Final chapter in this thread : I received the defence from Nationwide yesterday. Essentially it says that they have paid back all the charges (which they have), they have paid the court costs (which they have), and they have paid interest at the statutory rate (which they also have).....so the only element left for me to go for and continue the claim is the contractual interest element. As it is debateable whether I would win this, and I have another set of charges to claim from them, I have decided to call my first claim settled and proceed with the second. I want to hit Nationwide again before the OFT ruling in, not because I think it will help them, but because I suspect they may use this to delay settlements. Watch out Nationwide, Quest is on the trail again for another £4500 of my money......Mr Bacon start sharpening your pencil and get your cheque book ready

Hi Paulwilko, Im in exactly the same situation as you but I have 'touched' my money so really Im closer in situation to Redsue. Id be very interested to see what you entered on your AQ as this now my next step. I know about the new way of completing an AQ but was also interested on your thoughts about Natiownide's defence. I presume , like me, all they said in their defence is that we have paid up in full....when in fact they havent settled the 'calim' in full , just what they see as full settlement. We should compare notes and stay in contact with Redsue as he/ she is ahead of us and likely to be able to offer advice based on actual proceedings. Any thoughts/ advice at this stage would be much appreciated. I will of course be very happy to share my AQ with you once I have pulled this together. Quest

Hi Redsue, Nationwide have just filed a defence to my claim. I claimed for CI plus charges and court fees....they paid charges, court fees and statutory interest.....so Im virtually in the same position as you, albeit some way behind you. I looked at your original AQ and wondered if you could shed some light on why you think the court didnt strike out their defence as 'no defence' as you stated (i.e. I take it all they said was that they had paid in full...when in fact they hadnt!). I suspect NW will try the same tactics with me so I have to prevent them from getting 1) an allocation hearing; and if that fails 2) stop them having the claim Fast Tracked. Any suggestions / advice, particularly wrt what to enter on the AQ..... would be much appreciated. Quest

Hi Redsue, how did you get on with the Nationwide? Did they file a defence or did they default? Be very interested to hear how you got on as I believe Im about a week behind you Quest

Hi Kenspe, good to hear your news and well done for you perseverance. I am now watching the clock tick down...still no defence from Nationwide. Im hoping that they will forget, but even if they do defend, which I suspect all it will say is 'weve paid up', I am prepared to take them on wrt CI. I mentioned I was going for CI at the prelim and LBA stage, despite them opting to pay the 8% statutory, and they still have not paid my claim in full, I plan to use the new approach to AQ and state that they have only paid x % of my claim and hopefully force them into disclosure via the AQ. I expect them to try and force a ruling through Fast Track so that they can bully me into submission...so here is the dilema.... ....Clearly as they have already paid charges, court costs and 8% statutory, it is in my interest to try and keep the claim 'intact' and force them into an argument about charges....which clearly they would not want to do. However, on the other hand, I suspect they will try to just talk about CI and because this is a contentious / untested route, they may want to argue fast track based on complexity and a possible lengthy hearing. So my defence to counter this would be that we only have one issue to discuss so how could it take more than an hour or so...ie to prevent the move to Fast Track. So on the one hand its in my interest to potentially keep the claim 'intact' and on the other it may be in my interest to just go for one issue ..CI. Whatever, I believe I must keep it in small claims territory as the Nationwide's options are clearly limited down this route and I suspect their appetite to take me on will be diminsihed. Any advice / thought on how I might approach the potential AQ would be appreciated. Quest.

Hi Redsue, unfortunately my girlfriend was anxious to get her hands on the money and hit the shops ...so it looks like Im going downd the same route as you! Would be very keen to learn of your arguments in your AQ and how Nationwide respond. I believe I am a few weeks behind you...Nationwide have until the 21st to file a defence so Im hoping they will overlook this in given that their admin is shoddy at best and must be overstretched with claim activity. Quest.

