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.
Have you had any response from Leeds? Was wonderind what to claim for as well, I have the same type fees as you. Can you tell me if you are also claiming back anything over 6years ago, some people say not to try, some people say do????
Thank you for your letter dated 20/3/07 which has been pased to me for investigation and reply under the societys internal complaints procedure.
Whilst there has been some media coverage on the subject of fees this has to my knowledge been focused on those applied in respect of credit cards & bank accounts where a fee is automatically charged that is not proportionate to the work undertaken. I believe you are making reference to the OFT investigations regarding credit card charges and penalties and i must point out that all other charges made by banks & building societys was outside the scope of investigation. However it is possible in the future that our charges may be investigated and naturally we will adhere to any recommendations they may make.
When a decision is made to advance mortgage monies, this then becomes a formal mortgage contract which sets out the terms & conditions of the loan and establishes the societys ability to charge fees according to our standard scale of charges which is further reinforced to our customers through the annual mortgage statement mailing. All our charges are bench marked against others within the industry and i truly believe the tariff to be fair an resonable and in proportion to the work undertaken.
For example, broken arrangment charges are applied where the society has been monitoring an agreed arrangement that has been defaulted upon with no charges being applied if the arrangement is maintained. Arrears letter charges are made where the actions of the collections team continue to be unsuccessful in collecting the overdue payment and therefore a letter is sent to the borrowerto establish contact an the content of these letters may vary dependent on the account history. This charge is made to cover the collections team additional monitoring, reporting and management. Similarly, solicitors cost & arrears ligigation charges are applied when the society feels that it has sufficient concerns about the conduct of the account to initiate legal proceedings. These charges combine actual legal fees and central administration costs.
After a full examination of your file, i note that extensive arrears action took place during the period under review and as a result, the charges applied to your account are fair and proportionate to the cost of the additional management and administration that the society was forced to undertake as a result of your failure to fulfil your contractual obligations. The society does not therfore propose to refund any charges in this matter.
sounds to me like they are chancing their arm, it's good to note that they have mentioned that their charges are benchmarked againt others in the industry. Personally I would be inclined to point out that the other banks, mortgage companies etc are all having to refund the chrges, which obviously they aren't doing for the fun of it.
Speak to someone in the chat room and ask them to comment on your post, they will probably say carry on regardless, but might be able to tell you other cases/legislation to quote in your letter. I've read loads of very useful info on this site, but have problems relocating it again at a later date lol. If you haven't already, i'm sure you have though, have a good read through a lot of stuff on here, theres probably peops receiving similar letters, and you might just stumble upon a very good response to it!!!
By the way, did you reclaim the arrears visit arrears litigation fees?
Good luck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!
Its a pretty standard response. The fact that it is a mortgages rather than a bank makes little difference the same laws apply to each. There is no real Breakdown of actual costs just simple assertions. Proceed on to the next step in line with your timescale.
On the issue of 6 yrs, you can claim back 12 yrs under s.20 of the Limitation Act if the charges were added to the loan. If you paid the charges in addition to your monthly mortgage payment or the were applied on redemption you can only go back 6 yrs unless you raise s.32 of the Limitation Act and argue that you paid the charges in the mistaken belief they were lawfully due.
Can someone have a look at the lba i've drafted. Just want to make sure it's worded correctly.
Thanks.
In reply to you letter of 27th March 2007. As you will see form our first letter, (please see enclosed copies) we was not writing to you to make a complaint, we was writing to request the repayment of unlawful penalty charges from our account.Please find enclosed schedule of charges detailing dates, amounts and interest.
As outlined in our earlier correspondence dated 20th March 2007 we explained that the charges you have applied to our account are unlawful at Common Law, Statute and recent Consumer Regulations. Regardless of the wording of any automated letters sent to us, these charges constitute a “penalty charge”, as the amounts bear no relation to the actual loss incurred by you in relation to our account. We remind you that such penalty charges are legally unenforceable. Sections 5-8 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations cover mass contracts and states that charges must NOT 'be to the detriment of the consumer'.
Penalty charges are irrecoverable at Common Law. In the Scottish case of Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (1904) 12 SLT 498 the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incurred from a breach of contract. This is also the position in English law: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79, along with Murray v Leisure Play [2005] EWCA Civ 963.
We also requested a copy of our contract with you and a copy of our original terms and conditions, along with a detailed report of which clause, in the terms and conditions, each charge has been applied against. There is no real breakdown of actual costs just simple assertions in your reply on 27th March 2007. Your inability to demonstrate that the charges were a genuine pre-estimate of your costs suggests that the charges are indeed unlawful penalties rather than liquidated losses. We thus require you to provide us with a breakdown of the costs in administrative services in order to ensure us that the fees we paid were in fact lawful and fair.
In an effort to resolve this matter without the need for a court hearing we respectfully request that you refund us the amount of £1540. In the event that you do not comply with the above we will be left with no option but to pursue the said amount through the court process. Plus as we believe we have been unlawfully deprived of the money we have calculated £769.28 interest at the statutory rate of 8%, pursuant to section 69 of the county court Act 1984. This amount is what we would ask the court to award. As you will be undoubtedly be aware this amount will continue to accrue at the statutory daily rate of 0.021% until judgment or earlier payment.
We therefore ask you reply the full amount of £1540 as full and final settlement.
Although in our previous letter of the 20th March, 2007 we informed you that we would commence legal proceedings within 14 days, as a gesture of goodwill, we are willing to allow a further period of 14 days in order to resolve this matter. If there is not a satisfactory response to this letter within the 14 days, we will be forced to start legal proceedings to recover this money. Please do not waste our time by offering a part payment as such offers will be ignored. We will only accept a full and unconditional refund.
