Nationwide Victory

[garyclay]

Hi All,

 

I was set to meet Nationwide in Court on 14th February to reclaim 2014.05 in illegal charges.

 

They finally contacted me today to settle in full.

 

The letter reads

 

“Dear Mr Clay

 

Re: Clay –v- Nationwide Building Society

Claim No. 5KH07357

 

Further to my letter of 31 January, I have now received further instructions in respect of your claim.

 

The cost to Nationwide of arranging representation at the hearing on 14 February makes it uneconomic for us to continue to defend your claim. For this, and no other, reason I am instructed to settle your claim, in full.

 

I enclose a cheque in the sum of £2,014.05 which is made up, as follows :-

 

Total claim as per claim form 1,877.78

Allocation Fee 100.00

Interest from 1 November 2005 to 14 February 2006 36.28

2,014.05

 

Please ensure that you notify the court that your claim has been settled, immediately.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Charles Bacon

Solicitor

 

Encs

Cc Hull County Court”

 

Considering the fact they were using an internal Nationwide solicitor rather than an independent I think this is a seriously thin argument!

 

This is my second victory. The first was for a similar amount against another high street bank. However they insisted on a confidentiality agreement and as I was desperate for the money I agreed!

 

I would like to thank Bob Egerton for his amazing support and assistance. Bob, you are a real gentleman and I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

 

I am happy for this information to be disseminated freely and wish all other claimants a successful settlement.

 

 

All the best

 

Gary Clay

[Guest stephen]

well done that a another bank the come up with a story to cover why the settled. hope to see you on the protest in march

[Guest]

This is indeed excellent news. Maybe we should start a thread in the library of excuses the banks use NOT to defend in court.

 

With Stephen it was "We would have liked to, but he wasn't a customer." with gary it's "The sum is so small it's uneconomic for us to defend"... my, there's almost as many excuses coming out as they produce for charging...

 

Congratulations. It's a shame they refused to defend (someday someone will get them into court and they'll lose) but this is a good victory.

 

I'm very pleased for you.

[stubbarama]

Brilliant news Gary, Any doubts I had about my claim against the Nationwide have been put to rest.

 

Enjoy the money.

[Bookworm]

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

 

(1 down, 300.000 to go, lol)

 

xxx

ML

[bobegerton]

See letter that I am sending to Nationwide:

 

Mr Philip Williamson, Chief Executive

Nationwide Building Society

Nationwide House

Pipers Way

Swindon SN38 1NW

 

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

 

Dear Mr Williamson

Ref: Gary Clay vs. Nationwide Building Society

I am writing to ask you to cease the practice of imposing penalty charges on your customers when they breach their contracts with you. You should be aware by now that the contracts into which your company enters with your customers, both for current accounts and for credit cards, contain clauses that, if tested in the courts, would be found to be penalties and, therefore, not legally enforceable.

The law on this subject is clear. Any clause that seeks to impose automatic damages on a party in breach of contract is only enforceable if it is construed as liquidated damages. If the sum of money set as payable is disproportionate to the loss likely to be sustained by the other party, then the clause is deemed to be a penalty and is, therefore, unenforceable. I will not bore you with a list of the cases that support this proposition, because I am sure that, by now, you will have been briefed on this subject by your legal advisers.

I have held accounts with Nationwide for over 40 years. I have remained with Nationwide because it is still a mutual society and I believe that this is inherently a better business model than that of a typical bank plc. Therefore, it is particularly disappointing to find that Nationwide is applying unlawful charges in just the same way as the banks.

Nationwide was due to face Mr Gary Clay in Hull County Court on 14 February to defend a claim made by Mr Clay for recovery of unlawful charges. You filed a detailed defence including a long witness statement. You had appointed solicitors. You had clearly incurred significant costs in preparing for the day in court. I have been involved in a consumer campaign for the past year against these type of charges and I booked a day off work and a night in the Travelodge Hull so that I could be with Mr Clay to assist him with his case.

On 9 February, you totally capitulated and paid up rather than face Mr Clay in court. Your solicitor’s letter claimed “The cost to Nationwide of arranging representation at the hearing makes it uneconomic for us to continue to defend the claim. For this, and no other, reason I am instructed to settle your claim in full.” This is a preposterous statement. You had already incurred costs and the additional costs of appearing in court would have been relatively minor. I know that the reason that you did not go to court was because you feared that you would lose in open court and your whole charging structure would be blown out of the water; Mr Bacon, who wrote the letter, knows that this is the case; you know that this is the case. But you chose to sanction this letter to be written. I would expect that sort of unashamed hypocrisy from the chief executive of a plc answerable only to his shareholders. It is very sad, and doubly hypocritical when it comes from a man who said in an interview with Personnel Today just one month ago, “As a mutual organisation, our customers own us so we have a unique opportunity to say to them every day: 'I guarantee I only work for you, because we don't have shareholders’.”

In a further act of spiteful vindictiveness, you have now given Mr Clay notice to close his account. You do not have the guts to fight your case in court, but you have all the courage of a playground bully who kicks the small kid when the teacher is not looking.

Fortunately for your customers, you are answerable to them and you will be so at the society’s AGM. I look forward to seeing you then. That is of course is if you have not closed all my accounts by then and expelled me from your members’ club.

Meanwhile, before the AGM, Nationwide will have been sued by other members over the same issue. No doubt you will adopt the same pathetic tactics of disputing the claims, saying you are going to defend the cases, then failing to turn up in court.

If you have any conscience at all, now is the time to answer its call. Admit that the charging structure is wrong, change it, and recompense all of those members who have been disadvantaged by it. If you do so, you will earn the respect of your members and be a beacon of good practice in an industry that is generally institutionally dishonest. If you do not do so, the consumer campaign, plus the tardy OFT, will eventually bring about the overthrow of this unlawful system and you will be tarred with the same brush as all the banks. People will then ask, “what was the point of a mutual society, it is just as bad as all the other crooks?”