Wow this is one big thread. Just wanted to ask for soma advice re continuation of a claim including compound contractual interest. I calimed against nationwide for just under £5k, including charges (£2k), court fees and CI (£2.5k). Nationwide have paid all charges, court fees and statutory interest ( I put the 'option' to pay statuory in my POC ). Question is ; given that Nationwide have not settled in full; therefore do I leave the claim as is and go for the balance (which is the CI interest less interest paid)? Also, in expectation of their defence, ' weve paid up', what is the best approach for me to take in the likely forthcoming AQ? Quest I should add that I did advise NW that I was going to claim CI in my prelim and LBA so I believe I still have the option of going for this

Hi Kenspe/ redsue, I am in almost the same position as you. Filed MCOL for just under £5k, including compound contractual interest, they paid charges, court fees and staturoy interest and have said that's it. I am a week away from the original deadline for Nationwide to file defence. Assuming they file a defence 'weve paid up', and bearing in mind that if proceed, it's possible I will have to argue the case for contractual interest only. Clearly I want to retain as much of the original POC which talks about charges as possible. What action would you recommend for me at this stage. I have NOT yet written to Nationwide to accept / reject their part settlement. I have however phoned the court and they advised me that I need do nothing until such time that the original defence date is passed (then go for default) or as is likely, respond to their defence, if filed in time. Quest

Nationwide have justpart settled my claim. I claimed contractaul interest but they chose top pay SI interest plus charges and court fees. Do I have to advise the court of partial settlement or do I simply wait to se if they file a defence? How would the court view it if I let it go to default date (i.e. no defence filed) even though they have part settled? Hope this makes sense ; i.e. Nationwide have NOT settled my claim, only part of it.....doesnt that mean that they MUST file a defence as to why they have done this? If they dont file a defence can I request a default judgement?

I think its neither! I believe they have 28 days from when the court say the claim was 'served'. You should have a document from the court confirming this and specifying when the 28 days is up. Quest.

I think from reading many threads regarding how the Nationwide operate, they tend to pay up in dribs & drabs. So you may have received some of your claim broken down by returned charges, court fees, and interest claimed. Does the figure of £216 equate to any part of your claim? If so, then I think you can expect the rest in due course. If not, then you will need to decide if you want to accept their 'partial' offer and advise them that you will continue to court to recover the outstanding claim balance. They seem to cave in if you do this. You should also receive some notification from the Nationwide advising you what they have done in response to your claim (i.e. what they have paid you). Hope this helps Quest

Mine was served on 21st , still nothing yet. No further correspondance but Im expecting them to ask for me to complete an AQ as I have gone for contractual interest at their unauthorised overdraft rate of 24.9%. If they do go down this route I will be using the new AQ technique as promoted on this site I am also trying to build up a body of evidence of all Nationwide claims that they say they will defend but dont. Can anyone reading this please see my thread about using their tactics against them. I want to build up a list of cases (case numbers) and write to the Northampton court asking them to consider throwing out all subsequent Nationwide 'defences' as they clearly have no intention to defend, but are instead just wasting court time. Quest here is my thread Its time to use Nationwide's actions against them and here's the thread about a new way for AQ's New strategy for Allocation Questionaires

Thanks Mahharg, I find it a bit strange given the level of Court knowledge and unhappiness at the Bank's behaviour that some sort of coordinated effort by CAG is not implemented. Clearly the Banks are getting away with murder, tying up a lot of court time and abusing the process. At the very least we should be lobbying the court with the wealth of evidence that this site has at its disposal. The more pressure built up against the Banks, the more likely individual consumers are to secure justice without having to go to the lengths forced by the Bank's behaviour of drawing things out in the attempt to limit their liabilities. Anyway, lets see how the thread progresses, but thanks for your reply. Quest

just started this thread : Its time to use Nationwide's actions against them I have filed against NW via MCOL, they have acknowledged and have a furher 20 days to defend. I am going via small claims and claiming charges and compound contractual interest. Lets compare notes! If you have any details of previous cases filed against NW where they acknowledged and then paid up rpior to court, please let me have them as I want to compile a dossier and send it to the court to ask them to strike out any further NW 'ghost' defences and hopefully stop them wasting court time and abusing the court process. Quest

Hi Redsue, I am at almost the same stage as you (MCOL filed and acknowledged) against Nationwide. Where did you end up / where are you now with them? I too have claimed 24.9% contractaul interest with another claim to file as soon as this one is over....which might be along time judging by your thread! Did you give up on the contractual or are you still battling it out? Quest

