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.
Received a letter that says 'One of my team, yadder, yadder, yadder, I hope we will be able to find a solution that you are happy with.' and a nice leaflet that says nothing about filing a claim at court.
Presume all normal?
If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.
Doh!
I'm a couple of days behind you, N1 deemed served 2nd April, they have til 16th to acknowledge, I was hoping they'd overlooked it or were snowed under with 'complaints'.
Now I see they've acknowledged yours, so maybe they're just ackowledging last minute. So I suppose they might acknowledge tomorrow or Monday!
I'll be keeping an eye on your thread, GuidoT to see how you're getting on!
To speed things up, I thought I would send this letter (I reduced my claim by £10 as an offer):
'I am disappointed that you have failed to settle my claim as above and I am affording yourselves one final opportunity to resolve the matter to avoid incurring further costs.
The present position is that I have filed a claim, that was deemed served on the x 2007 (copy enclosed) and you have in the Acknowledgement of Service stated that you intend to defend the claim in full.
You have stated that in the knowledge that you will settle the matter in full prior to the hearing. I attach an example list of claims that you have settled. This tactic which is an abuse of the court process. If you were the Claimant you would be barred from filing a claim and a vexatious litigant.
After abating the sum paid as a gesture of goodwill of £x, my claim stands at £x (including court fees and interest) to that sum a daily rate of interest from the 26 March 2007 applies of £0.xp. Therefore, the total sum claimed presently stands at £x, i.e. £ + (25 days x £0.xp).
My claim is straightforward and it should be noted that I am not claiming for charges that are over 6 years old, nor contractual interest. I have only claimed interest at 8% that I have an established entitlement to pursuant to the county court Act 1984.
If you continue pointlessly defending the matter you will incur further costs, viz:
The Allocation Questionnaire fee
Your own legal costs (whether in house or otherwise)
Further interest that accrues
My costs. I realise the recovery of costs is restricted as this claim is likely to be allocated to the small claims track, but on the basis of your unreasonable conduct of dragging out litigation before conceding liability I will claim the same. Authority for this can be found in Mahmood v Watson.
I am prepared to fully and finally settle the matter for £x, providing your deposit that sum in my bank account within 14 days from the date of this letter. If that sum is paid I will of course discontinue my claim.'
They responded in a surprising way, I will post it up later.
If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.
Abbey National Plc denies any abuse of court process on its part. Each case is assessed on its individual merit.
We note that you calculate your total claim, as at x 2007, in the sum of £x. However, this calculation take no account of the defaults that have in fact occurred on your account.
Various charges deemed appropriate to the type of defaults that have occurred on your account have been the subject of considerable debate. Such charges range from £4.00 up to £26.00 per default.
We note that there have been x defaults that have occurred on your account that form the basis of your claim. Taking a figure that is less than the average of the two figures above above that is, £12.00, and multiplying that figure by the number of defaults (132) gives a sum of x £.
Therefore, in the interest of commerciality, Abbey National Plc is prepared to make payment to you in the sum of £x. in Full and final settlement of your claim.
Should you wish to accept this offer please sign the enclosed copy of this letter and return the same to in order that payment can be processed.'
Essentially they are offering 70% of my claim. I will draft a suitable response.
If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.
I believe their litigation department is in-house at Triton Square, but hopefully someone else can confirm.
Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!
Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.
Although I am not sure why I am bothering to respond, below is my response to the Abbey letter in post 14:
'Thank you for responding to my letter dated x 2007 in yours on the x 2007.
In the first substantive paragraph of your letter you deny any abuse of process – this is palpable nonsense. Your conduct is reprehensible and the judiciary have recently issued orders to confirm your abuse.
By way of example (further examples will be included in section G of aq) I refer specifically to claim No. x where this order has been made:
‘WITHOUT NOTICE IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. Defence struck out as an abuse of process.
2. Claimant may enter judgement for the outstanding balance of the claim and court fees and interest.’
Turning now to your offer of £12.00 per default. Please provide evidence to demonstrate the £12.00 represents the actual sum that it costs your organisation to process such a default.
I am only too aware that Abbey (in common with all the other Banks) will not provide evidence to demonstrate how they have arrived at their penalty charges. The reason for this is that it will be an embarrassment as you will only be able to prove charges of a nominal sum.
Below are three paragraphs from my witness statement (that has yet to be issued):
‘I note that In a recent study undertaken in Australia by Nicole Rich entitled “Unfair fees: A report into penalty fees charged by Australian banks” (x4) it was estimated that the cost to an Australian Bank of a customers direct debit refusal was estimated to be in the region of 54 cents (as page 32 of the study). By reviewing the charges against the above figure, the study estimated that banks could be charging between 64 to 92 times what it costs them to process a direct debit refusal (as page 32 of the study). The study’s key findings stated that in its opinion the Australian Bank’s cheque and direct debit refusal fees were penalties at law (for example at page 21 of the study).
For their recent BBC2 documentary “The Money Programme” (x5), the BBC appointed a commission of former senior banking industry figures and business academics to attempt to ascertain the actual costs to the UK banks of processing a customer’s breach of contract. They concluded that the absolute maximum conceivable cost that could be incurred by a direct debit refusal or overdraft excess is £2.50, and of a returned cheque £4.50. They did state however, that the actual cost is likely to be much less than this. The commission also estimated that the UK banks collectively derive as much as £4.5billion in profit a year from their charging regimes.
On 22nd May 2006 (x6), the House of Commons passed an early day motion which welcomed the OFT's statement that default charges should be proportionate to the actual loss incurred. The house described such default charges as "exorbitant" and "excessive".’
In view of the above, I will accept charges of £1.00 per default and will not pursue yourselves for my costs preparing documentation as point 4 of my letter dated x 2007.
Therefore, I am prepared to settle the matter for £x, i.e. £x + (x days x £0.66p) – £x.
Given the allocation questionnaire is due to be returned on the x 2007, I would appreciate your response a few days prior to that date.'
If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.
kinda thrown £132 away there as the basis for claiming is that the charges are levied unlawfully, therefore no part of the charge can be levied. However, I understand why and the fact that his will be seen in a good light as meaningful negotiations. I attempted somethin similar but didn't even get the courtesy of a reply.
Abbey £4340.59 *WON* Jan 07
Abbey II MCOL 31/03/07 £8800.00
Please note..I AM NOT AN EXPERT ANYTHING WHAT I POST IS PURELY MY OPINION AND MAY BE WRONG IT IS JUST BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OR EXPERIENCE
GuidoT v Abbey ***WON***
The Consumer Forums
Reply With Quote
Re: GuidoT v Abbey
