Nationwide withdrawing overdraft

[Its WAR]

I have offered them £600 to clear the £1200 overdraft. They have accepted the offer but will mark the credit file as partial settlement. I will not be accepting that condition. They have ignored the fact that the default notice was flawed and I could otherwise continue to the hearing set for April.

[freethemice]

subbing with interest.

I have my own battle to face with an Halifax overdraft and will start a new thread on this.

[Its WAR]

Nationwide returned my £600 cheque today. They would have accepted it in full and final payment of the £1200 overdraft, but insisted they would only mark the credit file as partly settled. I insisted the offer was made subject to the account marked fully satisfied (which it would be, if they made a goodwill payment first to equal the bank charges and interest).

 

Now, I will amend my claim that the account has no debt as they issued a flawed default notice. I just have to argue successfully as the account was an overdraft. If that part of the claim loses, then it will proceed to a standard bank charges reclaim, subject to the Govan Law Centres action.

[AA99]

bump

[Its WAR]

First I have to win the strike out hearing next week.

[Rhia]

OK It's War we'll be awaiting your news with great interest. I have seen a response to a request for refund of charges under s140 of the CCA and s5 of the UTCCR.

They have replied in a very slippy manner and tried to turn the argument back to "penalties" which the Supreme Court threw out. Make sure any argument you haver meets with "unfairness" terms of s140 CCA and s5(1) UTCCR an don't argue penalties as you will be playing into their hands.

[Its WAR]

So I had my day in court to defend against the banks application to strike out. The bank won and the case struck out. The banks barrister traveled from London (round trip 320 miles). The hearing lasted one hour. I lost mainly because I was unable to show specific instances in the banks handling of my account that confirmed they had breached Reg 5. The judge couldnt care less that the contract had not been individually negotiated and caused a significant imbalance in a number of matters (lack of mutuality, varying T&Cs, cross subsidy)he concerned himself only with whether that was contrary to the requirement of good faith. He decided that none of the banks actions were wanting of good faith. I was unable to show examples of the banks want of good faith in any of their dealings with my account and arguing in general terms was not working. My only argument was that the bank had withdrawn my facility and that was not fair. The judge thought it perfectly fair. Indeed, the contract was in very plain english, enabling the bank could do that, so I couldnt claim to have been misled. So thats why I lost.

 

Now, why the barrister won. He brought with him a copy of the OFT investigation on the UTCCRs. Section 3.12-15. The judge remarked that even the OFT highly experienced lawyers seemed to believe I had no case. Even though I argued that the Supreme Court suggested otherwise.

 

The barrister did try to suggest that the claim was in essence a complaint about fairness of price. I was adamant the case was not about price but fairness. The judge did not want to listen, but I believe he accepted my reasoning.

 

I explained how it would be unfair to strike out the claim in the light of the Govan case and a deferred judgment might be appropriate were Govan to win their case. The judge allowed that if the Govan case were such that, contrary to his view, an argument was found, I could apply to appeal out of time and receive sympathetic consideration.

 

I chose not to support my claim of unfairness regarding the banks withdrawing my facility (byissuing a flawed default notice) I had thought that as judge thought it fair for a bank to have that power, maybe he would change his opinion if in excercising that power, it must be done correctly. therefore it becomes unfair if the terminate the account wrongly by issueing a flawed default notice. I decided not to introduce the flawed default notice. The judged had already told me off for not mentioning my argument about the termination of my account in my particulars of claim and was now using that reason for trying to show a lack of good faith. Indeed, the barrister also complained that if I wanted to amend my particulars of claim to take account of the supreme court judgment and the Govan case,in due course, the claim would be significantly different to the one I had issued. It would therefore be appropriate to strike this claim out and I would then be at liberty to issue a new claim.

 

So I lost my arguments and the bank won theirs, and the judge was on the banks side from the moment the case started.

 

So, now I have a £1200 unauthorised overdraft which had a default notice issued which fixes the balance due. The bank will want their money. I can appeal or issue a new claim in a few weeks time. Or, the bank can sue me and I can defend. So its not game over. Its just another account that Nationwide will have a lot more grief over.

 

There were no costs. So the bank have lost around £1000 in paying the barrister. All for a £500 charges claim. I have lost £45 isssue fee. I be;lieve I paid an allocation fee, but there was no hearing.......IF there is no hearing, can I claim it back?

Edited April 14, 2010 by Its WAR

[ItsWar]

This old thread just fizzled out under the bank charges reclaim. But I have now started to receive demands for payment. New thread started.

[Its WAR]

Now getting partial settlement offers. Should I just ignore everything?