Thread: Ajjars son v Abbey

Hi all,

Got a few claims on going - but this one is my sons. Have sent lba, due to file at court on Monday but have received a letter today offering £350 of a £665 claim as a GOGW. Thing is, the money has hit the account already. Obviously we will not accept this offer, so what do Abbey tend to do in this case? If you accept as partial payment only do they take the money back out of the account? Obviously we would have liked to reject this offer and keep the whole claim intact, but they have acted so fast they have caught us out. Any help would be much appreciated!!

Cheers Ajjars.

Similar Threads:

• Abbey Victim V Abbey ***WON***
• ajjars o/h v barclaycard.
• ajjars v Halifax settled in full

Ah ha!

Thank you - I knew I had seen them somewhere!

Much appreciated

Ajjars

Hi all,

Well, sent the "thanks but only accepting money as a partial settlement" reply and have heard nothing. So today we went to court and filed our claims (mine with Woolwich). Felt absolutely fantastic and empowering! lol So will keep you all up dated as to what happens next!

Cheers Ajjars.

Just a quick update. Received acknowledgement stating they intend to defend. That was dated 24th April. Received their defence today (that was quick!).

Seems to be the bog standard defence from reading other threads. So we just sit and wait for a date now!

Just a quickie, having studied the defence now (just glanced at it before)
paragraph 8 states:

"The claimants contention that the said fees are unenforcable and/or are penalty charges is denied. The fees reflect and are proportionate to the Defendant's administrative expenses incurred due to the claimants breach of contract and are a genuine pre-estimate of the damage suffered by the defendant".

Paragraph 9 states:

"Further or in the alternative, even if the said fees are not proportionate to the Defendant's administrative expenses (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".

Now to me this means "we don't want to pay you back what we ripped you off and we are fibbing when we say that is how much you cost us, and just in case someone finds out about our fibs, we did actually incur a small cost so you should pay that"

Paragraph 9 contradicts paragraph 8 to my mind. If they were absolutely 100% right in their claim that they charge us what it costs them - there would be no need for paragraph 9 surely?

Can't the Banks be charged with lying to the courts? We all know it doesn't cost them that much, they know it, thats why they never defend it, but someone has signed that defence as a statement of truth. Surely that is just wrong?

Just my thoughts! Thanks!

That is very true .... but what about the statement of truth submitted to the court?

Hi Aj

I got Abbey's defence this week as well, just waiting to hear from court, my para's 8 and 9 say exactly the same as yours ~ I think they're covering all bases with those two conflicting statements!

That's probably why they settle before going into court and being challenged further!

Just a quick update,

Son received his aq same time as mine (Ajjars v Woolwich) whilst we were on holiday! Had until today to get it back to the court. Took it in today along with the draft directions and other information attached.

Thing is, in with his AQ was one with "Abbey PLC" on it. The court reckon they have "made an error" (oh, really?) and sent the one meant for the Abbey to us, and that the Abbey will not have received theirs. So, Abbey will need more time now to fill in their AQ. I'm hoping that one was sent to the Abbey as well, and the one put in with my sons was the error! Have sent a copy of the AQ to the Abbey and a copy of the attachments.

Anyway, nothing we can do about it now, just sit back and wait.

Will update as and when.