Nat West: Offer Received and REJECTED- CCJ Awarded

[Seminole]

Seminole, have you tried phoning their solicitor? The number is usually on the acknowledgement of service... for what its worth.

 

Why would I want to do that?

 

If they do nothing I want to send in the bailiffs and get some publicity for the group. I'll then launch proceedings over their non-compliance with the DPA

 

If they want to set aside, I'll let that play out. If they win and get a hearing then I'll deploy the Section 32 Limitation Act issue which will cause them some headaches.

 

Frankly, I'm not really interested in negotiating with them. They had their chance to do this and they it let it pass by.

[kenboy1961]

fantastic!!! i too am hoping too dismiss the 6 year rule,so far i am approx 42 days over the alotted time for the dpa request. I was going to lodge a formal complaint but i am unsure of the address or department to send it too. I also dont know the true figure to claim as i still havnt got the info from the nat west i am at a standstill without accurate information. Do you think i will get away with an estimated figure on the claim form. Any help would be most welcome.kind regards.kenny ward(fellow bank charge fighter)

Quick recap: Nat West refused to comply with my DPA request and the Information Commissioner upheld my complaint. NWB agreed to supply information but it still hasn't turned up. Started an estimated claim against NWB and deadline for filing of defence was today.

 

I received a letter on Monday dated 20 April and posted second class on 21 April offering me £770 against my estimated claim of £2k. There was no offer of costs and they wanted confidentiality. They also wanted a reply by Tuesday.

 

Following some discussion with Bankfodder, I have let their deadline lapse.

 

As of lunchtime today NWB hadn't filed a defence but they may have done so by now. If they haven't then I will submit a claim for judgement. If they have then two very interesting things are about to happen:

 

1) They will get a fax tomorrow (also sent recorded delivery) demanding compliance with the DPA by Wednesday next week or I will immediately submit a separate county court claim to force them to do so.

 

2) They will receive a without prejudice letter stating that Section 5 of the Limitation Act doesn't apply to this claim. Under Section 32 of the Limitation Act, the six year rule falls if there is deliberate concealment. If you look at the sticky thread in general, the rationale for this is explained in detail. This means that if they want to settle then they are going to have to repay me every single charge they ever levied on this account plus interest on those charges even if they were imposed more than six years ago.

 

I very much have NWB on the back foot about the DPA and I'm hoping that this aggressive approach will throw them into a bit of a tailspin. It's going to be fun to see how they react.

[Seminole]

fantastic!!! i too am hoping too dismiss the 6 year rule,so far i am approx 42 days over the alotted time for the dpa request. I was going to lodge a formal complaint but i am unsure of the address or department to send it too. I also dont know the true figure to claim as i still havnt got the info from the nat west i am at a standstill without accurate information. Do you think i will get away with an estimated figure on the claim form. Any help would be most welcome.kind regards.kenny ward(fellow bank charge fighter)

 

Could you start your own thread to discuss this please and I'll answer it there.

 

Thanks

[alanfromderby]

Have you had a date for the set-aside hearing yet?

[Seminole]

Yep, 12 July. London County Court.

 

They're now claiming that the whole of the claim is statute barred and I think they're right based on the dates I now have. However, that didn't stop their in-house lawyer from offering to refund some charges from 1999 earlier in the process. Clearly they've now passed the case on to someone (Cobbetts) who some idea of that they're talking about. They intend to make an immediate application to strike out if they get their set aside.

 

My plan is to use the Section 32 argument on both applications and I hope to be able to stop the strike out. I would frankly be amazed if the judge doesn't deny the strike out. If that fails I will by then also have an application in to set asside their 2002 CCJ against me. I have an admission from them that at least £770 of the balance at that date was charges. However, they all arose from 1999 or before so again we come down to the Limitation Act argument. This is part of the reason I've started a thread in Legalities about the LA as, based on the accepted application, it seems to give a huge advantage to the creditor over the debtor. Balances seems to recoverable without the the debtor being able to counterclaim against specific elements of it if they were charged more than six years ago.

 

Oh, and I still don't have my SAR information which was requested on 11 Fabruary. This is despite an upheld complaint from the ICO and promises to send it within a "few days" made three weeks ago by NWB's lawyers. I've refrained from a Section 7 claim but the ICO's enforcement division is on the case.

[thecornflake]

I hope you succeed on the limitation act issue. I can't see why you wouldn't as if a judge rules that they are charges and NW are arguing they are for a service (presume this is still their standard defence) then that must mean the charges have been concealed.

 

I'm not sure if anyone else has tried this yet but I can't see it failing.

 

Good luck for your set aside hearing.

[Movingon]

It's not the charges that are being concealed it's the punitive and profitable nature of them... we all know the banks charge - it's whether the charges are fair under the Law that's at issue.

[Seminole]

This topic was closed on 09 March 2019.

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 there.

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