Bilgeman v natwest ** WON **

[Bilgeman]

Absolutely.

 

I'm keeping the long letter on file for just such an opportunity in the future and sending the shorter version off today. I will post again with updates.

[Bilgeman]

'Thank you for your letter of 11 May 2006.

As you will be perfectly aware your offer of partial settlement to my claim is derisory and unsatisfactory.

Against that background I am proceeding with my timetable, and shall be raising a claim in the court on (got to work this out yet)'.

Couldn't resist the tiniest bit of self-indulgence

[Bilgeman]

I've just phoned in desperation about five more lots of charges which would have swallowed up this week's wages and managed to get them cancelled after being passed around about five departments. Remains to be seen if they're as good as their word when I check my account in the morning.

 

Just the previous £400+ to go after then!

[Bilgeman]

Well, I've had my letter back from Mr Higley telling me they were in the right and if I want to accept the reduced amount I still can and how disappointed he is that I'm 'contemplating' legal action - so I must be doing something right.

 

Next stage.....

[af1]

You've seen it here before....

I liked spiceskull's simple response very much.

Don't give them an ounce of doubt that you are not contemplating but will take action.

[Bilgeman]

I suspect that this is too long and detailed again but I would love to send it:-

Dear Mr Higley

Thank you for your letter of 23 May 2006. It is clear from this that you believe I do not know what I am talking about.

The reason I have declined the ‘goodwill’ offer from Mrs Crompton is, of course, as you well know, the charges you have applied to the account are unlawful and unenforceable.

Please will you stop prevaricating and return my money without further delay. I am giving you this one last opportunity, although I do not have to do this, to settle up before I pass the matter to HMCS Money Claim Online. Of course, if I do this, I will also be claiming back the court fees which, unless you make further charges in the meantime, stand at £80 on top of the £719 I will now be claiming. If you return my £719 to me without further delay I will consider the matter settled otherwise I will file my claim twenty eight days from the date of this letter on 3 July 2006.

There will be no further reminders and please be assured that I will take this matter as far as necessary to recover what is rightfully mine.

Yours sincerely

[fallen404]

Yeah...probably a little too aggressive as well. I imagine you'd get a response similar to the one I received, basically saying "f*** off then," with a paragraph that's practically a postscript saying how sad they are that you're taking action.

[Bilgeman]

Hi again

 

I sent a watered down version of the letter I wanted to send - no threats, no aggression - and I've received a (fairly quick, it has to be said) response from 'Stuart Higley' (busy bloke, in' 'e?). I wonder if anyone can tell me what he's trying to say here and if this is now a standard reply?

 

'Thank you for your letter of 7 June 2006.

 

Since I last wrote the bank has responded to the Office of Fair Trading's statement, which is referred to in the various websites you have quoted (CAG, Martin's Money Saving Expert). We have considered this and do not accept its findings in relation to the setting of credit card fees (I'm not claiming for credit card fees, just current account penalties). We are concerned that the Office of Faor Trading has publicly called into question the setting of charges applied to other products, including current accounts. The Office of Fair Trading has restricted its investigation to credit cards and made no attempt to consult with RBS (I presume they are involved with NatWest?) or the industry in relation to other entirely different products.

 

However, I acknowledge as a consequence of not refunding your charges, we will be faced with court action. Can I please remind you to use the Registered Office address to prevent any delays.

 

Thank you again for writing ('S'okay)

 

Yours sincerely etc'.

 

Sounds like they're trying to form the basis of a case here. What do you all think?

[Bilgeman]

I'm sorry for posting this as a new thread as well as in my 'Any Thoughts' one but I thought perhaps it wouldn;t get read there and I do think it might be important.

 

I sent a watered down version of the letter I wanted to send - no threats, no aggression - and I've received a (fairly quick, it has to be said) response from 'Stuart Higley' (busy bloke, in' 'e?). I wonder if anyone can tell me what he's trying to say here and if this is now a standard reply?

 

'Thank you for your letter of 7 June 2006.

 

Since I last wrote the bank has responded to the Office of Fair Trading's statement, which is referred to in the various websites you have quoted (CAG, Martin's Money Saving Expert). We have considered this and do not accept its findings in relation to the setting of credit card fees (I'm not claiming for credit card fees, just current account penalties). We are concerned that the Office of Faor Trading has publicly called into question the setting of charges applied to other products, including current accounts. The Office of Fair Trading has restricted its investigation to credit cards and made no attempt to consult with RBS (I presume they are involved with NatWest?) or the industry in relation to other entirely different products.

 

However, I acknowledge as a consequence of not refunding your charges, we will be faced with court action. Can I please remind you to use the Registered Office address to prevent any delays.

 

Thank you again for writing ('S'okay)

 

Yours sincerely etc'.

 

Sounds like they're trying to form the basis of a case here. What do you all think?

 

MODERATED: Threads merged. Please stick to one thread.

[fallen404]

Yeah, I got about the same sort of thing. Thing is, we're not using the OFT thing as our reason for suing, but rather actual parts of the law. Their registered office is (I think) in Bishopsgate, London.

 

As for the RBS thing, Natwest are owned by them now.

[Bilgeman]

Had a letter from the Collections Centre demanding bringing account up to date. Hah!