Please do not insult my intelligence, nor dig your career into an even deeper hole, by replying to me and claiming that you are advised that your charges are lawful.

Yours sincerely

Bob Egerton

[bobegerton]

See letter that I am sending to Nationwide:

 

Mr Philip Williamson, Chief Executive

Nationwide Building Society

Nationwide House

Pipers Way

Swindon SN38 1NW

 

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

 

Dear Mr Williamson

Ref: Gary Clay vs. Nationwide Building Society

I am writing to ask you to cease the practice of imposing penalty charges on your customers when they breach their contracts with you. You should be aware by now that the contracts into which your company enters with your customers, both for current accounts and for credit cards, contain clauses that, if tested in the courts, would be found to be penalties and, therefore, not legally enforceable.

The law on this subject is clear. Any clause that seeks to impose automatic damages on a party in breach of contract is only enforceable if it is construed as liquidated damages. If the sum of money set as payable is disproportionate to the loss likely to be sustained by the other party, then the clause is deemed to be a penalty and is, therefore, unenforceable. I will not bore you with a list of the cases that support this proposition, because I am sure that, by now, you will have been briefed on this subject by your legal advisers.

I have held accounts with Nationwide for over 40 years. I have remained with Nationwide because it is still a mutual society and I believe that this is inherently a better business model than that of a typical bank plc. Therefore, it is particularly disappointing to find that Nationwide is applying unlawful charges in just the same way as the banks.

Nationwide was due to face Mr Gary Clay in Hull County Court on 14 February to defend a claim made by Mr Clay for recovery of unlawful charges. You filed a detailed defence including a long witness statement. You had appointed solicitors. You had clearly incurred significant costs in preparing for the day in court. I have been involved in a consumer campaign for the past year against these type of charges and I booked a day off work and a night in the Travelodge Hull so that I could be with Mr Clay to assist him with his case.

On 9 February, you totally capitulated and paid up rather than face Mr Clay in court. Your solicitor’s letter claimed “The cost to Nationwide of arranging representation at the hearing makes it uneconomic for us to continue to defend the claim. For this, and no other, reason I am instructed to settle your claim in full.” This is a preposterous statement. You had already incurred costs and the additional costs of appearing in court would have been relatively minor. I know that the reason that you did not go to court was because you feared that you would lose in open court and your whole charging structure would be blown out of the water; Mr Bacon, who wrote the letter, knows that this is the case; you know that this is the case. But you chose to sanction this letter to be written. I would expect that sort of unashamed hypocrisy from the chief executive of a plc answerable only to his shareholders. It is very sad, and doubly hypocritical when it comes from a man who said in an interview with Personnel Today just one month ago, “As a mutual organisation, our customers own us so we have a unique opportunity to say to them every day: 'I guarantee I only work for you, because we don't have shareholders’.”

In a further act of spiteful vindictiveness, you have now given Mr Clay notice to close his account. You do not have the guts to fight your case in court, but you have all the courage of a playground bully who kicks the small kid when the teacher is not looking.

Fortunately for your customers, you are answerable to them and you will be so at the society’s AGM. I look forward to seeing you then. That is of course is if you have not closed all my accounts by then and expelled me from your members’ club.

Meanwhile, before the AGM, Nationwide will have been sued by other members over the same issue. No doubt you will adopt the same pathetic tactics of disputing the claims, saying you are going to defend the cases, then failing to turn up in court.

If you have any conscience at all, now is the time to answer its call. Admit that the charging structure is wrong, change it, and recompense all of those members who have been disadvantaged by it. If you do so, you will earn the respect of your members and be a beacon of good practice in an industry that is generally institutionally dishonest. If you do not do so, the consumer campaign, plus the tardy OFT, will eventually bring about the overthrow of this unlawful system and you will be tarred with the same brush as all the banks. People will then ask, “what was the point of a mutual society, it is just as bad as all the other crooks?”

Please do not insult my intelligence, nor dig your career into an even deeper hole, by replying to me and claiming that you are advised that your charges are lawful.

Yours sincerely

Bob Egerton

[Guest stephen]

dam good letter Bod

 

lol we I am hoping to have some fun with the OFT tomz, you never know might even get a stright answer, have you heard back from the other letters you sent.?

[Guest stephen]

dam good letter Bod

 

lol we I am hoping to have some fun with the OFT tomz, you never know might even get a stright answer, have you heard back from the other letters you sent.?

[Dave Johnson]

Nice letter?Absolute rubbish,it is BRILLIANT!!!!

 

 

 

8)

 

 

Dave.

[Dave Johnson]

Nice letter?Absolute rubbish,it is BRILLIANT!!!!

 

 

 

8)

 

 

Dave.

[richardc]

BRILLIANT!!!

 

Keep it up - you have everyone's support

[richardc]

BRILLIANT!!!

 

Keep it up - you have everyone's support

[webwiz]

Just suppose they do the decent thing and refund charges to everyone, what do you think will happen to the people who have won their cases and already been refunded?

[Drivewasher]

What do you mean????

Those that have been refunded won't be refunded again, and as they won their cases they got their fees back, so they are not out of pocket.

It's would be a credit (pardon the pun) to those who have fought and won, when the banks finally cave in and refund all

[FANTASY CHARGES]

BETTER late than never 4.18 am discovered this thread well done !!

[JOSH_IOU]

nice letter bob 1

[JOSH_IOU]

nice letter bob 2 ha ha

[stewpot]

Well done. Im just at the start of the process to claim back my unjust bank charges from Nationwide and take heart from your succes. All the best

[garyclay]

This topic was closed on 03/05/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group