Peasant v Natwest - No CCA **WON**

[revolting peasant]

They refer to S.77 in the letter in that they intend to demonstrate that it is intended to provide information to the debtor, not to penalise the creditor.

 

Interestingly they make no reference to S.127

[steven4064]

S77 is just the section that entitles you to a copy of the executd agreement. It is true that the object of the section is to allow the debtor to find out information about the debt that (s)he may have lost - amount borrowed, repayments, APR, that sort of thing, and how much is still to pay. They are right, it is not intended to penalise the creditor. However, it does give effective redress to 'debtors' who have no debt and penalises 'creditors' who have not lent any money, or who have tried it on on some other way. As you say, S127 is the killer - no CCA no debt. If there is no debt, they are not creditors, penalised or otherwise. End of story.

[revolting peasant]

I've just checked MCOL and it is showing that they have received both defences and counterclaims and both cases have been transferred to my local County Court.

 

I'm not expecting miracles but.........

[steven4064]

One step nearer though

[revolting peasant]

And a giant step back:mad:

 

AQ's have arrived from the Court today and for my counterclaim they require a court fee in excess of £1500.

 

As there are 2 claims, myself and my wife, thats over 3 grand in fees. Quite obviously I don't have that kind of money!

 

Any thoughts anybody?

[gaz2006]

Court fee is based I think on the amount of your counterclaim if you reduce the claim then court fees will be less what are you claiming Regards Gaz

[revolting peasant]

There was no amount quoted, only "at the Court's discretion" and 2 parts of the counterclaim are for non financial remedies

[steven4064]

And a giant step back:mad:

 

AQ's have arrived from the Court today and for my counterclaim they require a court fee in excess of £1500.

 

As there are 2 claims, myself and my wife, thats over 3 grand in fees. Quite obviously I don't have that kind of money!

 

Any thoughts anybody?

The fee they have quoted you is for a claim of "over £300,000 or an unlimited amount". That is ridiculous. Change the amount of claim to "I don't expect to recover more than £5000" and the fee will drop to £108. If you made it £3000, it would be £85. Complete fees here

[revolting peasant]

I looked at the current fees and it just confused me.

 

Will I need to make an application to amend the counterclaim and pay a fee for that?

[steven4064]

I don't think you need to make an application because, if you have not paid the fee, you have not started the counterclaim. Just contact te court and tell them you want to make a clarification to the claim.

 

I think this has arisen because a form N1 wasn't used as it was a counterclaim rather than a claim

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

hi

guys i'm not anywhere near the claims stage yet, but thanks for clearing up the fee issue, I nearly suffered a heart attack.

 

Andy

[revolting peasant]

I don't think you need to make an application because, if you have not paid the fee, you have not started the counterclaim. Just contact te court and tell them you want to make a clarification to the claim.

 

I think this has arisen because a form N1 wasn't used as it was a counterclaim rather than a claim

 

So if I send an amended counterclaim the fees should come down to a sensible amount

[steven4064]

I think so (maybe ring first to check)

[revolting peasant]

I was going to ring them in the morning. It just seems that people on here talk more sense;)

[steven4064]

I've always found my local court quite helpful (5 claims filed, 4 won, one pending)

[revolting peasant]

Got the AQ and draft directions from Natwests poodles this morning. They have asked for a stay of one month to allow the parties to negotiate a settlement and have requested the matter be listed for trial in the 3 weeks commencing 1st November 2008.

 

Is there a reason why thay have asked for it to be listed in 8 months time. If they are that confident why not just bring it into court and get on with it?

 

Incidentally, they have also put a costs estimate of £5000.

[revolting peasant]

I've got the AQ and response to defence from the other firm instructed by Natwest.

 

In the response to the defence they state that "Section 127(4) was repealed in the 2006 Act.

 

Am I right in thinking that this is irrelevant to an alleged loan taken out in 2005 as whether there was an agreement or not, the legislation contained in the 2006 act was not and could not have been in force?

[steven4064]

You are absolutely right. Yes, s127(3) (4 is not relevant to your agreement, I don't think) was repealed in the 2006 Act but it still applies to agreements signed before that came into force in April (I think) 2006.

[revolting peasant]

I've had a directions order from the court today and I'm intrigued by it.

 

The Judge has ordered standard disclosure of documents BY SERVING COPIES", not by list as I had expected.

 

This is not a problem for me as all I have to provide is copies of correspondence between me and them which demonstrates that by their own admission there is no agreement.

 

Is the Judge giving them one last chance to produce the agreement before the trial, which is listed for September, otherwise surely they have no case?

[JonCris]

These accounts are called Capital & Interest & for 'internal' use only & should not have been used to litigate that's why the OP cannot relate any of what he knows to what the bank are claiming.

 

It's important that the OP contact another site member Mr Paul Walton who knows all about this situation & who may be able to help get this action postponed or even stopped

 

He together with others has written evidence from this same bank which confirms the above which I'm sure he would be only to happy to provide

 

If the OP did have an account there is the added distinct possibility that the bank are relying on T's & C's which have no bearing to those originally entered into.

[revolting peasant]

Now I'm really confused.

 

Last week I had the directions order for the claim against my wife which was pretty straight forward in itself.

 

Yesterday I got one for the claim against me which orders that the claim be allocated to the Fast Track and heard together with the claim against my wife.

 

If both claims are to be heard together, does this order superceed the one issued on my wifes claim or do I have to comply with both, even though they are slightly different and have different timescales? The claim against my wife is listed for September but the Judge who made the order for both to be heard together has ordered them to be listed for November.

[steven4064]

I think you neex to ring the court and ask

[revolting peasant]

On my list of things to do tomorrow Steven - just wondered if anyone knew so I could avoid a sleepless night thinking about it;)

[steven4064]

I would also ask the court if it is normal practice to combine claims like this. It seems a bit odd when, for example, the DPA would (allegedly) prevent them from giving you details of her case and v.v.

[revolting peasant]

Both defences refer to the other action which was designed on my part to draw attention to the fact that Natwest were harassing us and not acting properly so it wouldn't have been difficult for the DJ to ask for the other file. No problems with DPA as it was clear that both myself and my wife were aware of the cases against each other.