Nat West Bank Charges

[stan5131]

No Natty, I dont have facility to record the call. Moreso, when speaking to solicitors, you would not expect to have to! Wish I had!

 

Anyway, have received another letter from Cobbetts this morning, even more ridiculous than the last.. they have realised that they now need to change tactics......

 

 

Upon consideration of the statements you provided in your evidence pack we note that you set out in your schedule charges incurred on 15 May 2000 and 29 June 2000. Under the Limitation Act 1980, you cannot bring a claim more than 6 years afte the date on which the cause of action accrued. You issued your claim on 10 November 2006 and you are therefore only legally entitled to claim between the periods 10 November 2000 and 10 November 2006. As such, you cannot claim for the charges incurred before 10 November 2000 which from your scedule total £53.00.

 

In any event, our client considers that your challenge to its charges would fail in Court. Our client believes that its charges are fair.. blah blah blah. As such our client does not believe that your claim has any prospect of suceeding.

 

However, as a gesture of goodwill and strictly on the basis that our client rejects any liability to you, it is willing to offer you a goodwill payment of £2,300.

 

Acceptance by you will be in full and final....blah blah... confidentiality....blah blah. In the even that you decline this offer, we will draw this letter to the Court's attention on the basis that we hold the firm view that this offer is entirely reasonable in the circumstances blah blah blah.

[Deller]

What date did you send your preliminary letter, as it's this date the six years start from, not the filing claim date?

[stan5131]

Stansfield5131

 

 

Cobblers

King Street

Manchester

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Your client - National Westminster Bank Plc

Claim Number - XXXXXX

 

Further to my telephone conversation with your offices, and your letter both dated 3rd January, I am somewhat perplexed by its content.

 

In recent communication, you claimed to be seeking to strike out the claim on grounds that I, the claimant, had not provided further information relating to particulars of the claim i.e. a schedule of the charges. Following my telephone call with your offices of yesterday, it would seem that you are not only in possession of the schedule, but have been for some time.

 

Having established that this can now no longer be your defence, you clearly now seek to change delaying tactics as outlined in your second paragraph which relates to the Limitation Act 1980 and charges on my schedule prior to 10 November 2000. As you are well aware, the Limitation Act does not apply when the true facts and costs have been concealed and your client should think themselves fortunate that I have not made a claim dating back to the early 1990's.

 

Your offer of £2,300 is riduculous considering that your client made an offer of £2,400 back in September 2006 before litigation had commenced. This offer was declined as full settlement.

 

Furthermore, your reference considering that this claim would fail in court is nonesense. I am personally aware of thousands of other such claims bought against your client. Your client has not attended to defend one single claim todate, opting to settle in full prior to the hearing. Your corrspondence on this matter is another attempt to delay and intimidate when you are fully aware that you have no defence.

 

I am writing to the courts today, asking for full disclosure of your clients true costs. I will also be pointing out to the Judge that despite having always been in possession of the schedule of charges, that you continued to use this argument in order to delay proceedings and intimidate the claimant into withdrawing the claim. You are clearly wasting my time, and more importantly the courts time.

 

Further be advised that a claimant has successfully claimed not only the unlawful charges taken from their account, but was awarded compensation for stress, time, and distress in bringing about the claim which was unduly defended with intimidatory and delaying tactics.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

Stansfield5131

[stan5131]

What do you think Deller?

[Deller]

Excellent stuff stansfield, this letter will be added to my favourites!!

[stan5131]

Cheers mate, always good to get positive feedback.

[livelylad]

How about a para stating that you are going to inform the judge of their actions reagrding the schedule and their blatant delaying and intimidation tactics. Also a letter regarding their conduct as a law firm? I cant remember the address Hag has it.

[stan5131]

Thanks Livelylad. have made amendments as you suggested. I am faxing off today then putting it in the post and copying to the courts.

[natwesttookmymoney]

Great stuff, Angela

W

[stan5131]

Ahhhh... Westy! Glad you are back. Just going out for couple hours. Will catch up tonight.

[brenda/bruce]

Hi Stansfield

Received the same letter as you, claiming they were going to ask for a the case to be struck out because of the dates. And offered me £4500.

I was really panic stricken until i read your post and i now realise it is just another one of ther delay tactics.

