
17 In the absence of the Claimant’s breakdown of the charge for an unpaid cheque I have used my skill and experience as someone who qualified as a Chartered Accountant with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, who worked for PriceWaterhouseCoopers and has audited a financial institution to estimate the charge. My estimate of the actual cost to the Claimant is £1 per notice calculated as follows:
Breakdown of extra administrative work applicable to each unpaid cheque notice
Average of 1 minute for account manager to consider balance and sign notice £0.50
(Cost based on total cost of manager and related overheads of £30 per hour)
Production of computerised notice, processing and sending £0.25
Stamp £0.25
Total extra administrative work per unpaid cheque notice £1.00
18 This estimated breakdown of the charge of £1.00 is for the extra administrative work required to consider the balance and sign each notice. There is no obvious extra administrative work that results from more than one cheque being notified as unpaid on the same notice. Thus the extra administrative work suffered by the bank for not paying two cheques would still be £1, and not two times the charge as the Claimant charges.
19 For instance on 4 September 2000 the Claimant sent two separate notices to the Company. The Claimant specified the charge on one notice was £82.50 for unpaid cheque numbers; 162, 171 and 172. The charge on the other notice was £55 once again for unpaid cheque numbers; 162 and 172. As can be seen two of the cheques were "bounced" on both notices and were therefore both charged £55 each on the same day. The same two cheques "bounced" again on separate occasions. On both notices it clearly states that the fee is to cover “extra administrative work”.
20 At best sending two notices out on the same day for two identical cheques strongly suggests that very little administrative skill and time can be being applied, probably less than the 1 minute estimated above. Therefore £27.50 per bounced cheque cannot possibly be proportionate for the "extra administrative work" as is stated on the notice. Put another way the total charge of £137.50 on this day must buy sufficient administrative time and skill, to ensure that multiple notices are not sent out showing the same cheques bouncing more than once on the same day.
21 In another example a key cheque for £2,249 "bounced" on 1 March 2001 and then on another five separate occasions including two months later on 2 May 2001, costing a total of £180 plus interest thereon. As with most other occasions this cheque should have been paid as the account was within the overdraft facility limits and my guarantees of £14,000 more than covered the Company’s overdraft of £1,500 at that time.
22 It has been widely reported by the media, including the BBC that an employee at the Yorkshire Bank carried out an internal review and estimated the actual cost of administering unauthorised overdrafts was £2 each time the overdraft limit was exceeded.
23 The charge for unpaid cheques appears to be disproportionate to the cost. It would therefore appear that the charges and the interest thereon totalling £11,878 are unenforceable under common law.
24 £1,681 of the Claim, or £9,334 after interest, was the Claimant’s charge for administering the account during the year it treated it as over its overdraft limit. Again I dispute these charges and have refused to pay them as I do not believe that the account was over its limit and don't believe the charge accurately represent the cost of extra administrative work. The bank has refused to justify its charge even after I have repeatedly asked it to.
25 My estimate of the actual cost to the Claimant is 20p per day calculated as:
Breakdown of extra administrative work for an unauthorised overdraft
Average of 10 minutes for account manager each month £5.00
(Cost based on total cost of manager and related overheads of £30 per hour)
No additional computerised notices or stamps, as statement contains details £0.00
Total extra administrative work per month £5.00
Total extra administrative work per day £0.20
26 The Claimant’s charge for administering excess borrowings of £3.50 per day or about £100 per month appears to be disproportionate to the cost. It would therefore appear that the charges and interest thereon totalling £9,334 are unenforceable under common law.
27 As charges for unpaid cheques and administering an unauthorised overdraft are liquidated damages it has been established in Dunlop Pneumatic v New Garage [1915] AC 79 along with Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963 that they must not exceed the actual cost or remuneration involved in dealing with such. In the absence of any information to the contrary requested from the Claimant, I contend that the Claimant’s charges exceed the actual cost or remuneration involved in dealing with my unpaid cheques.
Counterclaim
28 I counterclaim for the entire Claim of £28,551 as it is made of disputed unarranged overdraft charges and interest.
29 Despite trading difficulties caused by the Claimant not honouring cheques, the Company made a profit and paid into the account held by the Claimant a net total of £16,065 in 2001, the Company’s last year of trading. Had it not been for the Claimant breaking its agreement to provide finance in consideration for the personal guarantees, and for the size of its cheque return and excess borrowing fees, the Company would have continued making an ever increasing profit providing me with a similar increasing annual income.
30 As a result of trading difficulties I spent 8 months between April 2001 and November 2001 inclusive collecting Company debt without being able to trade or otherwise generate an income for myself. It took me a further 4 months before I started working again. £16,000 represents the Company’s last year’s earnings. Arguably I would have earned more than this had the Company continued trading. By way of relevant example a competing UK based electronic publishing company, Magicalia Ltd, was sold for £13Million in June 2006 to Exponent Private Equity LLP.
31 I therefore counterclaim for £16,000 damages caused by the Claimant forcing the Company to fail;
31.1 By breaking the terms of its agreement to provide finance in consideration for my guarantees and by refusing to pay cheques within the limit of the guarantees.
31.2 And even without the agreed borrowing facility, the Company would have had sufficient funds to survive had it not been for the Claimant’s excessive charges for unarranged overdraft fees and interest thereon.
I COUNTER CLAIM
I I dispute the entire Claim of £28,551and therefore counterclaim for it.
II In addition I counterclaim £16,000 for damages as part compensation for loss of trade from 2001 caused by the Claimant breaking the terms of its agreement to provide on-going finance in consideration for my guarantees.
III Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the county Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from 2001 to payment both before and after judgement.
IV I also demand that the Claimant ensures that its Claim and my counterclaim do not effect my credit rating with any credit rating agency and that therefore my ability to set up accounts or request credit in the future from any bank or other financial institution is not prejudiced by events surround this Claim.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe the facts as stated in these Particulars of Defence and Counterclaim are true.


