Standard Disclosure - advice needed

[pauli]

I am currently defending a claim for a debt owed to Marbles Credit Card. HFC Bank own Marbles and I believe are themselves owned by HSBC.

Anyway...I successfully had the claim struck out on a technicality last month. On Friday I am attending a further hearing at which HFC, through their solicitors Weightmans, are seeking to have the order set aside (relief under CPR 3.9). At the same time they are asking the Court for permission to submit Amended Particulars of Claim which they will then rely on to obtain judgement if the claim is reinstated.

I originally made a part admission based on, amongst other things, the inclusion of unlawful late payment charges in the debt. They eventually side stepped having to explain ther 1000 pounds worth of charges and expenses had arisen by accepting the part admission on the grounds of "proportionality" - ie to save time and unecessary cost!

This time round. no doubt irritated by the serious amounts of humble pie they are having to eat to get the claim reinstated they have reverted to claiming the full amount of the debt.

The really interesting thing, and the issue I need advice on, is that they have stated in the Amended Particulars of Claim ..." the Claimant has suffered a loss of £XXXX consisting of the original amount, interest charges, LATE PAYMENT CHARGES, and costs in recovering the monies owed FULL PARTICULARS OF WHICH WILL BE PROVIDED BY WAY OF STANDARD DISCLOSURE."

My understanding of this is that they have now agreed formally to provide evidential proof of how these costs and charges have arisen? Something which by not defending claims against them the banks have so far been able to avoid.

I have not been served with any documents, which CPR 31 specifically requires, although I must admit to not being at all conversant with the law relating to standard disclosure or the obligations it implies.

I am still waiting for information I have repeatedly asked for through Subject Access Requests - despite the compliance period having been passed several months ago!

The question is how best can I capitalise on this?

Once they realise what they have done..they will obviously try and weasel out of it. I would like to take this opportunity,whilst they are on the back foot, to extract maximum advantage from the situation..for me personally and of course for the cause generally.

Only days to go so please get your thinking caps on. I note Bankfodder is away just now which is a pity...but anything anybody can contribute will be most welcome. I really need solid legal arguments.

[pauli]

I am currently defending a claim for a debt owed to Marbles Credit Card. HFC Bank own Marbles and I believe are themselves owned by HSBC.

Anyway...I successfully had the claim struck out on a technicality last month. On Friday I am attending a further hearing at which HFC, through their solicitors Weightmans, are seeking to have the order set aside (relief under CPR 3.9). At the same time they are asking the Court for permission to submit Amended Particulars of Claim which they will then rely on to obtain judgement if the claim is reinstated.

I originally made a part admission based on, amongst other things, the inclusion of unlawful late payment charges in the debt. They eventually side stepped having to explain ther 1000 pounds worth of charges and expenses had arisen by accepting the part admission on the grounds of "proportionality" - ie to save time and unecessary cost!

This time round. no doubt irritated by the serious amounts of humble pie they are having to eat to get the claim reinstated they have reverted to claiming the full amount of the debt.

The really interesting thing, and the issue I need advice on, is that they have stated in the Amended Particulars of Claim ..." the Claimant has suffered a loss of £XXXX consisting of the original amount, interest charges, LATE PAYMENT CHARGES, and costs in recovering the monies owed FULL PARTICULARS OF WHICH WILL BE PROVIDED BY WAY OF STANDARD DISCLOSURE."

My understanding of this is that they have now agreed formally to provide evidential proof of how these costs and charges have arisen? Something which by not defending claims against them the banks have so far been able to avoid.

I have not been served with any documents, which CPR 31 specifically requires, although I must admit to not being at all conversant with the law relating to standard disclosure or the obligations it implies.

I am still waiting for information I have repeatedly asked for through Subject Access Requests - despite the compliance period having been passed several months ago!

The question is how best can I capitalise on this?

Once they realise what they have done..they will obviously try and weasel out of it. I would like to take this opportunity,whilst they are on the back foot, to extract maximum advantage from the situation..for me personally and of course for the cause generally.

Only days to go so please get your thinking caps on. I note Bankfodder is away just now which is a pity...but anything anybody can contribute will be most welcome. I really need solid legal arguments.

[jonni2bad]

We wil get back to you shortly....

