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.
Issued claim for £767.00 via MCOL on 12/03/2007, which was acknowledge onb the 19/03/2007 by James Arrandale.
Sent letter to the court on 13/03/2007 with all the charges detailed and asking for them to add these to the case (7QZ31652) also sent a letter to Abbey with the same contents. Both sent by recorded post and delivered/signed for within 48 hours.
Now I sit and wait for what I guess will be a letter from Abbey saying "you never sent us a list of charges, what is this for..."
Any one else at the same point or any advice would be welcome as to what to expect/do next.
Abbey National PC/ Cahoot have on the 29/03/2007 filed a Defense with the court
This states that:
IN THE NORTHAMPTON county court BETWEEN:
XXXXX Claimant
- and -
ABBEY NATIONAL PLC/CAHOOT Defendant
DEFENCE
1. Save as is specifically admitted in this Defense, the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim.
2. lt is admitted that the Claimant has three current bank accounts with the Defendant, account numbers XXXX, XXXX & XXXX (together the "Account").
3. At all times the Account has been subject to the applicable terms and conditions ("Conditions''), which form part of the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant and to which the Claimant agreed when the Claimant opened the Account. The Defendant will refer at trial to the full Conditions but for the purposes of this Defense will refer to the following extracts;
(1) ''You can apply for an overdraft on your Account. If we give you an overdraft we will tell you your limit and the interest rate applicable.''
(2)''An unauthorised overdraft occurs if without our agreement you overdraw your Account or exceed the limit of an overdraft which we have agreed.''
(3)''If you have an unauthorised overdraft you will be charged fees as set out in our Tariff of Charges or specified to you and these may include fees for transactions we are unable to process due to lack of available funds in your Account”
4. Throughout the period that s/he has had the Account, the Claimant received a number of copies of the Conditions and of the said Tariff of Charges as they were amended and updated (though there has been no material amendment to the Conditions extracted in paragraphs 3(1), (2) and (3) above).
5. Any overdraft facility on the Account was (and is) subject to the Conditions.
6. The Claimant has overdrawn or exceeded authorised overdraft limits on the Account on a number of separate occasions, full details of which will be provided on disclosure. Therefore by virtue of the Conditions referred to in paragraph 3 above such overdrawing was unauthorised and in breach of contract and the Claimant became liable to pay fees to the Defendant in accordance with its Tariff of Charges applicable at the relevant time. ln accordance with the Conditions, such fees were debited to the Account.
7. In view of the facts and matters referred to in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 above, the Defendant denies that the amount of £ 852.98 or any other, amount was unlawfully debited to the Account and the Claimant's claim for the repayment of that amount is therefore denied. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to claim interest in the sum of £147.98 or at all.
8. The Claimant's contention that the said fees are unenforceable and/or are ''penalty charges'' is denied. The fees reflect and are proportionate 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.
9. 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.
l 0. No admissions are made as to the amounts claimed by the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the same.
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true.
I am duly authorised by the Defendant to sign this statement.
Full name: James Arrandale
of Abbey National plc
signed
position or office held: Legal Officer Date: 29 March 2007
IMHO the this should have been treated as 2 distinct claims by you as the claimant. But that's by the by. Wonder what the third account is they're defending??!!
Well I can't wait, Abbey aka Cahoot, are obviously prepared to stand up in court and give detailed breakdowns of their costs incurred when they impose a penalty. Hmm...this will be a first for any bank...could be a "landmark" case then!!
You know I was joking with friends a few weeks back after being successful with Alliance & Leicester that it would be just my luck to be the first person to loose in court.
I know it's just bluff on their part, but all the same makes me a little uneasy.
To date I have had:
1. Current account (open and being used)
2. 2 credit cards (paid off one in 2005 and one in January 2007)
3. 1 flexible loan (paid off in full in January 2007)
It is accounts 1 + 2 they have referred to although the claim is formed of 1 and second part of 2 only.
They have also recently changed the status of my credit file to reflect that all accounts (current, credit card and loan) show as current accounts in the status field, where as before they sais "revolving credit" (for the flexible loan) and credit card for the "credit card".
I know they recently stopped doing any accounts other than savings and currents accounts so I am "guessing" this is all above board, or are they up to something?
I am a Experian monthly credit file customer and can prove these changes (including the date they applied them)
1. The filing of an allocation questionnaire be dispensed with in this case unless the District Judge at the court of transfer orders otherwise.
Note: Any party affected by this order may under Rule 3.3(5) apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed. Such a party must apply under Rule 23.3 within 14 days of service of this order.
Next attached are the details above (as already received from Abbey) confirming their terms and disputing the entire amount.
another judge dispensing with aq's!! Great news.
We think this is because the judge knows they will settle and it cuts down the waiting time and also the waste of the courts time.
I have picked up another £30.00 over limit fee on the 23rd March for being £7 over my limit for 24 hours - such a sort time that the interest for the period will be £0.00!!!
I know it is the Cahoot computer charging me, but what do I do?
Do I ring Cahoot and ask for a goodwill refund ?
Do I ring Cahoot and say "in light of current court action..."
Or can I add this on to my claim?
Other people might have different views to me but in my situation, I have picked up 3x 30quid charges since I originally asked for my refund and I'm probably going to be charged another 30quid this month. I'm going to wait until either cahoot settle the full amount or I win in court and then following that, I'll ask for the new charges back.
I was orignally going to add these to my claim but this happens almost every month due to my financial situation and then I would imagine it would get messy if I kept ammending my claim all the time.
As far as I know, I can sue my bank as often as I like so if they refuse to pay back the new charges, I'll start the action all over again.
UKMP3 V Cahoot (7QZ31652)
saying "looking into... be in touch shortly...l taking longer than we expected..."
Reply With Quote
Re: UKMP3 V Cahoot (7QZ31652)