Hi to everyone who is challenging the Nationwide. I am currently at the MCOL served / acknowledged stage and I am anticipating that the Nationwide will cave in and pay up very soon. What I would like to do, in anticipation of them caving in and paying up, is gather evidence via CAG of other claimants who have filed against Nationwide only for them to acknowledge (i.e. pretend to defend) and then pay up. I want to write to the Northampton court with a list of cases where they behaved this way. It's time to stop the Banks abusing the court process and wasting time. Please reply to this thread if you have filed against Nationwde and they acknowledged your claim, but paid up without going to court or offering a defence. I need to know:- 1) your MCOL / claim number 2) confirmation that Nationwide acknowledged 3) confirmation that they DIDNT actually defend, but paid up after acknowledgement. Please also supply dates for all of the above. If I get a body of enough evidence, then I will write to the court and ask them not to accept any more aknowledgements from the Nationwide,and seek default judgement in favour of all future bank charge claims against them. I beleieve from reading other bank threads that some county courts have already begun to rule this way and challenge bank behaviour. Even if I dont achieve the desired result, this action will start to put pressure on the Nationwide and raise awareness with the court that the process is continually being abused. Quest Also, could a mod please answer this question. if when claiming via local court or via MCOL we are allowed to enter any valid address for the defendant (e.g. a branch address) for court correspondance, why is everyone making it easier for the banks by submitting the claim with their Head Office address? I recently won against Bank of Scotland and listed my local branch as the address for all dealings with the court. BoS failed to defend in time and I won by default. I suspect that their admin was so poor that using the branch network instead of their Head Office acted in my favour! It seems that they may have got tied up in their own admin red tape. If this tactic is a valid one and could work in favour of the claimant, then why not advise everyone on this forum to stop making life easy for the Banks and make them work a bit harder in response to these claims!

Hi Lori, this is a standard reply from Nationwide; I got the same. The timeframe is yours NOT THEIRS. You dont have to wait 8 weeks. If you feel you have given them sufficient notice AND they have refused to refund your charges (in writing) then go ahead and file on-line. Remember you do not have to play to their tune, you call the shots and determine the progress of your claim, not them I sent them two letters, including an LBA. As soon as they replied stating ....go away we're not giving you your money back, I filed . Im a couple of days away from them defending and then, if they behave as they have in ALL other cases, they will pay up. Remember, in the small claims court, you are not liable for their costs even if they were to win (which they won't). So your down side is minimal (your court fees) and your upside is the return of all your charges Hope this helps

Hi Zootscoot, I understand your point re Banks having more incentive to go through the fast track process because they stand a chance at least to recover some of their costs. This of course assumes they 'believe' they can win. If every thread I have read so far bears testimony to the liklihood of any bank wininng a bank charges case, then this suggests that they have no chance. The basis of my case remains the unlawful taking of charges and subsequent to this the compenstion of interest on the monies taken. Unless you are saying that because I am claiming contractual interest, which raises difficult legal arguments, that I might lose the case...then I dont see a downside. Clearly I will 'hedge my bets' with the court and ask for contractual but as a fallback, revert to statutory. So the best I can see the Bank achieving is that they win the argument on contractual, but I win the charges and statutory interest. This assumes that they have the appetite to defend and risk losing in court on the main charge ...namely unlawful bank charges. I have read many threads advising against splitting claims to stay within the small claims process, and I tend to agree with the majority that seem to suggest that unless I have a bonafide reason to split my claim (which I dont), then I should claim in one go. Splitting the claim has its advantages for sure, but I risk the court deciding that my action in vexatious and striking out the subsequent claim. This would lose me more than dropping my clain fro contractual and just going for statuory interest. Id appreciate your view on this, particularly if you are saying that I risk jeopardising my entire case because of the claim for contractual. If claiming contractual is unlikely to jeopardise the entire claim, then there seems little downside going fast track. Your view ? Quest