[pauli]

thanks ..surprised not to have had this picked up at all?

Maybe it needs posting in a less obscure thread.

On a related matter the same application now also includes a claim for damages of 50K..I did not think this was allowable in the small claims court. I have never heard of a situation where the claim is for the outstanding debt OR damages.

Again some help on the law relating to this would be appreciated.

Can a moderator switch thread if its felt this might raise the profile ..I don't have a lot of time to get my head round this

thanks

[Karnevil]

I think its quite a complicated one which needs investigating legal wise - and I suspect the mods and jonni are pouring over the law books to find out what this may actually mean - i read it as the bank will be disclosing the information as to how they arrive at their late payment fee charge amount, which of course is rather interesting in general terms to the site, - but may also mean you could possibly use it as leverage to get them to back off you.

from your last post - do you mean that on top of the claim to get the debt repaid, they have added Damages of £50k (£50,000) ?????????????? seems a bit bizarre ?

[jonni2bad]

Pauli - what dates are involved here? When is the hearing set for?

[pauli]

Yes it is complicated which is why I posted. I think the solicitors acting for HFC don't understand the potential implications of where Standard Disclosure might lead. Up to now they have not represented their client particularly well which is why the claim is currently struck out. They may simply be expecting to provide a detailed breakdown of expenses, charges and fees without reference to their legitimacy or having to substantiate them.

I wanted to use the opportunity to put them in a position of having to explain how the charges are arrived at. They need the Courts permission to submit the Amended Particulars of Claim without which they have no claim at all. If I can make that permission subject to disclosure of the cost basis for the charges we would all benefit. They are, as I said earlier, also in breach of the Data Protection Act having failed to provide the same information in response to my subject access request.

On the issue of damages.The claim says the outstanding debt OR damages. Which I guess is an attempt to salvage something if the Court refuses their application?

I have seen the threads (Yorkshire Bank etc) in which counterclaims have been threatened and in the same way this may be no more than intimidation. But it is contained in a legal document rather than a letter which ups the stakes a bit! It cannot,in my opinion, even remotely be a genuine pre-estimate of the costs they have incurrred as a result of my default.

Looking forward to some more input..

[pauli]

Jonni..the hearing is on Friday (4/

[jonni2bad]

Sorry, the date turned into a smilie! Is that 4th Aug - this Friday?

[pauli]

yes Jonni tomorrow..

[jonni2bad]

Hi, sorry about the delay. As you can probably tell, the site is short staffed at the moment and that, coupled with another surge of interest from a TV show, has set us back here.

In the hearing tomorrow I'm not sure how much info you are going to get from them (since it is not a full hearing) but if there is an opportunity to argue the case for full disclosure on the cost breakdown, then you obviously push for it. You also seem to have somethings going for you - their initial failure, the Data Protection Act non-compliance etc - so hopefully the Judge would have some kind of sympathy for you.

Their claim for damages seems absurd and I'm hopeful the Judge will think so too.

If the Judge takes the lead in questioning, all the better.

I'm sorry we could not have been more helpful but you've caught us thin on the ground here..

Best of luck

[pauli]

Don't worry about it..I'll let you know what goes on. If not now I will try and push for full disclosure later. Assuming there is a later..would be nice if they didn't get the claim reinstated!

[pauli]

Sadly we never got to the point where Standard Disclosure became an issue. The claim was reinstated as I guessed it would be but then stayed on the basis that the amount claimed included unlawful charges and costs.

The banks claim is now halted until such time as there is a decision in the Mercantile Court. Which will be never ..I wish.. until the Banks decide to defend one!

Anyone defending a money claim..county court judgement.. take note. Defend the claim with part admission based on your estimate of the value of charges + interest. If the claimant refuses to accept the part admission it is likely the claim would be stayed in the same way. It is certainly something you could include in your defence and would likely be accepted by the Court.

It will now be interesting to see if the Bank challenge the Stay and seek to have it lifted.Particularly in view of their earlier Standard disclosure offer.

[MARTIN3030]

I will get back to you on this.

[pauli]

thanks ... I intend to defend the claim and am looking at how I can use the current situation to my best advantage. I will keep posting developments ..particularly if the Claimant seekd to have the stay lifted. I have the courts permission to file an amended defence.