askl - Natwest

[askl]

Re: askl - Natwest

Thanks,
Again, my ignorance - but if a hearing is "No costs" presumably I can't include my costs for said hearing, nor application for hearing?
But presumably I can include time for particulars of defence and witness statement etc...

[Tools]

Re: askl - Natwest

Also don't forget that in a recent CCA case the Judge, by his own decision, ordered punitive costs against the claimant (BOS) for wasting the courts time basically.

[Curlyben]

Re: askl - Natwest

Your time, as a Litigant in Person (LiP) is valued at £9.25 an hour plus, postage, travel etc..

You could also look at putting in a Wasted Costs order due to the claimant "mucking about"

[askl]

Re: askl - Natwest

don't forget to get your own costs in

Out of interest what cost were you thinking of? Presumably my own time is valued at zero, and the £75 application for a hearing is out as it's "no order for costs"

[Curlyben]

Re: askl - Natwest

The Order came through today;

1. Unless the Claimant do by 4.00pm on Tuesday 04 August 2009 file and serve a Witness Statement explaining the method of calculation of all the individual charges made herein, the Claim for such charges and all interest there-on do stand struck out.

2. No order for costs.

Would certainly be very interesting to see if they do actually comply.
This would be dynamite for the whole charges campaign !!!

Obviously I hope they pooch it up as normal and get struck out.
If that happens don't forget to get your own costs in

[Amethyst]

Re: askl - Natwest

Fingers crossed then Be very interesting to see what they do now.

[askl]

Re: askl - Natwest

The Order came through today;

1. Unless the Claimant do by 4.00pm on Tuesday 04 August 2009 file and serve a Witness Statement explaining the method of calculation of all the individual charges made herein, the Claim for such charges and all interest there-on do stand struck out.

2. No order for costs.

[Amethyst]

Re: askl - Natwest

I agree. The banking service is outside of the normal trade thingy but the transactions (ie the purported service of paying or not paying) could be said to be a service purchased in the course of the business although there are no negotiated terms, the bank has complete control whether to pay or not pay etc etc.

Its a tricky one isn't it.

[askl]

Re: askl - Natwest

Thanks, I have been following the cases development.

When you say in the thread you link above; "As the landlords are said to have been letting properties outside of their trade, business or profession as they held other jobs and letting property was an additional income or savings/pensions investment vehicle."

I'm thinking that as far as the Bank Charges situation goes, it is banking that is outside of the trade, business or profession of the small business.

[Amethyst]

Re: askl - Natwest

OFT v Foxtons - Landmark Judgment 10 July 2009 - Page 3 - Legal Beagles

Have a good read of this Askl I think there are some parts in here which will really help business claims....needs reading disseminating etc but you might find some parts will helpyou with the argument counter that i mentioned previously re income stream and terms being the same etc.

[Amethyst]

Re: askl - Natwest

This thread is only visible to registered users.

That said, the Judge didn't seem persuaded by NatWest's read across, besides NatWest could not demonstrate the difference between consumer and business T&Cs.

They want to be demonstrating they are the same I think, bar 2001-2003 which they need to demonstrate them to be different, but anyway, did they supply any of the terms and conditions for comparision ? And good news the Judge wasn't persuaded by the read across.

So the strike out depends solely on whether or not NatWest are prepared to finally breakdown the amount charged

Indeed - Did Natwest argue that there actualy WAS no further breakdown it was simply a price ?

[askl]

Re: askl - Natwest

I had understood your previous points, but have never wished to discussed them too deeply, knowing that these threads are public.

That said, the Judge didn't seem persuaded by NatWest's read across, besides NatWest could not demonstrate the difference between consumer and business T&Cs.

So the strike out depends solely on whether or not NatWest are prepared to finally breakdown the amount charged - and is unrelated to the penalties issue despite vehement argument from NatWest.

[Amethyst]

Re: askl - Natwest

Askl thats kind of what I have been saying throughout your entire thread. It basically leaves businesses without any protection against these charges (until someone proves the readacross has no effect etc and that they actually ARE penalties). See notice at top of forum ref Barclays.

I believe CAG have been working on something with business claimants but seems to be hidden in a private forum to which I am not privy.

[askl]

Re: askl - Natwest

I read the HoL thread and wondered about the penalty issue resulting from the OFT case. That is that the OFT case was never about penalties but its right to determine fairness under Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

Therefore it had no interest in the penalties aspect of the case, let alone appealing Jutice Andrew Smith January 2009 conclusion.

So how does that leave businesses who don't necessarily enjoy the protection on the UTCCR?

[Amethyst]

Re: askl - Natwest

Good work and full marks to Judgey

I can't help think they will come back with the argument I outlined a little in post 59 re not requiring a breakdown. They are arguing they aren't penalties due to the read across thus the disproportionate to costs issue doesn't matter.

We know they won't come back with an actual breakdown of costs so they either have to drop out negotiate with you or argue the case for not having one. I have no idea what they will do or how much carrying on with the claim is actually worth to them seeing as they arent recovering any actual money (just charges they inflicted on themselves).