Tweet
Firstly many thanks to Tom Brennan for pointing me in this direction. I urgently need legal advice on the following matter please. I have a county court summons of £3000 for costs, looming, that has to be paid by Jan 15 2009. I need to know what I can do regarding appealing etc. The court room antics themselves leave a lot to be desired and there may even be breaches in this regard.
I operate a small business with minimal turnover, in Sept 2005 Nat West failed to make a transfer I requested in person at a branch. Therefore unknown to me my account went overdrawn, a cheque bounced resulting in a avoiding a council tax summons only by a whisker. Wrote to branch manager, he said he would issue compensation and refund charges immediately. He failed to issue compensation and DEBITED charges again instead of crediting them (yes you read correctly) meaning I could not withdraw money from cash points as Nat West were unlawfully (?) withholding my funds (£106 to be precise).
Other matters arose and weeks later I requested further transfers, first one was delayed couple of days, second one was not done until 5 days later and only because I visited branch to complain. He claimed he needed to send it to a "service centre" which is absolute rubbish as anyone in the industry will tell you. I do not believe anyone could make such a series of genuine errors, and therefore have kept an open mind as to whether such actions were deliberate as a result of my complaints. I couldn't use cash points or write cheques for fear of funds not being in accounts. This caused absolute chaos for about 5 months in total as I had no meaningful control over my finances and my business suffered a loss as you'd imagine through the constant stress and time spent dealing with these matters, which was colossal.
I approached Nat West head office for £4000 compensation, they offered me an insulting £400 which once the charges they still owed me were taken away barely left the minimum wage on an hourly basis for my time. They were not prepared to offer a higher figure when I tried to negotiate.
I made what may have been a mistake in hindsight not going to the ombudsman following this, but that was because I didnt think I'd get the result I wanted, since suggested on here. I therefore filed a small claim for an admittedly optimistic £5000, but was open to any sensible offer had it been made, of maybe £2000. My business account showed I had a loss of over £4000 for the period in question compared to the previous 3 years. Much of this was genuinely caused by the stress and inconvenience placed on me throughout the chain of events.
I did suggest additionally that if one placed that sum proportionately against any of the unlawful charges that Nat West levelled against my accounts, it was wholly reasonable, as if my time were based on the same principle as Nat West applied, i.e. a few seconds labour to implement a £38 charge which they unlawfully (?) withdrew, against the number of hours I had to spend dealing with those matters, in other words in the interests of "mutual fairness."
So here was I, minding my own business, when it was totally turned on its head by Nat West. I had every reason to want compensation and was relying on the courts to offer me an efficient service throughout, and a fair trial. The opposite was what I endured as follows, I respresented myself. Bear in mind some of the below will not make complete sense unless you see the complete paperwork, its snippets as such.
1. I filed the claim as a "small claim" as it was not over £5000. A few months down the line the courts moved the case from Reigate to Guildford and stayed the case claiming that it was awaiting the "OFT report on bank charges." This was never such a claim. I had to write to the court three times during the case concerning this, and at mid point it was transferred to the "fast track" without me noticing that minor detail on the paper work.
2. Some months later the defence filed documents over three weeks later than a stipulated date which prevented me from filing my reply to these in return by the correct date. The judge at the final hearing viewed me as reckless for this and saw no reason to apportion blame to the defence even though I had filed a complaint in writing to the court at the time they failed to respond. A copy was in the trial bundle.
3. On the day in court I felt the the judge treated me appallingly from the moment we started. His first words to me felt as if they were directed towards a criminal. These were "why have I only been handed this just now" holding my trial bundle aloft. I informed him I had delivered it in person by the specified date. I was shocked.
4. The hearing continued in a totally unexpected way. The judge showed no interest whatsoever in the chain of events and appeared to randomly select a mid-point to start from. He made so many errors that I was forced to ask him politely if he had read through the case to which he replied "no not all of it." I believe he had read none of it in advance bar a few pages and the names of the two parties.