 

Reply to be sent today:

 

'With regard to your letter of 21 June 2006 regarding the exceeded overdraft limit on the above account please be informed that this matter is the subject of a forthcoming claim against NatWest, papers for which will be served to the appropriate office on 5 July 2006 as previously stated.

 

The amount you mention is part of almost £1000 of unlawful charges applied to this account and therefore your request for repayment is turned aside.

 

Please note that any further unlawful charges will be claimed back in the future.'

 

 

I used the term 'turned aside' deliberatley because that's the phrase another bank used with regard to a separate matter. I like to speak to them in their own language where possible. It's only polite.

[Bilgeman]

Eeeeee, they're some little tinkers, aren't they. Another £76 of charges went on yesterday for unpaid direct debits (one for £3 - I had one for 46 pence returned some time back a got the standard £38 pocket-pick for that). That will also be getting claimed back as will the £40 they very nicely informed me will be going out on June 30 or whenever for balloons for their Christmas Party or something.

 

What nice people!

[Guest NATTIE]

You've been watching too many nationwide adverts!!

[Guest NATTIE]

You've been watching too many nationwide adverts!!

[Bilgeman]

Time to file my claim. They've had all the time they're getting so, with the court fee, it's up to over a thouand quid. Can't afford the court fee today but as soon as I have it the claim's going in. I bet they're quaking in their golf shoes

[Bilgeman]

Hi

 

I presume this is the right forum for this.

 

I'm currently claiming several hundred pounds from my bank.

Their charges have resulted in my balance going well over my overdraft limit.

I,m a few days away from filing my claim.

 

 

Meanwhile they are writing to me,

despite my having told them several times that they will be getting taken to court,

demanding the money back and threatening me with action if I don't.

Marvellous, innit?

 

 

They unlawfully take money from me and then demand I pay them even more to clear the unofficial overdraft that's been caused by it. I don't think so.

 

 

Do I just ignore them or have I got to keep wasting time and money wriitng them even more letters?

Also, I've asked them to conduct all business in writing but they keep phoning to speak to me,

the excuse being that I haven't yet asked their department to communicate in writing.

 

 

Surely all my requests should be passed to all relevant departments with the same eagerness that instructions to hassle me are?

[callumsgran]

fraid it doesn't work like that does it? you owe them anything they want it straight away, however if they owe you it takes a lot longer!! itsthe same with any large institution!!!

[Bilgeman]

But surely I don't actually owe them anything if what we all believe on these forums is true coz it's not their money, it's mine and the fact that they dispute that doesn't change the law? I'm just wondering what will happen if I refuse to pay using that argument and pointing out that the court may take my view ( I hope) as well.

 

Now they're phoning me up 'to discuss repayment' despite the fact I've asked them to put everything they wish to say to me in writing. I suspect by 'repayment' they mean to them, not me. On we go...

 

They are trying to contact me by phone now. As it will be a week or two before I have the cash for the court fee I thought I'd send them this:

 

'I will not discuss this matter over the phone. Please regard this letter as an instruction to conduct all future business by letter so that I have a copy. Do NOT telephone me at home.

 

With regard to the above matter and further to my previous letter of 26 June I understand you have been trying to contact me by telephone to discuss this. There is nothing to discuss. The money you claim to be outstanding is part of a sum I am claiming as unlawful and therefore will not be paid to you because such a move might be seen by the Court as an admission of liability.

 

Enclosed is a list of charges I am claiming back from you. I will give you one last opportunity to settle this matter before filing my claim fourteen days from the date of this letter. Obviously I will expect you to clear the overdraft on this account with some of the money. The remainder is to be paid to me by cheque at my home address as above. If you do not comply with this request my claim will be filed on 27 July 2006. At that stage I will also be claiming overdraft interest at 8% and the Court Fee of £120.

 

Enclosed for your information is a breakdown of the charges claimed.'

[cumbria123]

Tell them your account is `in dispute` at the moment, and as soon as this is resolved, you will move on and address the issues, but until then things will have to remain as they are. It is unreasonable for them to demand payment while you are taking legal action, any court would agree with this.

[Janet-M]

The amount is in dispute you need to put that in writing .What they are doing is harrassment if your read this thread and also search this site for ' harrassment' you will find how you can stop this .

[Bilgeman]

Thanks for more ammo, folks

[sequenci]

Tell them your account is `in dispute` at the moment, and as soon as this is resolved, you will move on and address the issues, but until then things will have to remain as they are. It is unreasonable for them to demand payment while you are taking legal action, any court would agree with this.

 

This is true!

 

It is also part of the OFT debt collection guidelines, which you can print off and take to court if needed!

 

also you might have s40 (1a) of the administration of justice act too.

[Bilgeman]

As a sideline to this I had a letter demanding the return of my cheque book and card (both torn to shreds and incinerated weeks ago). What's the position these days about withdrawal of facilities as a direct result of being overdrawn solely because of unlawful charges?

[Guest NATTIE]

The bank doesn't see charges as unlawful but as a general rule, all banks can withdraw facilities from a customer providing they are given 30 days notice under the banking code.

[Bilgeman]

Nothing! Just thought it sounded good