My own NatWest claim

[Fred_Funk]

steven4064

 

I've sent you a PM. Look forward to your response.

 

Fred_Funk

[hedgey06]

Hi Steven - have a lovely holiday hun! See ya when you're back. xx

[steven4064]

didn't cankster get a stiff slap from his judge on his arguments for CI?

 

one of which was that 'a fiduciary position' did not exist

 

I may be wrong but I think that was part of the judge's argument

 

ooh, and Steve, can I see that too, I'm waiting for acknowledgement from NatWest any day now

 

ta much

Look on http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/97691-contractual-interest-precedent-lost.html for arguements regarding fiduciary position

 

It doesn't apply across the board but there is case law for it applying to the payment of cheques and therefore by analogy to DDs and SOs too.

 

Steven

 

If this post is helpful, please click the scales

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability.

Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site.

[steven4064]

Hi Steven - have a lovely holiday hun! See ya when you're back. xx

Thanks hedgey - only away for a week

 

Steven

 

If this post is helpful, please click the scales

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability.

Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site.

[hedgey06]

Well thank God you're back my friend! How the devil are you, how was your hol and how's the claim going!!!

[steven4064]

Got back from hols to find not one, but TWO letters from Stu saying they will get back to me in 6-7 weeks. I don't think so!!

 

 

Steven

 

If this post is helpful, please click the scales

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability.

Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site

[hedgey06]

Two letters? From Stu himself? Well how special do you feel right now!

 

I take it you won't be waiting dear?

[steven4064]

When I say from Stu, it's his name printed on the letter with a squiggle that looks like it says "Minging" above.

 

(and no, I won't be waiting - like you thought I might!!!)

 

Steven

 

If this post is helpful, please click the scales

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability.

Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site

[hedgey06]

Minging? Now there's a thought. Perhaps we should addressing our letters to the Borehamwood minger!

 

Ignore me....... I'm just glad to see you back! xxx

[steven4064]

OK. 14 days are up. With recent developments I am reviewing where I go with this. The claim is for only 3 charges: an 'unarranged borrowing fee' on my personal account and 2 'referrals' on my business account, all from the time when I set up in business on my own and cash-flow was a bit haphazard.

 

Here's what I am thinking:

 

1) The unarranged borrowing fee is (now) the most obviously a contract penalty and therefore the subject of the OFT case.

 

2) The other 2 may or may not be contract penalties, depending on the wording of the T&Cs - I think they are in NatWest's case. However, they both refer to DDs, for which I am convinced the bank is in a fiduciary relationship and therefore, under common law, not allowed to make an unauthorised profit.

 

So what I think I will do is:

 

1) Drop the unauthorised overdraft charge from the claim.

 

2) claim for the other 2 on the basis of breach of fiduciary relationship based on common law and unauthorised profit

 

3) claim CCI at the bank's authorised borrowing rate on the basis that that is what I would have had to do to maintain the 'money in my hand' at the level it was before they took my money - an remedy in equity, now supported by the Sempra judgement of last week.

 

4) In this way, I avoid all mention of UTCCR1999 and common law on penalties, which are both the subject of the OFT case. If my claim is stayed on the basis of that case, I can then just say it is irrelevant!

 

What does anyone think? Am I mad?