xxxxxxxxx
Dated 19 December 2008

[Amethyst]

Re: aski - Natwest

do you have anything in writing regarding the guarantees of £14 and the further £19k ?

How much are the actual charges and interest charged on the charges that you have counterclaimed for ?

is the claim for damages £16k ?

[askl]

Re: aski - Natwest

Sorry everyone for the information overload.

Strategy suggestions please - the hearing follows my Applicantion Notice to strike out the claim, because NatWest have failed to provide the calculation or break-down of costs resulting in the £30 per bounced cheque charge etc ordered by the Court (three times since April 2008).

NatWest have out of the blue, without order, revised their Claim, which I received 7 working days before the hearing. They have also applied at the same hearing to strike out my claim - "no real prospect".

So far I have not received notification nor agreement from the Court in connection with NatWest's application.

NatWest's Application Notice says "Should the Defendant wish to rely on evidence in responce to this application then he should file and serve such written evidence at least 7 days prior to the hearing pursuant to Part 24.5 (1)" - that means by 30 June - which gave me about 5 working days from receipt.

Do I amend my Claim, and if so should I send NatWest / the Court a copy in advance?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Amethyst,

You are a godsend.

I have both guarantees.
I have a letter from NatWest dated 2004 listing both and later in February 2007.

However, in all their Claims they conviniently never ever mention the second guarantee.

askl
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
The actual charges and interest charged on the charges I am counterclaiming total to their claim of £28,551.
And damages £16k

[Amethyst]

Re: aski - Natwest

Okay


This part concerns me as i think they are correct regarding the counterclaim.

25. The Defendant is not entitled to bring a counterclaim nor an argument of set off against the Claimant on behalf pf the Company. If the liquidator felt that it was the Claimant that caused the Company to go into liquidation then it would have been for the liquidator to bring a claim against the Claimant. The Defendant cannot bring this claim on behalf of the Company.

Although I think you are entitled to defend their claim against your personal guarantee on the unlawful charges elements (the £1551 plus interest)


So defence wise...

The unfair charges are the entire debt, however if Natwest business account terms are the same as the personal account terms, then the read across buggers up that argument a bit as you know already barring the charges under the 2001-2003 terms - which is the £1551 + interest charged on those charges plus compensatory or statutory interest back.

Natwest have taken just the £1551 off of their claim ? so accepting that the test case read across , and thus in the courts eyes they have refunded charges which could be penal to you.

The rest could be considered incapable of being penal based on the read over from the test case.

Thats why Natwest have asked for a stay lift and summary judgment as your defence has no prospect of success. (ie. in their eyes they are only claiming from you a debt built up of lawful charges as they have removed those which could be unlawful) and the first bit i quoted is why they want to strike out the counterclaim.

with me so far? lol.


so you are left arguing for the interest incurred on that £1551 (which I have to assume you have worked out correctly to be around 10k) so basically just on the penal charges aspect of the case you are left defending around £11551 plus statutory interest.



The second element is this guarantee. I don't really understand this and the POC is confusing.

Basically as I can see the bank lent the business 14k as an overdraft facility on the basis you gave a personal guarantee on that money.

The bank then lent the business a further 19k as an extended overdraft facility on the basis of a further personal guarantee.

