Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
hi
i am claiming for 3650.00 i am now at the point where the court has sent me the allocation questionnaire must admit getting a bit worried now.
has anyone been at this stage if they could explain about the questionnaire and what happens next .
I did get a letter from the bank beforehand of a offer of 2372.00 and a copy of defence i replied back asking for a more realistic offer but no reply after a week so i phoned Abbey in london asking if they have had my letter they said no not yet nothing on there files ,
so is this just a ploy of wasting time.
Well you appear to be at exactly the same point as me! i sent Abbey a nudge letter whereby they made me an offer short of some £700, i politely refused and wrote back with another figure..........heard nothing! so just got my head down and submitted my aq sent them a copy too, to date i still haven't recieved one from them!
Honestly the AQ is nothing to worry about and Glad has given you the links i followed the abuse orders is brilliant and highly recommended!
Have you seen the latest thing, some judges are so snowed under they are sending out orders letting claimants know that their cases have been stayed until late September. Apparantly this has nothing to do with Abbey requesting a stay, it just seems that they courts cant cope with the influx of claims.
Instead of staying the claims, they should be striking them out in favour of the claimants for an abuse of court process.
hi dsilverstein
thanks for link they have sent me the N150 form not the N149
Do you have to send anything else with this form apart for the £100.00 fee,
Doing my head in now trying to take it all in trying to understand what i need to prepare for next stage seems a lot never mind i will get there
can you tell me were i can get the T&Cs from please
thanks
George
This is the N150 I completed for the AQ for Abbey . Most of the info I gained from this site + I added some extra bits. You can use this format as this was a pretty comprehensive AQ and with luck you could at best get a strike out! on Abbey abuse of the system.
I also picked up from Abbey's AQ some underhand comments such as £2K costs, which they cannot do and as well they said they had already sent to me their eveidence which was not true. So I did a side letter to the court when I sent in the AQ to point out these errors on Abbeys AQ + I also sent them £100 and I copied everthing and sent it to Abbey as well.
xxxxxxxxxx -v- Abbey National Plc
In the xxxxxxxx county court
Claim No: xxxxxxxxxxxxx
N150 ALLOCATION QUESTIONNAIRE (CONTINUED)
Section H – Other Information
The Claimant respectfully requests that an order may be made as follows:
1. That the Defence be struck out as it is an abuse of process, pursuant to rule 3.4(2)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules ,on the basis that the Defendant has filed a template defence then subsequently settled each and every other claim of this nature.
Since May 2006, I am aware of over 100 claims of this nature in which the Defendant has filed an acknowledgement of service, then a Defence, then an allocation questionnaire, then has breached the order for pre-hearing directions, then has finally settled without liability shortly in advance of the hearing or trial. The most recent case that I am aware of is claim number xxxxxxxx
which was listed for a hearing on 28th June 2007 at the Mercantile Court in Leeds. Abbey National PLC- the Defendant, has now settled this claim in full £xxxxxxxx prior to the hearing and without admission of liability. I wish to bring to this Honourables Court’s attention that the principles in that case relating to bank charges is no different to the case that I now bring to this Court. A sample list of similar claims, including their claim numbers, are attached (attachment 1B).
It is submitted that the Defendant’s litigation strategy is flagrantly abusive of the public resource, and further, contrary to almost all of the Overriding Objectives of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is respectfully submitted that the Defendant will continue to conduct litigation in this manner for as long as it is allowed to do so with impunity.
Please find attached a copy of an order made by Lincoln County Court (attachment 1C) in at least 10 cases similar to my own involving various high street banks, including Abbey National Plc- the defendant. The Court considered the authority of Mullen-v-Hackney London Borough Council (1997)2 A11ER 906 to be relevant. If this Honourable Court also considers this authority relevant, I would respectfully request that the Court applies its special knowledge of the Defendant’s notorious and well established conduct in similar cases when considering directions/order in the present case. Please find attached the case to which I refer (attachment 1D)
2. In the alternative, should the Court not be minded to strike out the defence, and if the claim is to proceed to allocation, the Claimant respectfully suggests that special directions may be made as per the attached draft order (attachment 2A).
I believe the proposed directions will further the Overriding Objectives in that they identify the most fundamental issues in dispute and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously.
I would aver that if the Defendant has the serious intention of defending this claim at trial, as is indicated by its defence, that it is incumbent upon it to disclose such information. Further, the proposed directions are now routinely ordered in claims of this nature in the Mercantile Court in London, as well as small claims track cases in Leicester, Derby, Chesterfield, Willesden and Mansfield County Courts.
These issues are not complex; as the law relating to contractual penalties is long established, I believe the outstanding issues to be of fact and not of Law, and, inter alia, whether the money levied by the Defendant in respect of its customer’s contractual breaches exceed their actual costs incurred. I am happy to pay their actual costs and I am surprised that the Defendant did not counterclaim for these, because I would have paid them without argument.
However, the continuing problem is (in common with many other similar cases being brought to Court by other bank customers) that the banks refuse to reveal
the details of their penalty-charging regime. As the banks have a fiduciary duty towards their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly and in utmost good faith.
Accordingly, I would respectfully request that this claim be allocated to the small claims track, and I estimate that the hearing of the claim should last no longer than one hour.
george61 v abbey allocation questionnaire
must admit getting a bit worried now.
Reply With Quote