Hi Caro, appreciate your sticking with me on this...didnt mean to get balshy with you Looked at the thread you provided re fast track..and as far as I can tell this is about mortgage early repayment / settlements and not about bank charges..but does get across the point about costs in the event of a loss in the Fast Track process. I am confident that, looking at just about every thread on bank charges, that the case will not be thrown out. The element regarding contractual interest is, as you rightly point out, a risk. BUT I rely on the fallback to statutory interest AND the fact that the law is on my side wrt unlawful bank charges. So the basis of my claim is sound. If Nationwide offer a defence I will ask them to provide standard disclosure and at this point I expect them to cave in. I am prepared to go to court on this and am already preparing my court bundle, with plenty of help from this site. My expectation is that I wont end up in court ; If the banks believed they had even a chance of success in court, why havent they done so on hundreds of previous ocasions?. They are caught between a rock and a hard place and I intend to take advantage of that. Nationwide, if you're reading this, pay up or I'll see you in court Furthermore if as I suspect, Nationwide continue to abuse the court process by pretending to defend then backing down as they have done so far, I will write to the court and advise them of this in the hope that any future claims against them will be found in favour of the claimant and default judgement given.

Just have one final question; if Im claiming contractual interest, do I add this figure to the charges figure in the 'amount claimed' box on the N1 form ? ,........ so If Im claiming £5250 in charges and £5300 in contractual interest, do I put £5250 in the box or £10,550 in the box?

Hi Nursiepoos, Im just about to file against Nationwide for over £5k charges plus another £5k+ contractual interest. Did you go for contractual interest or just statutory and how did you find the fast track process? Quest. PS well done

Hi Caro, I cant remember which thread it was but I did find a couple of references on CAG to 'Fairness & balance ' (see below) The Claimants, believe the contractual unauthorised overdraft interest rate of 24.9% to be justified under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity, and is based on the unauthorised borrowing rate that would be applied under the terms and conditions of the account held by the Claimants. The Office of Fair Trading states in The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 - "fairness and balance require that both parties to a contract are equally bound by it, and equally liable to pay compensation for failure to abide by it." Nationwide MO is that they deny everything and then cave in and pay up once filed. As with almost everyone else before me, I am hoping that I wont have to go to court, and the Fast Track, whilst in theory more risky, also affords some benefits. IF as I think most who visit CAG believe that we are right and have law on our side, then it seems very unliekly that any Bank will actually defend and go to court. IF this is the likely outcome, then surely everyone should be claiming Contractaul interest as it is unlikely to be defended. Even if it is (pre court, via the AQ), claimants can surely always fall back on S69 statuory interest. So where is the down side? re splitting claims, I have seen some threads which have demonstrated that the Banks have asked the court to throw out subsequent claims, particularly if the claimant has no grounds for splitting the claim. The Nationwide have scr...d me for 6 years and I intend to do the same to them. I am prepared to take the risk (though I believe this is minimal) to see justice done. If I understand the process correctly, Fast Track allows me to ask for Standard Disclosure which will FORCE Nationwide (if they try to issue a defence) to disclose their true transcation costs...i dont believe they will go this far as it would be commercial suicide and could open the floodgates. Forgive me for being forthright here, but I am somehwt surprised that you are recommending two courses of action (split claim and drop contractual ) which to date I have seen (and received) plenty of advice to the contrary. Quest

Thanks Caro, mmmmmm, this is a difficult one. I have read threads that suggest NOT to split claim as this could be seen vetaxious by the court. Also, I will make it very clear that if the court disagrees with the claim for contractual, that I will revert to claiming statutory interest at 8%. Based on every other case vs nationwide so far, I am reasonably confident thay this wont go all the way to court. Given that I can also ask for standard disclosure via the Fast Track process I am hoping that this will frighten Nationwide into submission. I will also be using the 'Fairness & Balance' argument to support claim for contractual interest. I have seen some threads that suggest this DOES have some legal basis. Given that many seem to have won their cases with contractual interest, i will progress . I also understand that the Judge is likely not to award costs to full extent against an individual given I am up against a Multi National who have so far abused the court process. If you have any other view I'd be really interested to ehar Cheers Quest.