We look forward to receiving your reply within the given timescales, so avoiding the need to take up valuable court time.
Can someone have a look at the LBA i've drafted. Just want to make sure it's worded correctly.
Thanks.
In reply to you letter of 27th March 2007. As you will see form our first letter, (please see enclosed copies) we was not writing to you to make a complaint, we was writing to request the repayment of unlawful penalty charges from our account.Please find enclosed schedule of charges detailing dates, amounts and interest.
As outlined in our earlier correspondence dated 20th March 2007 we explained that the charges you have applied to our account are unlawful at Common Law, Statute and recent Consumer Regulations. Regardless of the wording of any automated letters sent to us, these charges constitute a “penalty charge”, as the amounts bear no relation to the actual loss incurred by you in relation to our account. We remind you that such penalty charges are legally unenforceable. Sections 5-8 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations cover mass contracts and states that charges must NOT 'be to the detriment of the consumer'.
Penalty charges are irrecoverable at Common Law. In the Scottish case of Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (1904) 12 SLT 498 the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incurred from a breach of contract. This is also the position in English law: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79, along with Murray v Leisure Play [2005] EWCA Civ 963.
We also requested a copy of our contract with you and a copy of our original terms and conditions, along with a detailed report of which clause, in the terms and conditions, each charge has been applied against. There is no real breakdown of actual costs just simple assertions in your reply on 27th March 2007. Your inability to demonstrate that the charges were a genuine pre-estimate of your costs suggests that the charges are indeed unlawful penalties rather than liquidated losses. We thus require you to provide us with a breakdown of the costs in administrative services in order to ensure us that the fees we paid were in fact lawful and fair.
In an effort to resolve this matter without the need for a court hearing we respectfully request that you refund us the amount of £1540. In the event that you do not comply with the above we will be left with no option but to pursue the said amount through the court process. Plus as we believe we have been unlawfully deprived of the money we have calculated £769.28 interest at the statutory rate of 8%, pursuant to section 69 of the county court Act 1984. This amount is what we would ask the court to award. As you will be undoubtedly be aware this amount will continue to accrue at the statutory daily rate of 0.021% until judgment or earlier payment.
We therefore ask you reply the full amount of £1540 as full and final settlement.
Although in our previous letter of the 20th March, 2007 we informed you that we would commence legal proceedings within 14 days, as a gesture of goodwill, we are willing to allow a further period of 14 days in order to resolve this matter. If there is not a satisfactory response to this letter within the 14 days, we will be forced to start legal proceedings to recover this money. Please do not waste our time by offering a part payment as such offers will be ignored. We will only accept a full and unconditional refund.
We look forward to receiving your reply within the given timescales, so avoiding the need to take up valuable court time.
Yours sincerely
Looks good to me. The only bit I would not include is the bit about the interest. I would just slap that on at MCOL stage. Did you ever find out about the legal indemnity?
In reply to you letter of 27th March 2007. As you will see from our first letter, (please see enclosed copies) we were not writing to you to make a complaint, we were writing to request the repayment of unlawful penalty charges from our account. Please find enclosed schedule of charges detailing dates, amounts and interest.
As outlined in our earlier correspondence dated 20th March 2007 we explained that the charges you have applied to our account are unlawful at Common Law, Statute and recent Consumer Regulations. Regardless of the wording of any automated letters sent to us, these charges constitute a “penalty charge”, as the amounts bear no relation to the actual loss incurred by you in relation to our account. We remind you that such penalty charges are legally unenforceable. Regulations 5-8 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 cover contracts not individually negotiated and states that terms which are contrary to the requirement of good faith to the detriment of the consumer may be unfair and thus not bnding on the consumer.
Penalty charges are irrecoverable at Common Law. In the Scottish case of Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (1904) 12 SLT 498 the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incurred from a breach of contract. This is also the position in English law: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79, along with Murray v Leisure Play [2005] EWCA Civ 963.
We also requested a copy of our contract with you and a copy of our original terms and conditions, along with a detailed report of which clause, in the terms and conditions, each charge has been applied against. There is no real Breakdown of actual costs just simple assertions in your reply on 27th March 2007. Your inability to demonstrate that the charges were a genuine pre-estimate of your costs suggests that the charges are indeed unlawful penalties rather than liquidated losses. We thus require you to provide us with a breakdown of the costs in administrative services in order to ensure us that the fees we paid were in fact lawful and fair.
In an effort to resolve this matter without the need for a court hearing we respectfully request that you refund us the amount of £1540. In the event that you do not comply with the above we will be left with no option but to pursue the said amount through the court process. Should we pursue this matter to court we would like to remind you that interest at the statutory rate of 8%, pursuant to section 69 of the county court Act 1984 would be applied we have calculated this to amount to £769.28. As you will be undoubtedly be aware this amount will continue to accrue at the statutory daily rate of 0.021% until judgment or earlier payment.
We therefore ask you reply the full amount of £1540 as full and final settlement.
Although in our previous letter of the 20th March, 2007 we informed you that we would commence legal proceedings within 14 days, as a gesture of goodwill, we are willing to allow a further period of 14 days in order to resolve this matter. If there is not a satisfactory response to this letter within the 14 days, we will be forced to start legal proceedings to recover this money. [Delete (you need to show the court that you are acting reasonably to reach settlement although you are not obliged to accept less) Please do not waste our time by offering a part payment as such offers will be ignored. We will only accept a full and unconditional refund.
We look forward to receiving your reply within the given timescales, so avoiding the need to take up valuable court time.
kopite V Leeds & Holbeck ( Now Leeds) **WON**
gone 1/3/07
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by fr0gg3r
The only bit I would not include is the bit about the interest. I would just slap that on at MCOL stage. Did you ever find out about the legal indemnity?