5. I was permitted to ask a number of questions to the defence, however, on any occasion I asked questions that had "real substance," these were met with either an "I couldn't comment" from the defence, or the judge suggested they had no relevance.
6. I asked the judge to rule as to whether the numerous items that I alleged were "breach of contract" and "unlawful withdrawls" were so, of which there were about 30 in total if I remember correctly. He refused to comment on them yet these were all valid points as far as I was concerned.
7. On at least three occasions, the judge sternly addressed me claiming that "he had a more important case to deal with concerning a child with a fractured skull, and that I was lucky he could be here today." Hardly inspiring words to an unrepresented claimant.
8. Re the failure of me being unable to withdraw a full £400 I needed for an early morning deal, which I was entitled to under the terms and conditions of the contract from a cash point, his reply to the fact I could only obtain £385 (due to Nat West wrongly witholding £106 of my money) , was "you were only £15 short I'm sure it wouldn't have mattered." I was speechless, if I didn't have the full £400 I could not buy the goods !
9. Re Council Tax summons I was threatened with when cheque bounced, "but you didn't get a summons did you." No but only because I spent hours on the phone, writing, and visiting the town hall, time removed from my business. Like it didn't matter ?
10. He thought it was acceptable for Nat West to make an unrequested refund to Tiscali resulting in my broadband being cut.
11. One of the most insulting matters I was subjected to shows a complete lack of respect for the hard working small businessman, "Why did you do all these things like writing to the bank, the council, the water company etc in the daytime, you could have done it at night ?" I informed the judge that I worked almost every hour possible already and was entitled to some free time in the evening after doing so. Additionally the problems related to a "business account" therefore it was only fair to address them in business hours and to be compensated for such. His reply "other people who run their own businesses work late at night so you could have done."
Could I ? How could this be substantiated without knowing full details of my life and personal situation ? Could I have phoned the council tax office at midnight ? Would Nat West stay open until 7pm when it was convenient for me to call in to discuss the matter ?
No, yet it was totally acceptable for me to be expected to address these matters at say 1 or 2 am.
12. The judge permitted Nat West to remove services from me that it was contracted to provide in the T&C's.
13. The judge unnecessarily addressed several matters that had already been thrown out months earlier. As he brought each one up I informed him they were no longer issues either party needed to address, yet he spent what seemed an eternity dissecting them nonsensically.
14. One of these was a charge that Nat West had conceded as being an error in an earlier hearing and for which they'd agreed to refund me, and may have already repaid me, for a sum of approx £2. He reversed the decision !!! It was mind blowing.
15. In summing up he made numerous statements that were totally incorrect, yet I was powerless to interrupt and challenge him. He had already condemned everything I had said previously, therefore there was no point. IMO he had made his decision in this case before entering the room that morning.
16. Regarding costs, he required no proof that any of the names on the defence schedules even existed, and that their rates of pay was as stated. Only a few of them appeared on the documents during the case. Their photocopying bill was over 4 times more than mine. The defence referred to a case whereby costs had been awarded in the small claims court against a claimant who was deemed to have filed a case recklessly. The judge based my case as being reckless largely on the basis that I did not have absolute evidence to support the actual loss. My business accounts over a 3 year period showed an amazing difference re the period of this case, therefore if there was any doubt to the validity of such then surely I should have been charged with an offence relating to trying to deceive the court. Additionally how could I trace lost customers, how could I replace so many hours of lost labour, and then those days that followed whereby the stress made it impossible to concentrate on my work ?
It being absolutely impossible to pay such a sum, and why should I under the circumstances anyhow, I was asked my opinion of £4000 in costs. I gave my honest opinion at the time which reflected my state of mind, knowing it to be an impossible to pay sum I simply replied "I might as well kill myself." Probably not a wise thing to say, but I wouldn't be the the first. The judge replied "I don't do blackmail, £3000 is the best I can do for you."
I am a responsible person who does not smoke or drink, I've never had credit cards, I live within my means, which of course is impossible should I be asked to pay this £3000. In effect its closer to £4000 due to not taking the original £400 offer, and then all the court fees added on that I paid. My mortgage is in arrears two months as it has been ever since 2005 when the problems started, there were no problems prior to this, thankfully my building society are considerate.
