Big Fight With NAT WEST ***WON***

[natwesttookmymoney]

And look what I've turned into now - a giant, flesh-eating praying mantis!

You must be very proud of me!!

:D:D:D

 

A very busy couple of days. I shall resume interventions and contributions at the weekend. Unless something really gets my goat.!

W

[stan5131]

I cant believe I missed the programme. How come none of you told me about it? lol

[Godders]

So what will become of their new tactics, perhaps the banks will try and use these figures to calculate early settlement offers. We already know the credit card companies are making offers of "the difference between the charges incurred on the account and the new OFT ruling of £12 maximum charge". It wouldn't suprise me in the least if the institutions started refuting to making offers of "the difference between charges incurred on the account and what is deemed to be the maximum allowable charge of £4.50", and then trying to use the arguement as stated on T.V.

Good point, they could see this as a viable tactic.

 

The response of course will be "prove it" (by showing us a cost breakdown detailing the actual cost incurred by processing a penalty charge on an account).

[Deller]

god why do i always miss the best things???? Deller my crystal ball sees you shopping very very soon.....

 

I think it'll be in the Jan sales though.

 

And Dellar bless you - you too were so young once!!!!

 

My babies - all grown up!!!!!

 

 

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

 

(sob sob)

 

 

Take it, Im still a grasshopper too....... woo hooo.... sorry Deller

 

"bless"

 

 

Innocent :) :)

 

Don't worry Innocent you will soon be there too.

 

And look what I've turned into now - a giant, flesh-eating praying mantis!

You must be very proud of me!!

 

 

 

So what's on the menu today then??

 

Good point, they could see this as a viable tactic.

 

The response of course will be "prove it" (by showing us a cost breakdown detailing the actual cost incurred by processing a penalty charge on an account).

 

Which is again something they will not want to do.

[Godders]

Which is again something they will not want to do.

Prezactly!

[eerose5]

Where did the price £2.50 to £4.50 com from? If that is at todays rate then it should have been less 6 years ago?

[stan5131]

Well guess what? Received Cobbets defence this morning. I have quickly scanned through it as I am on my way to work. Basically, it says usual stuff about not having a list of the charges, BUT goes on the quote from the Goods and Services Act, and refers to the charges as a "service" AND asks me to prove what they should be if I consider them to be unfair!

[Godders]

Where did the price £2.50 to £4.50 com from? If that is at todays rate then it should have been less 6 years ago?

From the BBC money programme article:

 

We asked two professors of banking and a former NatWest executive to estimate the banks' costs.

 

The highest figure they concluded that banks could justify was £4.50 - much lower than what the banks currently charge.

I guess £2.50 was mentioned in the programme last night (which I missed).

[natwesttookmymoney]

"So what's on the menu today then??"

Joyce Tudor, who STILL hasn't sent me the statements for my loan a/c, nor the notes from the CRM file at Bristol Lending Centre.

[Deller]

Well guess what? Received Cobbets defence this morning. I have quickly scanned through it as I am on my way to work. Basically, it says usual stuff about not having a list of the charges, BUT goes on the quote from the Goods and Services Act, and refers to the charges as a "service" AND asks me to prove what they should be if I consider them to be unfair!

 

It is down to the bank to prove that these are reasonable charges, not you.

I can't believe they've got the nerve to imply that this is a service fee, just what sort of service do they mean.

[natwesttookmymoney]

"Where did the price £2.50 to £4.50 com from? If that is at todays rate then it should have been less 6 years ago?"

Probably not much different, except for postage. Once you've automated something - which the banks did to their processes in the 1980s and 90s - the cost is pretty constant.

You have to go back to the days of manually-printed cheque books, phone calls when a cheque that would take you over your limit was presented, and personally-signed summonses from the branch manager to find anything that resembled the costs they charged.

W

[natwesttookmymoney]

"It is down to the bank to prove that these are reasonable charges, not you." Correctamundo, Deller!

