It's only £30, but I want it Back! ***WON***

[Parkvale]

NO. To young.

[PPMAN159]

Try 'Antiques Roadshow-The Next Generation'

[Odd Fellow]

This whole charade is a joke.

 

There is a chance that the woman who's replying to me is uneducated as to the legality of the situation - there's also a chance that they know that they may win.

 

What's certain is that whatever is happening now, the cost to NatWest in running with this is far more than the £30 taken in the first place.

 

Indeed, I have also been able to use Nat West's calculation (they offered £25.40 representing the difference between a £20 charge and the current £12.00 charge and taking into account any interest etc.) to work out that the £30.00 charges (£20 and £10) now amounts to £95.x.

 

Until Nat West made this offer, I had no idea as to how I might calculate interest etc. so thanks to them for that.

 

I think that because the £30 was made up of two charges (£20 and £10), it is choosing to ignore the £10.00 because it's lower than the OFT ruling and "assuming" that it's OK because of it. I'd like to get Nat West to PROVE that the £10 charge (I don't know what the premise was under which it was charged) was a genuine pre-estimate or real actual cost to the bank.

 

Oh, this is going to be fun.

[Guest littlesally]

Sorry to interrupt your thread but just a quick question:

 

Are Natwest now reducing their charge to £10? Or am I misinterpreting what you've written?

 

Sally x

[PPMAN159]

Nat West could end with a whole poultry farm load of eggs on their face over this one.

 

They are obviously not aware of the type of person they are dealing with here and are probably used to people thinking 'well it is onyl £30-lets not bother'

 

How wrong they are.

[Parkvale]

O.F.

It is down to Nat West to prove these charges are not penalty charges for you breach of contract. If they want to be as idiotic as they appear to be let them carry on and hang themselves. They think they are above the law of the land and their not.

Theirs arrogance is never ending.

[choco]

Natwest are something else its really an odd bank because before i knew about all this being able to claim back charges I had called them and asked them to levy my charges several times in the past and they did it, twice, so why cant they give you back your £30, i dont get them, i really dont...!

[Guest NATTIE]

What was the £10 charge for? oh, SAR I assume

[Odd Fellow]

Sorry to interrupt your thread but just a quick question:

 

Are Natwest now reducing their charge to £10? Or am I misinterpreting what you've written?

 

Sally x

Sally,

 

You're misintrepreting.

 

As far as I know, Nat West's charges are £12.00

 

The £10 was a charge that was in relation one issue that also meant that they levied a £20 charge too.

 

I don't recall what the charge was called or for. Actually, I don't care what it was for, I want them to justify the charge by showing that it actually cost them £10 to cover the work.

[Odd Fellow]

Nat West could end with a whole poultry farm load of eggs on their face over this one.

 

They are obviously not aware of the type of person they are dealing with here and are probably used to people thinking 'well it is onyl £30-lets not bother'

 

How wrong they are.

 

 

Yep, that's what I'm hoping.

 

I spoke to Martin Hickman at the Independent about this. As suspected, he's not interested right now, but has asked that if I need to call the bailiffs in again to get in touch with him as he wants to be there this time.

[Guest NATTIE]

Got it fee for administering dishonoured cheques or direct debits. Their words not mine

[Odd Fellow]

Got it fee for administering dishonoured cheques or direct debits. Their words not mine

 

Thanks

 

Got a link?

 

That's priceless! A Fee. Hmm. This will be in relation to some bounced DDs last Feb then. The same DDs that I took Abbey to court on and won.

[Caz1974]

Good website oddfellow:)

[Odd Fellow]

The deadline was Friday - Nat West ignored it.

 

Actually, they did more than ignore it. I telephoned on two occasions during the week to invite them to settle to avoid the hassle and cost of court. I was told that the bank had issued it's final decision (ie to pay me only £25.44) and that was that - I could take it to the onbudsmen if I wanted.

