Nat West taking me to court to recover charges

[Sidhe]

Hi all.

 

I have already applied to reclaim my charges, and informed the bank that I will not repay any charges therefore on my account, which is more or less the entire balance on the account. They still seem to be pressing for court action and have threatened to send the Bailiffs in if the case wins.

 

What are my options now. Should I contact the legal firm that is processing my claim against Nat West or..? I can't pay anyway being unemployed and the charges being about £900, of which about £100 is an overdraft and the rest is charges. However going back six years I think they will end up owing me money.

 

So what are my options, thanks.

[42man]

Welcome to the CAG forums Sidhe....am I right in saying they haven't actually started a court claim as such...

 

SEND THEM THIS RECORDED

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for the above referenced letter,although I am totally bemused as to why I have received it.

 

The author of the letter seems to have taken no notice of the present state of the account as it stands,for the following reasons :-

 

1) In August of 2007 in the High Court banks applied for and were granted, ‘stays’, to claims for ‘penalty charges ‘ Part of the High Court Order states that NO ENFORCEMENT ACTION IS TO BE TAKEN BY THE BANK TO RECOVER any supposed charges made by them ,until the OFT Test Case has been resolved.AND in addition should any action be taken by the Bank,then the ‘stay’will be lifted,and no doubt ,judgement would be awarded in my favour..

 

2) I am sure that Natwest conform to The Banking Code,and as such I will draw your attention to s13.6, reference information you may NOT pass on,IF an account is in dispute.The High Court Order I would suggest is reasonable evidence to assume that this account is in dispute.

 

3) I am also sure that Natwest are fully au fait with the, Office of Fair Tradings code for

Debt Collection Guidance,and I draw your attention to the latest information from their publication,July 2003(updated December 2006);-

 

The following are deemed to be at the very least UNFAIR practices.

 

a) Section 2,2 b,Leaving out or presenting information ,in such a way that it creates a false or misleading impression .or exploits debtors’ lack of knowledge.

HOW you could miss the ‘stay’on the accounts is beyond me.

 

b)Psychological harassment,as described in Section 2.6 g,making threatening statements or gestures ,or taking actions suggesting harm.

Your last paragraph of your letter threatening collection agencies etc.

 

c) Section 2.6 h,Ignoring or disregarding claims ,that debts are settled or disputed ,and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment.

 

d) Section 2.6 I,Disclosing or threatening to disclose,debt details to third parties ,unless legally entitled to do so.

 

e) Section 2.6 k,Not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt

 

I can only assume that based on the above,that this letter must have been sent in error,as I am certain you would not wish it to be seen as VEXATIOUS.

 

Your letter has obviously caused me a great deal of unnecessary concern,and worry,resulting in me having to take third party advice,undergo law and internet research,and take time out from my employment,as well as postage costs,to reply to your letter.As you are a Bank,and regularly make charges to customers,I have taken the liberty of charging you the sum of £35,which I will add to my costs against yourselves.

 

I further feel,that as a show of good faith by the Bank,that any further fees and/or interest should be frozen,pending the outcome of the OFT Test Case.

 

I would also point out that I intend to maintain my legal rights,and if necassary, file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action.including the High Court.

 

I trust you will give this due diligence,and look forward to your reply within the next 14 days.

 

Yours faithfully

[noomill060]

Send that letter.

[JonCris]

Also send a copy to the FSA & the OFT anyway.

 

So much for the terms of THEIR waiver. Being mostly former bankers themselves it's not as if they'll care but It'll show them how the banks don't give a toss about them OR their waiver

[Sidhe]

Thanks a bundle guys, pity my printer doesn't work. I'll have to get access to one.

 

It bemuses me that they try it on like this, I mean the legal firm have asked for my account balance over the last 6 years, and are demanding they pay back the charges, if that's not a contested account then what is? I think they think I'm a bit stupid and I'll cave when they threaten to overstep their legal authority? They've got no right to do this and to be honest I might take you up on the OFT thing too, shocking really.

[flyingdoc]

who is the company trying to recover your charges, and have you informed them of this?

[Sidhe]

It's CapQuest Debt Recovery Limited, Fleet, Hampshire.

 

 

 

I have just emailed them that letter, what annoys me is they started legal action 2 days before I received the letter as well, which apparently took over a week to arrive and was drafted on the 26th of January? Apparently it takes 10 days for a letter to get about 20 miles. I'm sure Nat West and their lawyers know full well that they can't do this, as I've told them the situation several times before, to several different levels of their organisation.

 

Let's see what they say to that. I have also offered to send them the legal firms name and address if they wish to contact them to confirm the account is disputed.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Sidhe

[maroondevo52]

Thread moved.

[Sidhe]

I think your letter worked, I got another letter today saying the claim has been suspended until 19/2 until they can look into the matter. Which probably means they'll back down.

 

Thanks again.

[IdaInFife]

Just to confirm, you have lodged at court for your bank charges?

 

 

Ida x

[Sidhe]

Just to confirm, you have lodged at court for your bank charges?

 

 

Ida x

 

A legal firm has applied for return of charges, but the bank has deferred to the outstanding court case and has said it could take 3 years to answer any claims.

 

I just got another letter this time from S.R.J debt recoveries, on the same account. I wonder really whether they realise that ultimately this can only cost them more and more money? But it seems a small debt of under a thousand pounds is worth expending far more than that on the basis that I'll be intimidated into giving up my rights.

 

The point is if it goes to court I will win according to the above letter, so it's not in their interest to do anything. Apparently this has now been referred to a field agent, whatever that means. Either way this new company is not in contact with the other company, and I'll have to send them the same letter again.

Edited February 12, 2009 by Sidhe

[JonCris]

Sidhe You could remind both that they CAN be sued for harrasment

[Sidhe]

Sidhe You could remind both that they CAN be sued for harrasment

 

I have asked them to stop harassing me, if they fail to refer this back to Nat West then I will do just that, thanks Jon.

[JonCris]

Remember Nat West are also liable for their agents behaviour

[IdaInFife]

I thought they could still pursue unless you had actually lodged you refund at court?

 

Ida x

[Sidhe]

I thought they could still pursue unless you had actually lodged you refund at court?

 

Ida x

 

How can you lodge your refund in court, if all cases are frozen pending the test case? All the legal firm can do is ask for a list of charges in preparation of the result of the test case, I'm sure if they could have taken it to court or lodged the complaint formally they would have done. Besides contested is implicit in the OFT rulings on the issue isn't it? And thus Nat West are forbidden from acting on any account that is currently under contested status.

 

Remember Nat West are also liable for their agents behaviour

 

The way they have acted in this matter convinces me that they think they are above the law, or that by threatening people who are ignorant of it they can get away with taking advantage. The thing is you'd think they would have got the message I am not ignorant by now. As if the banks didn't already have a bad reputation for their practices. Oh well it isn't my problem it's theirs I think now. Let's see what the other firm says to the letter.

[JonCris]

I thought they could still pursue unless you had actually lodged you refund at court?

 

Ida x

 

If a debt is in dispute then OFT guidelines state you should NOT try & enforce it until the matter is resolved:-x

[Sidhe]

If a debt is in dispute then OFT guidelines state you should NOT try & enforce it until the matter is resolved:-x

 

This place is a Godsend, I can't believe I never found it before. Thanks all you're really doing a Stirling job.

 

Not heard back from the other firm, no news is good news I suppose.