BankHater Business v Natwest

[bambers]

Hi Bankhater

 

The stay hearing was at the beginning of this month.

 

These are the points I made to the judge regarding the stay:

 

1.The claim relates to a business account not a current account - there is no evidence to suggest the outcome of the test case will have any bearing upon business accounts

 

2. The test case is based around whether bank charges are a breach of the UTCCRs. This case does not rely on these regs as they do not apply to business consumers.

 

3. We stand to suffer financially, for what could be several years before the test case is fully concluded - with interest accruing as a result of the unlawful charges

 

4. Staying the case may cause some of the charges in our claim to extend outside the limits of the limitation act 1980, thus predjudicing our changes of succeeding with the case at a later date

 

5. The claim was filed before the OFT announcement

 

6. When it suits Natwest they wish to stay the issue of charges, yet they still wish to continue charging them in the meantime.

 

Send in your pre-court letter to the judge outlining the above. It will ensure you get everything in without worrying about saying it on the day.

Don't worry about the hearing, just have all your info in order for the judge to look at if or when he asks eg. bank statements, list of charges, your POCs, don't forget a breakdown of your costs for the hearing, time off, travel, parking etc. Even the agent they sent to represent Natwest helped us before and after in the waiting room!

 

Hope this helps

 

 

Bambers:)

[bambers]

Hi All - especially Steven

 

I am so annoyed and frustrated. I did everything as we discussed with the allocation questionnaire and the court have now ordered a stay again pending the test case! - instead of strike out/hearing date or disclosure. (remenber this is a business account)

I now have to apply to have the stay lifted again - this clearly seem to be a court mistake as I have already had the stay lifted by a previous judge at the same court which was done at a hearing. I am totally at a loss as what to do next.

please can anyone advice?????

Bambers

[steven4064]

You could write to the court and remind them that the saty was lifted by the previous judge and all the stuff about the test cae not applying to business accounts because it only relates to the UTCCR, etc. You could even attach the OFT PoC.

 

Ask if it is a mistake. See if that does anything.

[bambers]

Thanks Steven, I'll try this tomorrow and let you know the result.

kind regards

Bambers

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi People,

 

Has anyone read the Abbey defence? It appears they go further than the 'service fee' defence. They now claim that every time you go over your overdraft (or make an Instant Overdraft Request as they now label it) you are in actual fact making an offer to the bank which the bank then decides whether to accept or not(i.e to pay the item or return it unpaid).

 

Any thoughts on this anyone?

 

TheyrCriminals

[andrew1]

Yes I have. on Oct 24th my account went .49p over the zero balance when I had a st/order of £30 odd presented so Abbey bounced the DD and charged me this £25 Instant Overdraft/Instant Overdraft Monthly Fee and £35 for Instant Overdraft Request fee. In other words £25 for going over the limit and £35 for bouncing a DD and I have written to ask them to explain themselves. Bloody nonsense. I actually, in fairness had the charges reversed when I complained and did a 'CAG' on them, but this new terminology is just another way of disguising the penalty and will be seen as such. Nothing has come to me to explain these changes and how they are to be interpreted.

[steven4064]

Presumambly, if they 'make a diceision' then they have to have a meeting to do it. AS the meeting is about you, you have a right to the minutes under the DPA. Yeh, right! The 'decision' is taken by a computer in about 2 microseconds.

[TheyrCriminals]

Guys,

 

Your missing the main point. Abbey are saying now that when you go over your overdraft, bounce a cheque or have insufficient funds to cover a direct debit yes ok the terminology for the charges they apply has changed, but also note that Abbey now say when you do go over your overdraft or bounce a cheque etc you are making an offer to them, they then decide whether to accept it or not.

 

TheyrCriminals

[steven4064]

And like I said, the decision is made by computer not people and cost absolutely nothing.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Steven,

 

My concern is that whether a computer makes the decision or not is immaterial to the fact that in law Abbey are now saying the customer makes the bank an offer when he/she goes over their overdraft, or has insufficient funds to pay a direct debit etc. This therefore appears the legality of things changes.

 

TheyrCriminals

[steven4064]

I think all you have to do is to produce last week's T&Cs and preferrably those form a couple of years ago and compare them wit the new ones. It will be clear to everyone that they have just chanegd them to hide the fact that they are unlawful penalties. The fact that they have changed the words is irrelevant - a disguised penalty is a disguised penalty (however 'clever' the disguise).

[BankLover_not]

Hi Guys,

 

Just to give you an update, the day before the hearing (10th December 2007) Cobbets withdrew their application for the stay to be lifted. And the court informed us we did not need to attend. We obviously put in a full written submission as to why the stay should be lifted anyway (it was a business account and fell outside the scope of the test case etc) and we have heard nothing since. Why do you reckon Cobbetss pulled out right at the last minute? And does this mean the stay won't be lifted now?

 

BankLover_not

[hedgey06]

Sounds as though Cobbetts got cold feet TBH. Good old Cobbetts though.......... fashionably late as usual. They've seen quite a few stays lifted on their business claims lately............ perhaps they're too skint to payout?

 

Doesn't mean that the stay won't be lifted as this is up to the DJ (thankfully) and not Cobbetts. However, contact the court first thing Monday morning to find out what's happened - as if the stay has been lifted you'll have preparation to do to see the rest of your claim through. x

[BankLover_not]

Thanks hedgey, does anybody else have any other theories why Cobbetts suddenly pulled out? Haven't seen this anywhere on this site yet.

 

P. S What does TBH mean hedgey? (Thought it might be a reference to BankHater!)

 

BankLover_not

[hedgey06]

TBH = To be honest!

[steven4064]

Tdoes anybody else have any other theories why Cobbetts suddenly pulled out?

All I can say is that you can be sure they haven't done it out of the goodness of their hearts or to help you

[bambers]

Hi

 

In response to my letter to the court about a 2nd stay being applied (although I have already attended one hearing regarding this and warded off Cobbetts application for a stay). I have now been given another hearing date for my application to have the stay (applied by the court without request from either party) lifted, so I will have to attend a virtually duplicate hearing - which seems ridiculous and cost wasting!

 

I am concerned that they may have found a way around upholding the business account stays, due to Cobbetts withdrawl from having the stay lifted in Bankhater's case.

 

Also at the last hearing the judge was of the opinion that the OFT case would have an effect on penalty charges generally and therefore would have a 'knock on' effect for all types of banking - I doubt the banks will voluntarily reduce charges on business accounts after the test case in the argument that the case only covered the UTTCRs etc!

 

Does anyone know of any really recent business stays being lifted? any advice/comment would be much appreciated.

 

Bambers:o