[stan5131]

Brenda, this is obviously their new tactic........ but we have a bigger boat!!!!

[stan5131]

Right. As Natwest are insistant on dragging out this claim, and will use the transfer to Mercantile Court as a breath of fresh air, and an opportunity to hold on to their money for even longer.... I am thinking of amending my POC to include the charges levied on my account since filing the claim, and to add interest to my original claim. I never claimed this when I filed because it would have taken me over the £5,000.

 

As its been transferred out of small claims to Mercantile, dont see any point in holding back.

 

Does anyone have any thoughts?

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Angela

I'm not sure that would be allowed at this stage. If it is, it would be an amendment to your clam for which you'd either have to get their agreement (oh, yes - can see that happening!) or pay a non-refundable £35. And that's if it's allowed.

The b*gg*rs have charged me more, as well, but I'm just going to get this lot out of the way and then go after the remainder.

Mind you - I have a parachute account. Did you get one yet??

 

Westy

PS - older daughter now safely back at Uni in France. Mother seems to be having a good w/end. So I'm back (again)

[stan5131]

KAZZAW v Lloyds Asset Card - EVERYONE READ POST 15 !!!!!!

 

General Form of Judgment or Order

 

To the Claimant

 

kazzaw

 

 

Before District Judge ................. sitting at Lincoln County Court.

 

EX PARTE

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

The Court of its own motion is considering striking the Defence out as an abuse of process on the basis that it has settled all previous claims of this nature. If the Defendant objects to this course of action it is to file at Court within 14 days, a Schedule setting out a list of all claims it has pursued to trial and all claims it has settled.

 

Dated 28 December 2006

[stan5131]

Westy, I would be prepared to pay the £35. Just a thought, because as this is dragging on anyway, when making a second claim, they are going to drag it on the same way so if poss, might as well lump it all together with this one. I am going to ask the courts if its possible.

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Angie

I'll be interested to know what the Court says.

Best

W

[brenda/bruce]

Hi all

Need advice on the following letter which i intend to hand in tomorrow to the court with my AQ. (Not really very good at this sort of thing )

 

Claimant Me

Defendant Natwest

 

Dear Sirs

 

I would like to bring to the attention of the Judge the fact that I have received a letter from the defendants solicitors Cobbetts, telling me thet my claim is unfounded and will not hold up in a court, but if i withdraw the claim they will make a goodwill payment of £4500 as long as I agree not to disclose any detail relating to this payment to a third party.

 

I feel their letter is to cause me the Claimant the utmost distress and most of all to intimidate me. They seem to be using this also as a ploy to delay proceedings and to waste both my time and more importantly the time of the court.

 

As a law firm i find their conduct to be appalling and underhand and i respectfully request that their defence be struck out.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Does this sound o.k

[brenda/bruce]

Sorry Stansfield i seem to have hijacked your thread

[stan5131]

Sounds good to me.

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Brenda/Bruce, aka hijackers anonymous!!

 

I wouldn't bother, to be frank. It's perfectly normal to make an offer and to say that the other side's case hasn't got a hope. It's normal not just in these bank charges cases but in all civil cases.

I've taken two construction companies, a contract furnisher and a former employer to court for various things over the past 10 years and they all say the same thing.

But they all coughed up in the end. Why? Because they were wrong and trying to rip me off and I was right.

And you can feel much better, because I won the lot. Although one of them required two bites at the cherry because (on solicitor's advice) I sued the wrong person - the individual, rather than the company.

So much for solicitors. Your pals here on CAG are much better!

Best

Westy

[brenda/bruce]

Thanks Westy

 

AQ gone in.

[stan5131]

£4,616 WON

Big fat cheque received from Cobblers this morning for £4,616 in full and final settlement.

What a lovely days it is today!

[natwesttookmymoney]

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!

A LONG ROAD, WITH OBSTACLES IN THE WAY BUT YOU GOT THERE!

THAT'S GREAT - I'M DELIGHTED FOR YOU!

 

 

In haste (work backlog, still! I'm off to Cheshire tomorrow, lots to be done before leaving)

 

Westy

[stan5131]

Yours wont be too long now Westy. Keeping fingers crossed for you xx