 

Keep this handy, just in case. I used it in my full POC:

 

"To the extent that they may be found to be so incorporated and therefore form part of the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant the Claimant avers that the items referred to in such leaflets do not constitute service charges but punitive penalty or default charges for acts of default. Further the Claimant contends that these show that the Defendant has structured the Claimant’s accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made and that any purported fees for “services” or “additional services” are no more than disguised penalties. The Claimant avers that no additional services are supplied by the Defendant in relation to acts of default or at all."

 

The 'leaflets' referred to are the ones setting out charges. But I like 'spuriously'. I really like it a lot.

W

[Deller]

I do think the the banks however will start to use this so called "Services Fee" idea in there defences a lot more now, especially after the BBC2 programme the other night. What we must all remember is that this is just their approach to disguising the matter as Westy has so rightly pointed out.

[dantracey]

They can disguise what they want but at the end of the day, it will be like putting concealer over a spot, but underneath, the spot is still there, ready to come out..

Deller you replied jan sales to my reply hey that could be a good thing as jan sales tend to have double discount days...

 

T:-D

[stan5131]

What service? Maybe I should ask them if this "service" is optional and if so, I would like to opt out!

[pmhcfc]

What service? Maybe I should ask them if this "service" is optional and if so, I would like to opt out!

 

 

But here's a point to consider...What about all the payments (for these charges) that they've already paid out for?? What, are they going to suddenly start saying it was 'charges' for these people but it's 'services' for all these new claimants??? That can't be right can it?

Surely one just has to quote any case any bank have paid out on and ask why did they pay that person back and not me. After all, I'm claiming for money charged during the same period as all those others you've paid money back to..That'll be my defence

[knightreplica]

who cares wether they call it a charge or a service, because at the end of the day services would also fall under the laws where no price is agreed at time of contract then it must be resonable, then it would fall back to wether they can justify a charge of £38 for an automated service. so they are stuck either way

[Deller]

At the end of the day it's the bank's resposibility to justify the amount of the charge, service fee or whatever else they want to try and call it.

 

Until they stand up in court with an argument which does justify this, then we will all go on to succeed in our claims.

[knightreplica]

and that wont happen cause if they lose then they are screwd

[martinpar]

Don't quite understand this. I wrote a reply to pmhcfc and knightreplica but it has disappeared.

 

FWIW I pointed out that all settlements have been made without admission of liability and as a show of 'goodwill', so they couldn't technically be held up as precedents and that if it is a service charge they can charge what they like as it was agreed to at the time of taking out the contract. As long as we can show it is really a penalty there's no problem.

 

Obviously they'll never get away with that one.

[knightreplica]

im sure the courts will see what is happening

[martinpar]

As you said, I can't see the banks risking it getting to court any more than they are now. It's just a technique to scare off people who aren't too sure about what they're doing.

[knightreplica]

we need to make sure that everyone knows about this site. once u have been paid out make sure everyone knows about this place.. they will have confidence in it when they know someone it worked for

[Deller]

Received in yesterday's post was a General Form of Judgement or Order.

 

It reads as follows:-

 

Before DISTRICT JUDGE WATSON sitting at Bristol County Court

 

Upon considering the defence filed by the Defendant

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

Apart from paragraph 5 of the defence (The Claimant is time-barred from bringing a claim of unauthorised bank charges prior to 2nd October 2000 by the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980), the defence is struck out on the grounds that it fails to disclose full particulars of a defence. Unless by 4.00pm on 3rd January 2007 the Defendant files and serves a further defence that discloses full particulars of the defence, the Claimant may enter judgement for the sums claimed in respect of the period after 2nd October 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Well somehow I can't see them meeting this deadline.

[stan5131]

This is just a farce. They drag the claim out for several months and then use the Limitation Act to get out of paying the first couple of months charges when in fact, these charges were well within the Limitation Act when you started your claim! They are just using the system to their advantage. Cant you argue this point with the court?