Nat West Rejects New legal argument

smithp

Yeah that is what they said in their letter. If they are right how come every month I live in my overdraft and at the moment keep going over my limit because of the charges incurred by them. I might have £20 left in my account and then they process their charges which sends me over my limit of which they charge me for that.

Don't know how they come up with duplication of my outgoings. I think I might call them up to clarify what they are saying but don't think it'll make any difference.

Any ideas ???

natweststaffmember

smithp wrote: »

Yeah that is what they said in their letter. If they are right how come every month I live in my overdraft and at the moment keep going over my limit because of the charges incurred by them. I might have £20 left in my account and then they process their charges which sends me over my limit of which they charge me for that.

Don't know how they come up with duplication of my outgoings. I think I might call them up to clarify what they are saying but don't think it'll make any difference.

Any ideas ???

Can you write to them and ask what they actually mean? Not sure their response is in plain and intelligible language.

davidgmmafan

"Not sure their response is in plain and intelligible language."

Shocker!

chrisharri

Is anybody considering taking NatWest to a small claims court?

smithp

Well I am still awaiting a response from Nat West regarding my so called duplication of my outgoings. I am not expecting them to overturn their decision so what's my chances with the FOS ??

the_black_cat

As posted on a couple of threads, final airing here -

I too have received a letter from NW that totally ignored my claim on the new grounds set out in MSE's latest claims by law template letter whereby NW just sent me the forms to fill out a customer financial statement. I did not ask them for this as fortunately I am no longer in financial difficulty - this is clearly an attempted delay tactic by them, they appear to show such arrogance that they do not even read the claim for new grounds. It's lead me to beleive this is their response to everyone?

I complained again stating if they had even bothered to read my claim on the new grounds they would have had no need to send a customer financial statement.

Today I received another letter as follows :-

Following the judgement of the Supreme Court on 25 September 2009, the test case process is now complete and the judgement of the Supreme Court means that the level of the unarranged overdraft charges you have complained about cannot be assesed for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracs Regulations 1999 or challenged under the common law penalty doctine. As stated in our previous letter we do not beleive that there is any other legal basis on which the level of these charges can be challenged.

We are satisfied that the charges you seek to reclaim were properly charged and the outcome of the legal proceedings confirms our position. We are therefore not upholding your complaint and will not be refunding the unarranged overdraft charges you have complained about. You may consider this to be the banks final response.

Should you remain dissatisfied you have the right to refer your complaint to the Finacial Ombudsman Service and can do so for six months from the date of this letter. I enclose a copy of their leaflet for your convenience. Before you decide whether or not to take your complaint to the Ombudsman Service, you may find it helpful to consider the information about this subject on the Service's website at:
Ombudsman link here.
Please be assured thet the bank wil co-operate fully with any review they may choose to undertake.

Firstly does this mean that the new template letters are incorrect as set out in the first paragraph by NW and MSE's new template letters are incorrect and a waste of time? If so why? If not is there anything else I can do?

Secondly they have stated "You may consider this to be the Bank's final response" so do I to presume they will have no further dealings direct from me and only via the Ombudsman?

Any help appreciated.

Thanks

davidgmmafan

"Firstly does this mean that the new template letters are incorrect as set out in the first paragraph by NW and MSE's new template letters are incorrect and a waste of time? If so why? If not is there anything else I can do?"

Diffuclt to say, I'd explain it like this. The banks rejected out of hand the penalty charges argument when it was first raised, but that didn't stop vast sums being refunded. So I'd say there is a chance they are taking the same approach here - some people will just give up.

In terms of what you can do at the moment the best advice would be to wait and see. Some people have stopped banks who were seeking to get claims struck out and secured commission to amend thier POC's. However this is not really a victory.

Loving this bit

"We are satisfied that the charges you seek to reclaim were properly charged and the outcome of the legal proceedings confirms our position"

I'll translate :-

As we have complied with the rules we laid down, and the regulators don't give a stuff bout you you are screwed. Thank you for you time.

Wait and see is the name of the game. If people have success (I beliave the hearings are in June) then the fight continues. Even if this is the case its going to take some work, templates won't work this time.

A final response is just that, they consider the matter resolved and you can go to FOS if unhappy.

the_black_cat

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"Wait and see is the name of the game. If people have success (I beliave the hearings are in June) then the fight continues. Even if this is the case its going to take some work, templates won't work this time.

A final response is just that, they consider the matter resolved and you can go to FOS if unhappy.

Thank you ever so much David, I will go to FOS if only to pile more work on NW as much as anything, must be costing them a small fortune as it is so whilst I may not get anything back I can take a little bit of satisfaction from that. Hope others do the same.

On a final note, am I to assume after the hearings in June (should they be successful) I am free to re-open my complaint with the bank then even if I were still to be in negotiation or unsuccessful with the FOS?

Kind regards.

natweststaffmember

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"Firstly does this mean that the new template letters are incorrect as set out in the first paragraph by NW and MSE's new template letters are incorrect and a waste of time? If so why? If not is there anything else I can do?"

Diffuclt to say, I'd explain it like this. The banks rejected out of hand the penalty charges argument when it was first raised, but that didn't stop vast sums being refunded. So I'd say there is a chance they are taking the same approach here - some people will just give up.
David, that was prior to the OFT test case and the penalty argument was kicked out of court apart from one term of natwest's but the proof is on the individual and that term is not included in MSE's guide whatsoever.
In terms of what you can do at the moment the best advice would be to wait and see. Some people have stopped banks who were seeking to get claims struck out and secured commission to amend thier POC's. However this is not really a victory.
Rome was not built in a day
Loving this bit

"We are satisfied that the charges you seek to reclaim were properly charged and the outcome of the legal proceedings confirms our position"

I'll translate :-

As we have complied with the rules we laid down, and the regulators don't give a stuff bout you you are screwed. Thank you for you time.

Wait and see is the name of the game. If people have success (I beliave the hearings are in June) then the fight continues. Even if this is the case its going to take some work, templates won't work this time.

A final response is just that, they consider the matter resolved and you can go to FOS if unhappy.

If you are arguing price/level of the charge under UTCCR 1999 then you are not going to have success. You have to be more detailed in any letter as to HOW the charges create unfair terms within the whole contract. The original regulation is set out like this:

" A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."

It has to create a significant imbalance in the contract as a whole.

smithp

Well I received Nat Wests response and surprise surprise it is their standard response stating the judgement of the supreme court. They have stated that I can consider this their final response so I guess I'll take it to the FOS. Thanks for all your help and will keep you informed of what happens next.