 

Nat West has made no attempt to justify the charges, despite having been asked to do so. This is an important point as it's made up of two charges £10 and £20 relating to the same item. Neither has been justified and Nat West is chosing to ignore the £10 anyway, making reference to the £20 only.

 

That alone is reasonable justification for taking the matter to court.

 

Anyway, completing a moneyclaim form now. Will keep you posted.

 

Odd

[hedgey06]

OMG!!! :o Can't believe nat west are even thinking of refusing to pay you this money!!! Seems they'd sooner pay shed-loads of money to cobbetts........... only to end up having to pay you anyway!!! Good luck mate xxx

[PPMAN159]

I suppose that Nasty Vest are now so entrenched on these issues that it has become routine for them to refuse to pay out even the smaller claims and let people take them to court.

 

Cobbetts, as mentioned before, must be making loads of dosh so they are not fussed either way-make hay whilst the sun shines.

[Odd Fellow]

Well, due to exessive workload, Nat West has got away with a few extra days of not paying - but today, I found time to fill out a moneyclaim form and this bank has managed to incur a further £30 on top of my request for £95.40 - oh, plus £2.94 in S.69 interest!

 

I am astonished that Nat West has taken this approach - if it had played ball, I'd have settled for the £30 it originally took. Since it takes no interest in trying to negotiate a solution (apart from a take-it-or-leave-it offer of £25.xx) then it's left me with no option.

 

That seems like justification in itself for court action.

[PPMAN159]

I cant believe that we have managed to post 42 threads on a £30 charge-amazing!!

 

I suppose that Nasty Vest have become so entrenched that they cannot now pay up without looking stupid(or should that be more stupid)

 

They are now going to incur court costs and additional interest.

 

It will be interesting to see what the final settlement figure will be.

[Parkvale]

I think front page on -------- THE MAD MAGAZINE would be the best spot for this bank.

[spotnot]

Can sympathise with you entirely. I had to submit MCOL against Black Horse for £25.40! In the end SCM (their solicitors) had to pay up, but it cost them my court fee. Then about a week later I got another cheque from Black Horse for £25.40. Talk about left hand not knowing what right hand is doing!

 

I agree that it is totally ridiculous but perhaps they are under the impression that you won't fight for the money, whereas we all know you will!

 

Good luck

 

Spot

[Odd Fellow]

Indeed, I will fight for the money. What's daft is that they must believe it too; my final letter to them contained a copy of the N1 form I was going to submit.

 

To be honest, £30 is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things. It's the principal and the reasonably safe knowlegde that I am protected from it's costs should I make a hash of it - which I don't expect to.

 

Already, the £30 has balooned to nearly £130 including court fees. Now it's going to have to waste some legal person's time in dealing with this too.

 

It's utter lunacy but the banks appear to have dug a hole from which they are unable to crawl - there be dragons wherever they go from here and Abbey has taught this one to breath fire......

[hedgey06]

To be honest, £30 is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things. It's the principal and the reasonably safe knowlegde that I am protected from it's costs should I make a hash of it - which I don't expect to.......

 

Tis not the point but the principle of the matter!!! It's your 30 quid - they took it, you want it back, they're stalling, you're going after them, they'll back down, you'll win!!!!

 

The lunacy must end!!!!!!! Keep going oddfellow, it'll soon be back in your pocket! xxx

[PPMAN159]

I cant wait to see the judges face when this one lands on his desk!!!

[Odd Fellow]

I cant wait to see the judges face when this one lands on his desk!!!

 

Don't you just wish you could be there?

 

In the meantime, I have received a copy of Shat Vest's ack notice stating that they dispute all of the claim and will file a defence.

 

Oh well, just another saga that needs to be played out.

 

 

Was interested to see yesterday that Tim Brennan's Damages case has been adjourned. Very keen to see this man win.....

[PPMAN159]

Brennan is back in court on 21st May at 10.30am