Court Claim Help Please - Natwest / Irwin Mitchell

[Guest]

Re: Court Claim Help Please - Natwest / Irwin Mitchell

If the claim made by Irwin Mitchell has been stayed and the sum it relates to is owed jointly by both you and your wife, then let them have it and it must also be stayed. They cannot launch a new claim, even against another defendant, for the same sum of money.

[R B 1968]

Re: Court Claim Help Please - Natwest / Irwin Mitchell

Hi Cetelco,

Thanks for your reply - just to clarify then - do you believe I should let Shoosmiths deal with this OR get them to pass it back to Irwin Mitchell then ?

Thank you,

R

(Sorry if I'm being a bit dim !)

[Guest]

Re: Court Claim Help Please - Natwest / Irwin Mitchell

Let Irwin Mitchell take on the claim. As above, if the sum of money that they allege is owed is already the subject of a stayed claim, then it would be an abuse of process were they to attempt to circumvent judicial process by issuing another claim, even against a second defendant, for the same sum.

[R B 1968]

Re: Court Claim Help Please - Natwest / Irwin Mitchell

Thank you Cetelco.

Usual "L B"" great advise.

I'll get on this straightaway.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH,

R

[R B 1968]

Re: Court Claim Help Please - Natwest / Irwin Mitchell

Hi all,

Just a brief update as I haven't been on-line for a while.

I wrote to Shoosmiths AND Nastywest and suggested they pass this over to Irwin Mitchell who have already taken action and the case is stayed.

I guess its not far off a month since my letter and I haven't had any response yet (now I've said that I bet something will turn up tomorrow !).

Thanks to everyone for all your kind help, to date AND IF ANYONE SPEAKS TO BUDGIE I'M STILL DESPERATE TO DISCUSS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE HE'S BEEN INVESTIGATING FOR ME SINCE BEFORE CHRISTMAS !

Kind regards,

R

[Bill-K]

Re: Court Claim Help Please - Natwest / Irwin Mitchell

Hi RB. Ame has been most concerned about this, and has asked me to see if I can help out with your spreadsheet figures, in Budgie's absence. IU am so sorry if your patience has been tested of late !!!

I haven't had time to go over your entire thread, but from what I can see, you had an earlier set of figures, which appear to have been nearer the mark, and which Ame has alluded to. Unless there is a particularly good reason, we cannot reclaim the reasonable charges made for maintaining our accounts. These include the monthly account maintenance fees, and monthly account interest. These are not penalties - just normal - and lawful/reasonable - charges, and as such they are not normally reclaimed. If there are reasons for reclaiming these in the thread, then I apologise for missing them - as I said, I am only able to briefly scan the thread. I'm a figures geek - not a Legal-Beagle !!!

So - UNLESS there is some specific reason why you are claiming these 'normal' charges, I assume this is an error. I will try and do what I think Ame actually did previously - which was to assemble the RECLAIMABLE charges. Hopefully, our findings will be similar.

There is, however, a further element which we may be able to add - and I have been liaising with Ame over this lately. The monthly interest charged on the account is not - in itself - reclaimable. However, a portion of that interest is directly attributable to the penalty charges being reclaimed. This has been difficult to computate, but there is an easier method of doing this, now. I will try and take your figures, and use them in another spreadsheet which calculates this apportioned 'Debited Interest.'

So - although I fear that the amount claimed in your most recent spready is not fully reclaimable - we may be able to claim more than was shown in your earlier spready. Roughly - I would say - what Ame suggested earlier - PLUS a further element of DI ('Debited Interest')

This may all be too late - but quite often we find that there is more time available to us than we were led to believe. I hope we still have some - and can use it well, now.

[Bill-K]

Re: Court Claim Help Please - Natwest / Irwin Mitchell

I've sent Ame a revised spready which I need you to check, RB. It lists ONLY the charges which I think are normally reclaimable - BUT it adds apportioned Debited Interest, and 8% on top of that. I'm happy to discuss this here (in the forum), by PM, or by email at Simiantics@Gmail.com

I hope I've been of help here.

[R B 1968]

Re: Court Claim Help Please - Natwest / Irwin Mitchell

Hi Bill-K.

You certainly were lurking in the undrergrowth and I can't put into words my gratitutde that you've intervened in my thread.

I'd also like to add that Ame has also been of huge help, and maybe my gratitude hasn't been all iy should have been, in her case, simply down to the frustration at the situation with trying to get Budgie to talk to me.

I'm sorry I haven't been in the forum for a while but I must confess I'd lost heart, a little.