The second overdraft extension and personal guarantee didn't happen (and you have in writing that is was all agreed and in place) and it caused the bouncing of numerous cheques which had been paid out off the back of the new 19k which incurred the charges.

So thats the second argument for the charges incurred after the new 19k promise, thus under breach of contract. (not getting into damages or anything yet)

So you have all the paperwork to back everything up and the terms of the overdraft/guarantee were stuck to etc and can be proven ?



Then the damages, which is on top of all the charges incurred. The calculations and surmissing of costs seems a little random to me, and I don't understand damages of this kind too well so you would need to look to someone else for help on that part and refer back to first quote in this post.


We sounding right?


I do think you need to get a response and evidences in in response to their revised claims.

[askl]

Re: aski - Natwest

Amethyst,

Thank you so much for your help.

The counterclaim should presumably be for loss of my personal income caused by the bank overcharging an otherwise profitable company and the stress over 8 years caused by this disagreement, where the bank is claiming £28k plus similar in interest and £20k legal costs over a disagreement about £4k bank charges.

I'm going to rewrite the Particulars and post later today.

Thanks again,

askl

[Amethyst]

Re: aski - Natwest

Okay.

have you got the spreadsheet you used to calculate the interest charged on the £1551 (2001 charges) ?

at what point did the claimants remove that amount from the claim ? is it included in the October amendments to the POC ?



I'm not sure you personally have any counterclaim against the bank legally - have you taken any advice on this?

[askl]

Re: aski - Natwest

Thanks Amethyst. I hadn't noticed that this is a Witness Statement not an amended claim. Anyway here is my first draft......... Note their Claim overstates the account by £11,000 - so I guess they're off to a bad start.
WITNESS STATEMENT of XXXXXXXXX

1. I, XXXXXXXXXX am the defendant in this action and make this statement in opposition to the Claimant's Application to strike out my defence in a Summary Judgement.

Background
2. I owned and directed XXXXXXXXXX (the "Company"). I entered into a banking relationship with the Claimant in 1999. In 2000 I personally invested £87,000 in the Company, money I put in the Company’s account held by the Claimant. Attached is the net balance of all the Claimant held bank accounts for each transaction from 1999 to 2001.

3. I entered into two bank guarantees in 2001 totalling £33,000. A copy is attached. The clear agreement with the Claimant and the sole reason for me agreeing to guarantee the account was in consideration for the Claimant providing the Company with total banking facilities equivalent to the total guaranteed and for the duration of the guarantee.

4. In 2001 the Company returned a profit and paid a positive cashflow of £17,033 into the account held at the Claimant, thereby repaying all monies owed to the Claimant. But for the disputed bank charges and disputed interest the bank account would have been positive, in favour of the Company when trading ceased in 2001.

5. Had it not been for the Claimant’s excessive charges and treating the account as over its limits when it was not, the Company would have continued to trade, providing me with an income of at least £16,000 per year.

The Claim
6. The claim results from a dispute with the Claimant over its treatment of about 30 returned cheques in 2000 and 2001. My position was and remains that the Claimant should not have treated the account as over its limit because there was a guarantee in place. Furthermore the amount charged was punitive in relation to the cost to the bank.

7. The net amount of bank charges in dispute at the end of 2001 after the Company ceased trading, was £5,711.75. This is a significant sum, but manageable had I agreed to the Claimant's demands in 2001.

8. Since 2001 the Claimant has applied interest to this disputed sum at a penalty interest rate of up to 33%. The amount in dispute has increased rapidly thus being inflated from the disputed £5,711 in 2001 to £17,141 in 2007 when this Claim started.

9. Furthermore according to the Claimant’s Witness Statement the only open account in 2007, shows a balance of £17,141. This amount bears no relationship to the £28,551 being Claimed. Statements for the account are attached on pages 7 to 13 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement.

Background to Proceedings
10. On 28th January 2009 sitting at Lambeth County Court, Deputy District Judge Emanuel made an order which the Claimant has failed to comply with.
"The Claimant shall provide answers to the following by 4pm 28 February 2009;
the method of calculation, or breakdown that give rise to the Cheque Return Fees being claimed in the £30 per item,
the method of calculation, or breakdown that give rise to the sum claimed against the defendant as Excess Borrowing."

11. In paragraph 22 to its Witness Statement, the Claimant wilfully omits part of the Court Order of 28 January 2009. Stating that it is unable to provide any further breakdown. The only logical conclusion for the Claimant refusing to answer the Court Order is that the costs of administering returned cheques and overdrawn accounts are considerably less that the amount being charged.

12. If the fees being Claimed exceed the cost to the Claimant they would be penalties and unenforceable under common law as established in Dunlop Pneumatic v New Garage [1915] AC 79 along with Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963.

