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.
Like most, I never expected it to get this far but now it has I want to be as prepared as possible.
I started my claim against Lloyds TSB in March, sent the letters, got the standard responses. Started Money claim online, Lloyds came in at the last minute to enter there defence which is "we provide a service" Now I've recieved a court date. The court has not asked for anything. I haven't had to fill in an allocation questionaire or provide any information. My letter from the court says the reason for hearing as follows:
"the court needs to identify whether this particular case is suitable for hearing as fast track."
There is a second letter attached which reads:
The court has identified a number of cases which all raise the same issue and defence. In an effort to manage them appropriately the Court has listed the cases for consideration of allocation to track or in some cases reallocation. The Court has endeavoured to list cases involving the same lending institution at the same time in the hope that only one representative need attend.
Could someone please advise me as to what these letters actually mean and what I need to take with me. I also have been searching for the most straight forward argument that the charges I have incurred were cloaked penalties, not any kind of service.
I'm not a brave person and am really worried about public speaking. I have no one to speak for me. I know I will get tonge tied in court so I want to make sure I have a faultless argument and everything I need. I really want to do this as people in difficult financial situations have been taken advantage of for to long.
Hi
Have you had a response yest? My court date is 19th June this Tuesday, and I fill pretty much the same as you.
Very nervous and do not know how to put my case across
I haven't had any responses yet but hopefully someone who is wise will help soon. My date is 2nd July so you'll be finished before me. I've been doing a lot of reading other threads which are nearly all positive and getting most of my information from them, but what I'm looking for is a real simplified explanation as to why the charges are not for a service but a penalty. for me its a bit like trying to explain the offside rule in football, I understand it but cannot explain it!! Were you required to send info to the court or have you prepared everything to take with you?
Hi
HOORAH... they paid up by recorded delivery on Saturday morning. Their letter stilled denied that they had done anything wrong, but this is just to cover themselves for further cases. If they admit they were in the wrong it then sets a precedent for other claims.
The reasons why the claims are unfair is because they charge you around £30 to bounce your cheques or direct debits or if you exceed your overdraft.
These charges are not fair or in line with the cost they would incur to advise you, that you have gone over drawn. It takes them around a minute to send that standard letter out and the true cost to the banks is around £2.
Have you been on the website it gives you a lot of advise and also tells the story of the first case to compare it to:
The bank's charges are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable. Penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic v New Garage [1915] AC 79.along with Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963. The Defendants charges are also contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Para.8 and sch.2(1)(e)) The claimant has repeatedly asked the bank to refund their charges or offer proof that they are true pre-estimate. They have declined to do so.
The banks can not prove that the letters cost them £30 to send or that it has cost the bank £30 because we did not handle our accounts sufficiently, and so the charges are unfair
GOOD LUCK
I'm really thrilled for you. Best possible outcome. Well done. Thanks for your help. I do understand the penalty laws its just the arguement about service I don't seem to have evidence to support the fact that the charges I incurred were penalties and not a service as the bank says.
Court date soon need help
TSB in March, sent the letters, got the standard responses. Started Money claim online, Lloyds came in at the last minute to enter there defence which is "we provide a service" Now I've recieved a court date. The court has not asked for anything. I haven't had to fill in an allocation questionaire or provide any information. My letter from the court says the reason for hearing as follows:
Reply With Quote
Re: Court date soon need help