A brief update is that Irwin Mitchell decided to take action against my wife and this was defended and subsequently 'stayed' at Northants CCBC. Shoosmiths then chose to try the exact same tactic against me and I told them they couldn't take action for the same debt and if they did I would defend in the same way as Irwin Mitchells attempt had been stayed. Their reply was they would either continue with action OR I could request they pass my file to Irwin Mitchell to continue the action. I chose the latter option and this must have been almost a couple of months ago now. Still not heard back from Shoosmiths, Irwin's OR Natwest, since then !

And thants about it really !

Thanks again Bill-K and Ame and I think I'll really have to draw a line under the "Budgie" situation now (I've still got that niggle as to what he was thinking, in my case, and also worried that the spready I sent to him, by private e-mail, had all my private details on it, as no doubt you have now also seen !).

I will send you a private e-mail, now, confirming my private e-mail address and perhaps you wouldn't mind forwarding the latest spreadsheet to me, please ?

Once again I can't thank you, Bill-K, and Ame enough for your support since Budgie has, apparently, left Legal Beagles.

Kindest regards,

R

A brief re-cap - I sent Budgie my 'original claim details' (which I guess were pretty similar to Ame's ?), ages ago. This was based on Moneysavingexpert.com's templates and I'm pretty sure were based on fact and pretty accurate (I recall spending many hours albeit a couple of years ago now !). Budgie looked at theses spreadsheets (I actually put in a first claim and then another for the addidional about a year later !) and suggested I hadn't added everything on that I could get away with ! On the back of this I dug every statement I'd ever had, going back about 10 year, out of the loft and started again. I logged every single charge and interest, on Budgies instructions, and this was painstaking (I think it took me a good full day or more to produce). Budgie was then forwarded this just before Christmas and I've never really had any feedback from it as he's hardly logged in / commented during 2010, at all.

With the best will in the world and despite everyone elses excellent assistance and help I still have this little 'niggle' that Budgie thought he was onto something 'specific', in my case, and with all the hard work I put in I'd dearly love to know his thought process - after all the different in my original claims and Budgies 'initial suggestion' is several thousands of pounds !
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
PS Sorry about the final two paragraphs which have' jumped' from the middle of my message to the end, during my 'save'.

[Bill-K]

We all have real lives to live, of course, and sometimes something big happens suddenly, and causes an instant lifestyle change. Our forum activities take a low priority in this case, and sudden disappearances of core members - as well as lurkers like me !!! - can happen sometimes. I know Budgie put in a lot of work here, and helped tremendously with the spreadsheets here, so I'm sure he knew what he was doing - even if WE didn't !!!

I strongly suspect that he was heading in the direction we are now going, with regard to reclaiming the Debited Interest. This does need to take into account ALL the interest charged to the account, and - depending on the method of calculation - may need other account charges to be considered as well. So, your work in listing all these charges was not in vain, RB. I guess Bud would have explained it to you eventually, but the main point here is that - although we enter all these charges into the spready - we only actually claim a portion of them, which the spready calculates for us.

The only truly accurate way to duplicate the banks' calculations of Debited interest is to enter EVERY single transaction into a huge spreadsheet, and calculate the interest on a daily basis. This mimics the way that the banks' massive computers do this, but is really far too much for most of us to be expected to manage. So, we have to use a simpler method, which is less accurate, but follows the same principles. Chances are that the bank will either reject the DI altogether, or challenge it, and offer a lesser amount. Because our calculation is not 100% accurate, then I always recommend that we should be prepared to negotiate. But the important thing, IMHO, is to claim it. If we don't claim it, then we deffo won't get it. I will send you a copy of the recent spreadsheet, RB.

I'm sure that many of us have received demands 'out of the blue' from DCA's, without the Original Creditor telling us who they have sold the debt to. DCA's often pass the debt on, and British Consumer's Smasher has had no less than NINE DCA's chasing the ONE debt !!! I consider this random re-selling to be rudeness at best, and harassment at worst. I usually send them something on the lines of this letter, wot I rote to SRJ recently. I don't know if this would be useful, but here it is, anyway. HTH :-
" Dear Sirs

I received a letter from you, dated xx/xx/xx, Your Ref: xxxxxxx, in relation to what appears to be an alleged debt of £xx.xx to Talk Talk, A/c no: xxxxxxxxxx.

I can confirm that, contrary to your letter, Talk Talk have made NO ATTEMPT TO CONTACT ME AT ALL, and I am very concerned that you have been led by them to conclude that I am choosing to ignore repeated requests for payment, when I have actually received NO such requests from either you or from Talk Talk.

I have now received further letters from you stating that Talk Talk have made every effort to resolve this, and threatening me with litigation. Talk Talk have in fact made NO EFFORT WHATSOEVER, and if they have led you to believe otherwise, then they have given you incorrect information.