I urgently need advice please, thanks in advance.
I operate a small business with minimal turnover, in Sept 2005 Nat West failed to make a transfer I requested in person at a branch. Therefore unknown to me my account went overdrawn, a cheque bounced resulting in a avoiding a council tax summons only by a whisker. Wrote to branch manager, he said he would issue compensation and refund charges immediately. He failed to issue compensation and DEBITED charges again instead of crediting them (yes you read correctly) meaning I could not withdraw money from cash points as Nat West were unlawfully (?) withholding my funds (£106 to be precise).
Other matters arose and weeks later I requested further transfers, first one was delayed couple of days, second one was not done until 5 days later and only because I visited branch to complain. He claimed he needed to send it to a "service centre" which is absolute rubbish as anyone in the industry will tell you. I do not believe anyone could make such a series of genuine errors, and therefore have kept an open mind as to whether such actions were deliberate as a result of my complaints. I couldn't use cash points or write cheques for fear of funds not being in accounts. This caused absolute chaos for about 5 months in total as I had no meaningful control over my finances and my business suffered a loss as you'd imagine through the constant stress and time spent dealing with these matters, which was colossal.
I approached Nat West head office for £4000 compensation, they offered me an insulting £400 which once the charges they still owed me were taken away barely left the minimum wage on an hourly basis for my time. They were not prepared to offer a higher figure when I tried to negotiate.
I made what may have been a mistake in hindsight not going to the ombudsman following this, but that was because I didnt think I'd get the result I wanted, since suggested on here. I therefore filed a small claim for an admittedly optimistic £5000, but was open to any sensible offer had it been made, of maybe £2000. My business account showed I had a loss of over £4000 for the period in question compared to the previous 3 years. Much of this was genuinely caused by the stress and inconvenience placed on me throughout the chain of events.
I did suggest additionally that if one placed that sum proportionately against any of the unlawful charges that Nat West levelled against my accounts, it was wholly reasonable, as if my time were based on the same principle as Nat West applied, i.e. a few seconds labour to implement a £38 charge which they unlawfully (?) withdrew, against the number of hours I had to spend dealing with those matters, in other words in the interests of "mutual fairness."
So here was I, minding my own business, when it was totally turned on its head by Nat West. I had every reason to want compensation and was relying on the courts to offer me an efficient service throughout, and a fair trial. The opposite was what I endured as follows, I respresented myself. Bear in mind some of the below will not make complete sense unless you see the complete paperwork, its snippets as such.
1. I filed the claim as a "small claim" as it was not over £5000. A few months down the line the courts moved the case from Reigate to Guildford and stayed the case claiming that it was awaiting the "OFT report on bank charges." This was never such a claim. I had to write to the court three times during the case concerning this, and at mid point it was transferred to the "fast track" without me noticing that minor detail on the paper work.
2. Some months later the defence filed documents over three weeks later than a stipulated date which prevented me from filing my reply to these in return by the correct date. The judge at the final hearing viewed me as reckless for this and saw no reason to apportion blame to the defence even though I had filed a complaint in writing to the court at the time they failed to respond. A copy was in the trial bundle.
3. On the day in court I felt the the judge treated me appallingly from the moment we started. His first words to me felt as if they were directed towards a criminal. These were "why have I only been handed this just now" holding my trial bundle aloft. I informed him I had delivered it in person by the specified date. I was shocked.
4. The hearing continued in a totally unexpected way. The judge showed no interest whatsoever in the chain of events and appeared to randomly select a mid-point to start from. He made so many errors that I was forced to ask him politely if he had read through the case to which he replied "no not all of it." I believe he had read none of it in advance bar a few pages and the names of the two parties.
5. I was permitted to ask a number of questions to the defence, however, on any occasion I asked questions that had "real substance," these were met with either an "I couldn't comment" from the defence, or the judge suggested they had no relevance.