Defence
13. The Claimant makes no mention in its Witness Statement of the £28,551 being Claimed and none of its attached pages equates to the amount being claimed.

14. The Claimant in Paragraph 26 to its witness statement offers an alternative claim excluding charges. It lists these charges on pages 32 and 33 to its statement.

15. The Claimant appears to be conceding that £1,151.55 of the disputed charges from March 2001 to December 2003 may be unlawful.

16. However its attached schedule on pages 32 and 33 inexplicably fails to include charges before March 2001 of £2,493. See my attached schedule.

17. Furthermore it understates the amount charged from March 2001 by £132.50.

18. Furthermore the Claimant fails to take into account the interest it charges which together with the disputed bank charges, accounts for the whole amount being claimed.

19. Further I dispute the interest rate applied of up to 33% as it was not the contractual rate agreed. See attached schedule.

Counterclaim

20. I counterclaim for loss of my personal earnings of £16,000 for a year from 2001 and interest thereon. Attached is a schedule of my earnings for 2002.

21. Furthermore consideration should be given for the stress caused by the bank bouncing cheques when a facility was in place, pursuing me for unlawful penalty fees which it increased at 33% per annum and using a debt collection agency which contacted friends, neighbours and my parents.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe the facts as stated in these Particulars of Defence and Counterclaim are true.


xxxxxxxxx
Dated 30 June 2009

[askl]

Re: aski - Natwest

Okay.

have you got the spreadsheet you used to calculate the interest charged on the £1551 (2001 charges) ?

at what point did the claimants remove that amount from the claim ? is it included in the October amendments to the POC ?



I'm not sure you personally have any counterclaim against the bank legally - have you taken any advice on this?

I have a spread sheet - which I can email. The £10k is a rounded figure.

I have used the marginal effective rate used by NatWest of 33% (which I have separately calculated), and calculated a Present Value from the date of each charge up to the claim date. The calculation is PV=Value*((1+EffectiveRate)^((ClaimDate-Date)/365)) .

---

They have only just remove the amount from the claim - presumably following Justice Andrew Smith in Jan '09.

---

You may be right about the loss of earnings. However it is genuine loss, besides the stress they have caused goes way beyond this actual loss. I would have agreed to pay the penalties at the beginning if I had known how stressful this whole business would have been to me and loved ones. It is beyond belief the way they have acted, to me and others including the OFT etc, as if above the law.

[Amethyst]

Re: aski - Natwest

okay can you email it to me - admin@legalbeagles.info

think the WS does need some work if you don't mind hanging on a couple days.



this bit - They have only just remove the amount from the claim - presumably following Justice Andrew Smith in Jan '09.

is just just you surmissing or have they entered any docs to court stating they have removed that amount from the claim/changed the amount accordingly etc?

[askl]

Re: aski - Natwest

Amethyst,

Thanks. There appears to be no other obvious other explanation for removing the bank charges, other than because they are penalties.

NatWest still haven't understood that if you remove the bank charges, then you have to remove the interest on the charges, which leaves a £0 claim.

[askl]

Re: aski - Natwest

Amethyst,

I've email the spreadsheet.

The Claimant has in its WE ARE THE LAW fashion, told me that if I wish to rely on any evidence in responce to the application, to file and serve such written evidence at least 7 days prior to the hearing pursant to Part 24.5 (1) - which is on 7 July - meaning I should theoretically send evidence by 30 June - Tuesday.

Yet I have not received any notification from the Court that a) they plan to include the Claimant's Applicant in the hearing, b) that I should respond with a witness statement at least 7 days before the hearing date. Indeed they don't know whether or not the Claimant has sent me the Applicant and Witness Statements or not.


Shoosmiths has in the past "faked" a draft Application for Summary Judgement (that is sent me a copy but not a copy to the court), pesumably in an attempt to get me to settle - this is my recollection from over 2 years ago.

[Amethyst]

Re: aski - Natwest

Thank you for that. have received your email

Have you contacted the court to find out what they have/haven't received ?

[Amethyst]

Re: aski - Natwest

can you explain the three columnns on the spready under 'bank penalty fees' heading pls, ta

[askl]

Re: aski - Natwest

Hiya,

Thanks for taking a look.

The columns are different forms of charge; the first two are the most important; returned cheque fees and unauthorised borrowings - the last is the misc. column.

----


In the witness statement I was considering including details to illustrate the penal nature of bounced cheques.
For instance a payment which bounced 6 times from 1 March 2001 to 2 May 2001 - costing me £30 x 6 + interest .
I have all the notificants for evidence.