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.
After getting all details of charges and being refused a refund of them I issued a claim form againstCahoot for £833.59.
They have entered an acknowledgement of service, meaning they have 28 days in which to file a defence... that was on 31st march, so just waiting for them now. I suppose one of them is bound to turn up to court eventually, but publicity would be good to draw attention to the issue... unles I lost of course!
Cheers for the support!
I am slightly worried these dudes might take it to the courts, but if they do I will make sure it gets publicity. I work for the Consumer Credit Counselling Service, a charity that tries to help indebted consumers, and on a daily basis I see the sly ploys banks and credit companies use to impoverish people who are already in financial trouble. It's really quite disturbing. The OFT haven't seemed to act to stop unfair practices regarding mis-selling of loans and credit cards, or to stop creditors harrassing consumers, so I wouldn't hold my breath in them getting to grips with the charges any time soon...
With Cahoot having 28 days to file a defence, do have to advise me of their defence, or would I only find out the details of that at a hearing?
In one of the responses from them earlier in the dispute, their customer relations fellow told me, in writing, he thought the charges were proportionate, so hopefully that will be their (flawed) defence.
Have a read of the CPR in the Library. Yes, you will get a copy of the defence in advance of a hearing. The fact that they file a defence is not a definate indication that there will be a hearing. It is quite possible that they will make a settlement offer after filing a defence.
I'm also thinking of filing aganist Cahoot for charges made on a current account and credit card I had with them in the past, which is now closed.
Do you know where I can find the OFT's press release? I knew they stated that £12 was 'fair' but my link has now expired on the BBC website and comes up with a customer that sued his bank for around £800 in Manchester. Is there an official site?
Found it now. This is being discussed in the general forums under the OFT ruling and is 'Sticky'.
Coming back to Cahoot (the reason for this thread/post), they've always been really helpful with me, and mostly refunded the first type of charge on the first occasion of each one, when requested. EG: First DD, returned, First overlimit, returned etcetera, but I digress (don't feel sorry for them!)
I've sent my DSIR (data subject information request, why does everyone call it somthing different?) today and await to see how much the charges add up to.
I had a credit card and current account with them, whilst a student. I imagine the charges to be large as they were generally used as most student accounts are (near to the limit).
Any special rules on filing for Current Accounts and Credit Cards simultaneously?
Take 'em to court Bro' ...someone has to - it's a day out and a learning experience (and more than likely a pay day - although remembering the point, it is YOUR money in the first place - thieving muppets!)
We thought we were paying charges but really the banks were just putting our money into a nice 'protected' savings account for 6 years. bless! ...I would love to see Barclay's in court!
Have now received a written defence from Cahoot (Abbey).
Highlights include:
'The Claimant's contention that the said fees are uneforceable and/or are 'penalty charges' is denied. The fees reflect and are proortionate to the Defendant's administrative expenses incurred due to the Claimant's breach of contract and are a genuine pre-estimate of the damage suffered by the Defendant.'
they go on to say:
'Further or in the alternative, even if the said fees are not proportionate to the Defendant's administrative expenses incurred (which is denied), the Claimant remains liable to pay such fees as may be found to be proportionate and the Claimant is not entitled to claim repayment of the full amount of each charge made to the Account.'
then:
'No admissions are made as to the amounts claimed by the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the same.'
Have now received a written defence from Cahoot (Abbey).
Highlights include:
'The Claimant's contention that the said fees are uneforceable and/or are 'penalty charges' is denied. The fees reflect and are proortionate to the Defendant's administrative expenses incurred due to the Claimant's breach of contract and are a genuine pre-estimate of the damage suffered by the Defendant.'
they go on to say:
'Further or in the alternative, even if the said fees are not proportionate to the Defendant's administrative expenses incurred (which is denied), the Claimant remains liable to pay such fees as may be found to be proportionate and the Claimant is not entitled to claim repayment of the full amount of each charge made to the Account.'
then:
'No admissions are made as to the amounts claimed by the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the same.'
Any advice would be appreciated? Does anyone think they actually go to court, or should I call their bluff?
Seems no-one else has responded to this... So I'll give it a go...
With any of this it all depends on your own pov and how much risk you are willing to take... I personally believe that if pushed they will back down and give you everything that you are owed.
It could go one of several ways if it does make it to court.
a) The court could find that these are indeed penalty charges and therefore order them to be repaid in full.
b) The court agrees that they are payment for service but not proportionate. This would then lead to one of 2 outcomes
i) The bank would demonstrate what a proportionate fee is which would involve them demonstrating how the cost(/loss) is calculated and then would have to repay you the difference - highly unlikely this has been asked for on many occasions always leading to silence in response
ii) The bank would refuse to demonstrate proportionality and would therefore have to repay you in full.
c) The court may find the charges proportionate and you lose the case However I believe (as do most on here !) that this is so unlikely that the risk is almost negligible, especially in mind that the OFT has said that certainly anything over £12 is indefensible.
I think that this is a fairly standard scare tactic to try to mitigate their losses.
As ever with (I believe most if not) all advice given on this website, I am not qualified to give any advice and you are duly warned that any decisions are your own decisions made on your own account and no liability will be accepted for any advice followed ! Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.