If I am to treat your demand with any seriousness at all, then I must insist that you arrange for the Original Creditor - allegedly and presumably Talk Talk - to DIRECTLY provide me with FULL details of this alleged debt, along with a proper Notice of Assignation of the same to Yourselves.

If you are indeed a legitimate DCA, then I am sure that you will be aware that this is not just a matter of common courtesy - but is a legal requirement. Until such time as you can supply clear proof that this alleged debt exists and is lawfully enforceable, AND that you have been lawfully and properly requested to pursue it, then I would politely suggest that you refrain from threatening me with litigation.

Should you attempt to pursue this matter through the courts, then please be aware that the court will require certain pre-action protocols to be observed. This includes the conduct of both parties prior to the claim being submitted. I am not sure that the court would view the conduct of your client or yourselves thus far in a very favourable light.

As things stand, I have no indication of what this sum of money is for, nor whether you have any authority to request it from me. I am sure, therefore, that you will see that the only sensible action I can take is to treat your claim as fraudulent, which – incidentally – is why your original letter of xx/xx/xx was treated with the contempt it appeared to deserve, and was simply ignored.

I appreciate that you may well be doing a difficult job with the sincerest of intentions. However, I must ask you to similarly appreciate that there are a great many fraudulent operations in the field of Debt Recovery, and that I must - with all due respect - assume that your demand is fraudulent. Therefore, unless and until you can provide the lawfully-required documentation to support your claim WITHIN 14 DAYS of the date of this letter, it will be deemed by default that you have confirmed your abandonment of this pursuit.



Yours faithfully "

[Budgie]

Re: Court Claim Help Please - Natwest / Irwin Mitchell

Hi RB,

I am still around but the last few months have been a total nightmare from the work and family / personal point of view. I really had to draw a line under some of my "extra curricular" activities to try and sort out my own situations. Thankfully, I now seem to be getting back to some sort of normality.

Am glad to see that you have been getting assistance from Ame and others.

Over the next few days I hope to try to get back up to date with what's been happening over the last couple of months and see if I can be of any assistance.

Apologies once again and hope that you and the Mrs are both OK.

Budgie

[Flangies]

Re: Court Claim Help Please - Natwest / Irwin Mitchell

Budgie
May I say the help you gave me was second to none! I cant thank you enough for guiding me ALL the way with my claim and encouraging me to push for a little more money, which I recieved; this has helped me no end with sorting out my finances............

I do/did wonder where you find the time to help others on this site as you have done............. top bloke thats what I say! fair play to you for needing to spend alittle time sorting out your own issues, sometimes you hav eto be a little selfish and think of YOU.

Regards
Flangie :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[Bill-K]

Re: Court Claim Help Please - Natwest / Irwin Mitchell

I echo Flangie's sentiments. It's good to see that you're getting things sorted, Budgie, and are able to look in here.

I hope my attempts with RB's figures haven't thrown a spanner in the works !!!

[R B 1968]

Re: Court Claim Help Please - Natwest / Irwin Mitchell

Hi all,
Back in 2009, with some considerable help from my dear friends on Legal Beagles I submitted a defence to a claim brought against me by Natwest, via Irwin Mitchell.

This was subsequently stayed in the Northampton County Court.

Since this time I've been contacted by numerous DCA's whom have all backed off when I informed them the case was already stayed.......... until now.

Recently received a notice that Ascent Legal would be taking over from Irwin Mitchell and they sent a lengthy explanation
why they claim my defence is now not valid AND requested I contact Northampton and withdraw my defence.

Further letter now received evidently from Northampton advising
"This claim has been transferred to the ************ (my local) County Court as the CCBC Sol is No Longer Acting".

Can someone PLEASE assist me ?

Thanks,

[R B 1968]

Re: Court Claim Help Please - Natwest / Irwin Mitchell

As a bit of further information, part of Ascent Legal's letter says (quote):

"As you will no doubt have seen in the press,
the Supreme Court handed down its judgement in the case of The Office of Fair Trading V Abbey National plc and others (the "Test Case") on 25 November 2009.

As a result of the Supreme Court's judgement in the Test case and for the reasons set out in the remainder of this letter,
we consider that your Defence has no reasonable prospect of success and that there is no other compelling reason why that element of this case should be disposed of at a trial."

I can add the rest if there is anyone out there who can PLEASE help me.

Thank you.

PS Worries of the past all coming flooding back !!!!!!!

[charitynjw]

Re: Court Claim Help Please - Natwest / Irwin Mitchell

Hi RB 1968, & welcome back.

I see you were the OP on this thread.