Reclaim Unfair Bank Charges article discussion Part II

lindilou39

tracy1980 wrote: »

we have a claim going through , it started 24th april this year, we recived a letter from natwest bank 'thankyou for your letter etc... we are looking into your claim and could take 6-7 weeks ' but today we received a letter dated 8 august and the letter says' we refer to your letter to bank charges and we see they are lawful etc... then all this jargon about the test case . i'm not sure what to do now , do i wait for the test case or carry on as my claim was in befor the test case came out please help me as the money being claimed is £3930 and could really do with it now thanks in advance

was your claim in with the court or the bank?

tracy1980

it was into the bank the next letter i am to send is court action.
and i have been looking through the other chatrooms on here and there are a few that say if your process was in before the test case then to carry on with the proccedings as normal
please help and thankyou

lindilou39

you can still claim through the court..dont delay because if you have any charges prior to 14th Aug 2001 you will be statute and barred under the Limitation Act 1980

tracy1980

what does that mean ? i'm new to all this talk

lindilou39

it means..if you have alot of charges say from now onwards, if you dont get your claim in with the court you will become statute and barred. with each and every day the limitation act prevents you from claiming 6 years beyond

tracy1980

oh right o.k will get that next letter in asap thanks.
so do you think it is alright to carry on and see what happens then like i could recieve an offer before it actually gets to court!

kaz-mex

:money: YOU ARE SO RIGHT MARTIN SHOULD BE KNIGHTED!
IM HAVING TO FIGHT TO THE END FOR MY BANK CHARGES £1108 + £120 COURT COSTS + £55 WARRANT TOTAL £1283 DUE TO HALIFAX TAKING A STANCE BECAUSE OF TEST CASE:rolleyes: HAVE GONE AS FAR AS SENDING BALIFFS IN SO CURRENTLY WAITING ON NEWS BACK FROM THEM, MY CASE GETS A LITTLE AWKWARD BECAUSE DUE TO DEFAULTING ON MY ACCOUNT, THEN A DEBT COMPANY TOOK MY DEBT ON AND SINCE THEN COMPLETED AN IVA PAYING BACK 98.35 IN THE POUND HAD HALIFAX LEGAL SERVICES SAYING WE WERE GOING TO OFFER YOU HALF BACK BUT WE NOT NOW BECAUSE WE WROTE YOUR ACCOUNT OFF OWING £1068 I SAID WELL SEEMS TO BE A DISTINCT LACK OF COMMUNICATION AT THE HALIFAX EXPLAINING ABOUT THE IVA ETC. THEY REPLIED OH WELL WE NEED PROOF SENT PROOF THEY SAID THEY WILL REVIEW MATTERS DIDNT HEAR ANYTHING RANG UP THEN WAS TOLD WE ARE TAKING A STANCE DUE TO THE TEST CASE:mad: WAS TOLD EVEN IF YOU APPLY FOR A WARRENT YOU MIGHT NOT GET WARRENT COSTS BACK OH YES I WILL I REPLIED YOU WILL BE HEARING FROM ME IN DUE COURSE:p THEY JUST TRYING SCARE TACTICS HOPING PEOPLE WILL BACK OUT NO CHANCE! WILL KEEP YOU UPDATED

kaz-mex

Sorry Tiger Tiger I Think Ive Gate Crashed Your Post!oops.

natwestvictim

It is really, really difficult to find the information you need in this colossal bulletin board system! It is a victim of Martin's success, but hey, thank you Martin, I wouldn't have got anywhere without you.

Stays.

Cobbetts applied for a stay on my case but the Judge did not grant it. I spent a good deal of time composing my fax to the court to oppose the stay and found this nugget.

The "waiver" the banks all cite has conditions on it. One is that the banks must have a system in place to filter cases of hardship. If the bank hasn't contacted you to establish whether you are a hardship case or not (and who isn't by this stage) they have self-evidently failed to meet that requirement. Therefore they cannot claim a "waiver" and thus their argument to have the case stayed is invalid. You should tell the court that.

Secondly, Cobbetts screwed up. They were ordered by the court to submit skeleton legal arguments but they failed to do so. I have now asked for their defence to be struck out and judgement given in my favour. The order said that this would happen without further order if they defaulted which they have, so fingers crossed, I may soon be a success story.

Please spread the word about the "waiver" stipulation.

theozziend

natwestvictim wrote: »

It is really, really difficult to find the information you need in this colossal bulletin board system! It is a victim of Martin's success, but hey, thank you Martin, I wouldn't have got anywhere without you.

Stays.

Cobbetts applied for a stay on my case but the Judge did not grant it. I spent a good deal of time composing my fax to the court to oppose the stay and found this nugget.

The "waiver" the banks all cite has conditions on it. One is that the banks must have a system in place to filter cases of hardship. If the bank hasn't contacted you to establish whether you are a hardship case or not (and who isn't by this stage) they have self-evidently failed to meet that requirement. Therefore they cannot claim a "waiver" and thus their argument to have the case stayed is invalid. You should tell the court that.

Secondly, Cobbetts screwed up. They were ordered by the court to submit skeleton legal arguments but they failed to do so. I have now asked for their defence to be struck out and judgement given in my favour. The order said that this would happen without further order if they defaulted which they have, so fingers crossed, I may soon be a success story.

Please spread the word about the "waiver" stipulation.

Brilliant - thanks very much. We have only had notification from Barclays that they are applying. I will get hubby to ring the court today and quote as above. We did not submit the court bundle on Friday because of the letter from Barclays, but I will get him to drop that off later to them, and explain that it is late because of Barclay's letter, and out lack of understanding of what this actually meant. We will continue, and keep you informed. Court date is 21st, so not far away. :T