Nat West- Court Summons - I am BR

debtinfo

The way it is worded is whether the claim is for the person or the bankruptcy estate, I would imagine that if the money won was for harrasment then this is because it has caused suffering (like in a pain and suffering case) so although i dont know for sure i would put my money on the bankrupt keeping it.

A bigger point i think would be that although the debt was pre bankruptcy you are claiming against the harrasment and that event happened after he bankruptcy order so i would say that if you took it to court after the discharge then it would neither be a bankruptcy asset or an after aquired asset and so not claimable even if it was against the estate

alastairq

Natwest sound a bit like Barclays..with one department not knowing what another is doing......as an example, payments on an unsecured loan I had with Barclays...continued long after my BR...from my old current account..which SHOULD have been closed upon BR....and by BR was over 1k overdrawn [mostly by Barclay's charges].....however, they had added a super-safety net of an additonal £500, use of which was charged on a weekly basis at £25 or so.....so they kept on paying themselves.....for a couple of months after BR...then the account fianlly got closed [with an acknowledged zero balance]....so the loan arrears commenced..and I started to get snootograms, and the odd phone call...all for a loan which was in the BR anyway........

it seems, the accounts department failed to cross-reference the loan account.......all quiet now..I wonder what their accounting looks like????

kerrypn

I think the key thing is that the debt will not stand in court OP due to your bankruptcy. I have heard of some very underhand tactics from a variety of companies to try to get you to acknowledge the debt after the B Order-which of course you don't do. You have done everything right, unfortunately it sounds like Natwest do not understand the simple sentence "I AM BANKRUPT".

I would consider sending a letter to their complaints department, citing your bankruptcy and how you feel that this is now leaning towards harassment. Re state that the debt needs to be addressed via the OR as legally you are bound to the OR under the terms of the Bankruptcy. Also state that you will be attending the court to personally present your Bankruptcy Order to the judge if they persist in taking unwarranted legal action against you, and that you will file a counter claim of harassment.

Kick their behinds!!

Good luck with everything, and don't lose sleep over idiots after a commission on reclaimed debts-you are protected under your bankruptcy order.

fatou256

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

Shame it costs YOU £75 to enter a counterclaim, unless your exempt.

So much for justice:rolleyes:

the way i understood it it is that the money or even any kind of compensation would have been worthless as it will not make anything better nor the stress/hurt will disappear , it will be still there and i still had to deal with it . we were exempt of the court fee due to some benefit that we receive. i am great believer in the law of "what comes around goes around".

alastairq

Good luck with everything, and don't lose sleep over idiots after a commission on reclaimed debts-you are protected under your bankruptcy order

I agree and concur.....good luck, and kick-!!!!

remember, those chasing the commission are probably but a stone's throw away from BR themselves...


question...if one attends court with one's BR, in response to an attempt to recoup a debt that was included in BR, can one also claim costs against the other party, in view of their blatant flouting of the law?

rog2

fatou256 wrote: »

I am great believer in the law of "what comes around goes around".

I agree, fatou - One day NW will get their just desserts.