Please would a moderator take a look at this POC. I want to make sure I limit the opportunity for Nationwide to attack this. In particular would you comment on the specifics re the UTCA 1977 and UTCCA 1999 as I have noticed that certain bank defences have challenged the detail inlcuded in claims. Also, does my POC re claiming contractual ineterst stack up? This is a claim for over £5k plus over £5k interest so will file in Fast Track process. Thanks for your help Quest 1. The Claimant has a bank account, number xxx (‘the Account’), maintained at the Defendant’s xxx Branch (sort code xxx). 2. The Account is governed by the Defendant’s Personal Banking Terms and Conditions (‘the contract’) 3. During the period in which the Account has been operating, the Defendant has debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant. 4. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant. 5. A schedule of the charges (charge description, charge amount and charge date) is attached to these particulars of claim (Appendix 1). a) The Claimant contends that the charges debited to the Account: i) are punitive in nature; ii) are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant and therefore contrary to common law – Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd vs New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915) AC 79; iii) exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; iv) are not intended to represent or relate to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit. b) Further to 5.a), the Claimant contends that the charges debited to the Account are penalties rather than liquidated damages. A charge is held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison to the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach. A penalty clause is void in its entirety and unenforceable. The facts relevant to the claimant’s right of action are that the defendant is unjustly enriched by exercising the contractual terms in respect of default charges as if they were a legitimate loss or cost, whilst it is in actual fact profiting in a material sense from the charges, the defendant can be seen to have been operating without accountability to its customers, and to have consciously concealed the facts. The defendant is clearly in a privileged position to have direct means of withdrawing monies from the Claimants bank account. The claimant is entitled to know whether the charges levied represent a justifiable business cost, or whether they are in fact a penalty, and to expect that the defendant will always conduct itself with integrity. Although invited to do so, the Defendant has failed to provide any such justification or provide a breakdown of its actual costs or losses as a result of the breaches. c) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) para 8 and schedule 2(1)(e), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 s4, and under common law. d) In the alternative to 5.a), b) and c), if the Court finds that the charges are not a penalty, then the Claimant contends that they are unreasonable within the meaning of s.15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. 6. The Claimant will further rely on the Office of Fair Trading’s (‘the OFT’) statement of 5th April 2006 concerning default charges in credit card contracts, as the OFT’s recommendations regarding standard default terms in credit card contracts have wider implications, as regards bank current Account agreements. 7. Contractual Interest a) The Claimant claims compound interest on the amounts claimed under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, using the rate and method specified in the said contract, and as is applied by the Defendant to monies it is owed. b) The Claimant’s grounds for seeking restitution of the compounded contractual rate of interest is that the Defendant would be unjustly enriched if the Claimant's entitlement was limited to the statutory rate of interest in that the Defendant has had use of the sums and would have used these sums to re-lend at commercial compounded rates. c) The Claimant contends that the taking of unlawful penalties from the Claimant’s Account is unauthorised borrowing by the Defendant. Therefore, under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Claimant has calculated compound interest at the unauthorised rate (24.9%) applied by the Defendant to bank accounts governed by the Defendant’s Personal Banking Terms and Conditions. The claimant informed the Defendant in writing on 15th January, 2007 of its intention to claim compounded contractual interest in the event the claim proceeded to court. The defendant was invited to settle the claim prior to court action on two occasions (15th & 31st January, 2007). The defendant failed to respond to the Claimants letter of 15th January and declined to settle out of court in its reply to the claimant’s letter of 31st January. d) In the alternative to 7.c), if the Court decides that the Claimant is not entitled to the contractual rate of interest under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity or unjust enrichment in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, then the Claimant has calculated interest under section 69 County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% a year. e) Details of interest calculated & rates used are attached to these Particulars of Claim (Appendix 1) as follows: - Compound interest calculated daily at an annual rate of 24.90% (the contractual unauthorised rate) - Interest under s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at an annual rate of 8.00% 8. Accordingly, the Claimant claims: a) The return of charges debited between xx/2001 and xx07 in the sum of £5K+. b) All applicable Court fees c) Contractual interest at an annual rate of 24.90 % compounded daily from the date of each transaction to 11th February 2007, of £5k+, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £3.21 d) In the alternative to 8.c), interest under section 69 County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% a year, from the date of each transaction to 11th February 2007, of £1181.65 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £1.14. I believe the contents of this claim are true.

I am just about to file my fast track claim against Nationwide. for £10k+. Could a moderator please let me know if a template N1 form exists showing how to represent claim for charges plus contractual compound interest. The templates Ive managed to view only mention statutory interest at 8%. Quest