Wise words, and very valuable I feel. As such have responded to their defence (and their offer of half the payment) as follows:
Thank you for your correspondence dated 19 April 2006.
Dear [Cahoot solicitor],
I have carefully considered the defence filed on behalf of Abbey National plc. and have come to the conclusion that I must reject your offer of £457.00 in Full and final settlement.
I have no need or desire to avoid filling in and returning the Allocation Questionnaire I have received (which I will be sending to Leeds county court as instructed to arrive no later than 10th May 2006), and have absolutely no qualms about taking the matter to Court for a judge to decide the outcome.
For your information, I will not be seeking a 1 month postponement of further action so we may have more time to reach settlement.
It would be interesting, for my information, if you could provide a true indication of Abbey's administrative expenses incurred as a result of me going over my overdraft limit. I realise an organisation of Abbey's standing would have analysed such costs and would appreciate it if you could furnish me with the details.
I thank you for your time and hope to here from you soon regarding the costing details.
Yours sincerely,
Gumbodave!
Thought I might as well see if I could get in writing what they think the costs should be (though doubt they will respond with the figures). I'll see if they contact me in the next fw days and then get ready for court. Presumably if they do admit in court to their actual costs, that figure could be used in future as an estimate for other cases?
p.s. Don't worry Dinghy, I really appreciate the advice, and wouldn't hold it against you or the Bank/Consumer Action Group if it all goes horribly wrong. I think this cause is too important to let the creditors get away with treading on consumers rights just so they can make a shed load of cash. The really losers are the ones who are so skint they cannot afford the internet to check this site out. I work for a debt charity and have been printing out the step by step guide and template letters and sending them to clients. Hopefully some of them can start getting some of their cash back too.
That's why I would be well up for court, to try to set a precedent that all banks/credit card companies would have to stick to without everyone having to go through all this to claim back retrospectively. It would be a mild disappointment if they bottled it. We'll see.
Best of luck with it... My claim was issued exactly a week ago...
Originally Posted by gumbodave
p.s. Don't worry Dinghy, I really appreciate the advice, and wouldn't hold it against you or the Bank/Consumer Action Group if it all goes horribly wrong.
I'm sure you wouldn't but there's a helluva lot of litigious people round here @ the moment !
'You haven't clicked my scales though...' I have now, Dinghy!
Looks like Cahoot don't fancy court afterall! Received this today:
'Mr Hanson,
In view of the amount that you are claiming and the legal costs that Abbey would incur in arranging defence and representation at the Court, the decision has been made that on this occasion, and in this case, your claim will be settled. However, this is on a "without prejudice" basis and is entirely without any admission of liability.
'I have therefore arranged for the sum of £833.59 (representing the claim of £753.59 and the Court fee of £80.00) to be paid into your account today in Full and final settlement of your claim.
I should be grateful if you would inform the Court that this matter has now been resolved.'
Hope this gives the rest of you renewed hope that they won't go the full distance.
Good luck all!
'You haven't clicked my scales though...' I have now, Dinghy!
Ta !
Originally Posted by gumbodave
Looks like Cahoot don't fancy court afterall! Received this today:
'Mr Hanson,
In view of the amount that you are claiming and the legal costs that Abbey would incur in arranging defence and representation at the Court, the decision has been made that on this occasion, and in this case, your claim will be settled. However, this is on a "without prejudice" basis and is entirely without any admission of liability.
'I have therefore arranged for the sum of £833.59 (representing the claim of £753.59 and the Court fee of £80.00) to be paid into your account today in Full and final settlement of your claim.
I should be grateful if you would inform the Court that this matter has now been resolved.'
Hope this gives the rest of you renewed hope that they won't go the full distance.
Good luck all!
Congrats... It was worth that very small gamble then !
If you have found this post (or any other post) useful ensure you click on the scales in the top right of that post to give credit where credit is due.
As ever, with (I believe most if not) all advice given on this website, I am not qualified to give any advice and you are duly warned that any decisions are your own decisions made on your own account and no liability will be accepted for any advice followed ! Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified, insured, professional if you have any doubts.
If you have found this post (or any other post) useful ensure you click on the scales in the top right of that post to give credit where credit is due.
As ever, with (I believe most if not) all advice given on this website, I am not qualified to give any advice and you are duly warned that any decisions are your own decisions made on your own account and no liability will be accepted for any advice followed ! Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified, insured, professional if you have any doubts.
I was just getting psyched up for a court room battle as well! Alas, it will fall on some other's shoulders to get these rascals stitched up in the courts and set that all important precedant that proves banks are indeed exploitative in their business practices and couldn't give a monkey's about consumer welfare or anything that didn't end in zeros.
Hanson v Cahoot - 6QZ18789
... that was on 31st march, so just waiting for them now. I suppose one of them is bound to turn up to court eventually, but publicity would be good to draw attention to the issue... unles I lost of course!
Reply With Quote
Re: Hanson v Cahoot - 6QZ18789
Re: Hanson v Cahoot - 6QZ18789
Re: Hanson v Cahoot - 6QZ18789
Originally Posted by gumbodave
However I believe (as do most on here !) that this is so unlikely that the risk is almost negligible, especially in mind that the OFT has said that certainly anything over £12 is indefensible.
Re: Hanson v Cahoot - 6QZ18789