6. I asked the judge to rule as to whether the numerous items that I alleged were "breach of contract" and "unlawful withdrawls" were so, of which there were about 30 in total if I remember correctly. He refused to comment on them yet these were all valid points as far as I was concerned.
7. On at least three occasions, the judge sternly addressed me claiming that "he had a more important case to deal with concerning a child with a fractured skull, and that I was lucky he could be here today." Hardly inspiring words to an unrepresented claimant.
8. Re the failure of me being unable to withdraw a full £400 I needed for an early morning deal, which I was entitled to under the terms and conditions of the contract from a cash point, his reply to the fact I could only obtain £385 (due to Nat West wrongly witholding £106 of my money) , was "you were only £15 short I'm sure it wouldn't have mattered." I was speechless, if I didn't have the full £400 I could not buy the goods !
9. Re Council Tax summons I was threatened with when cheque bounced, "but you didn't get a summons did you." No but only because I spent hours on the phone, writing, and visiting the town hall, time removed from my business. Like it didn't matter ?
10. He thought it was acceptable for Nat West to make an unrequested refund to Tiscali resulting in my broadband being cut.
11. One of the most insulting matters I was subjected to shows a complete lack of respect for the hard working small businessman, "Why did you do all these things like writing to the bank, the council, the water company etc in the daytime, you could have done it at night ?" I informed the judge that I worked almost every hour possible already and was entitled to some free time in the evening after doing so. Additionally the problems related to a "business account" therefore it was only fair to address them in business hours and to be compensated for such. His reply "other people who run their own businesses work late at night so you could have done."
Could I ? How could this be substantiated without knowing full details of my life and personal situation ? Could I have phoned the council tax office at midnight ? Would Nat West stay open until 7pm when it was convenient for me to call in to discuss the matter ?
No, yet it was totally acceptable for me to be expected to address these matters at say 1 or 2 am.
12. The judge permitted Nat West to remove services from me that it was contracted to provide in the T&C's.
13. The judge unnecessarily addressed several matters that had already been thrown out months earlier. As he brought each one up I informed him they were no longer issues either party needed to address, yet he spent what seemed an eternity dissecting them nonsensically.
14. One of these was a charge that Nat West had conceded as being an error in an earlier hearing and for which they'd agreed to refund me, and may have already repaid me, for a sum of approx £2. He reversed the decision !!! It was mind blowing.
15. In summing up he made numerous statements that were totally incorrect, yet I was powerless to interrupt and challenge him. He had already condemned everything I had said previously, therefore there was no point. IMO he had made his decision in this case before entering the room that morning.
16. Regarding costs, he required no proof that any of the names on the defence schedules even existed, and that their rates of pay was as stated. Only a few of them appeared on the documents during the case. Their photocopying bill was over 4 times more than mine. The defence referred to a case whereby costs had been awarded in the small claims court against a claimant who was deemed to have filed a case recklessly. The judge based my case as being reckless largely on the basis that I did not have absolute evidence to support the actual loss. My business accounts over a 3 year period showed an amazing difference re the period of this case, therefore if there was any doubt to the validity of such then surely I should have been charged with an offence relating to trying to deceive the court. Additionally how could I trace lost customers, how could I replace so many hours of lost labour, and then those days that followed whereby the stress made it impossible to concentrate on my work ?
It being absolutely impossible to pay such a sum, and why should I under the circumstances anyhow, I was asked my opinion of £4000 in costs. I gave my honest opinion at the time which reflected my state of mind, knowing it to be an impossible to pay sum I simply replied "I might as well kill myself." Probably not a wise thing to say, but I wouldn't be the the first. The judge replied "I don't do blackmail, £3000 is the best I can do for you."
I am a responsible person who does not smoke or drink, I've never had credit cards, I live within my means, which of course is impossible should I be asked to pay this £3000. In effect its closer to £4000 due to not taking the original £400 offer, and then all the court fees added on that I paid. My mortgage is in arrears two months as it has been ever since 2005 when the problems started, there were no problems prior to this, thankfully my building society are considerate.
I urgently need advice please, thanks in advance.
Comment