Jump to content

Domf2002

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Domf2002

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hi We have a potential business claim against Lloyds for around 15K. We held on waiting until the result of the high court, but are now going to try the UTTCR 5 route. I know that I was told to hold fire regarding a personal claim, but are there any template UTTCR 5 letters out there at the mo. Last time we wrote to Lloyds it was under the UTTCR 4 template, and this claim has not gone to court yet. The claim does potential date back to 2000. Any ideas? In worse case scenario am drafting a UTTCR 5 from the bits I have read but won’t actually proceed with court action until some of the new test claims are settled, Thanks as always for any brainwaves Dom
  2. Domf2002

    JF vs HSBC

    Thanks rdm2006 have saved that now
  3. Domf2002

    JF vs HSBC

    Hi Johnnymitch, will leave it then if that is the current thinking. Makes sense to me. Also have a new business claim against LLoyds but I don't want to cross post so will put place new post on that this afternoon and perhaps can get some thoughts on how that should progress, Cheers Dom
  4. Hi, this case is currently stayed (post supreme court ruling), but has anyone been able to lift their stay? We want to amend particulars of claim and go for UTTCR regulation 5. We can’t use Consumer Credit Act 1974 as borrowing was before 2008. (Is that correct?) If stays cannot be lifted are all courts waiting for some kind of announcement as to what is happening with cases. Sorry if I appear a bit vague on this, Cheers Dom (P.S have also posted a question on HSBC page as have HSBC personal for another member of family stayed and business claim to start)
  5. Domf2002

    JF vs HSBC

    Hi, this case is currently stayed (post supreme court ruling), but has anyone been able to lift their stay? We want to amend particulars of claim and go for UTTCR regulation 5. We can’t use Consumer Credit Act 1974 as borrowing was before 2008. (Is that correct?) If stays cannot be lifted are all courts waiting for some kind of announcement as to what is happening with cases. Sorry if I appear a bit vague on this, Cheers Dom (P.S have also posted a question on Lloyds page as have Lloyds personal for another member of family stayed and business claim to start)
  6. DS your a b****y marvel:lol: I'll do both, btw does DG still have the tel number which just goes to answer phone telling you to contact court? Can you PM claim I'll add that to letter, do letters tonight and deliver to court tomorrow and send recorded to DG. So it would be a case of me needing effectively to (re) prove the claim with statements x 3 and court bundle. OK if they still go to court and I get this to court for Monday does that give the DJ enough to to read it. I'd hate to only give DJ only 5 days to read something, and be told I hadn't got my defence in on time. That would seem ....unprofessional :grin:
  7. Hi Ds Already have a judgement order as of 28th august 2007, however the bank is appealing to have it set aside in their application notice N244 bacause as a result of an administrative error a defence to the claimant's claim was not filed within the stipulated time period. so I've already been granted judgement...but they are claiming (i assume) that they should have posted defence on time and if they had this would be it. Which leaves me wondering other than stating that UTTCR is for personal not business accounts...what else should i hit them with (other than legal baseball bat) Thanks again for your thoughts
  8. Thanks for both of your thoughts on this. Are there any documents I need to submit to court, as i understand that normally these have to be in before hand (1 week?) Do I need to submit a copy UTTCR legislation? and as for point 2 on their list have never reclaimed overdraft 'fees' else claim would be even more. I feel reasonalbe confident about this but dont want to be feeling myself incase there is something I should be doing now. As I say I have the judgement but are they claiming that we start back at step 1 and i have to submit copies to court of 650 pages of bank staements. If so I'd better get copying:)
  9. Domf2002

    Domf vs HSBC

    No before, have had another one my Barclays personal claim held up by a stay but will post about that there. thanks Dom
  10. Sorry DS have been away from the site for too long, by POC i take it you mean this bit. Followed the standard format that was on one of the pages for business accounts. What do you think- thanks for your help Dom 1.The Claimant had an account XXXX7690("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on Twelfth of April 2002 and closed around January 2006 2. During the period in which the Account was operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant. 3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim. 4. The Claimant contends that: a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit. b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the common law. The precedent for the law relating to contractual penalties was set in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage Motor Co Ltd (1915) AC 79. Additionally, in the case of Murray v Leisureplay (2005) EWCA Civ 963 it was held that a contractual party may only recover damages in respect of its actual loss or liquidated losses. 5. Accordingly the Claimant claims: a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £23969.19 and any interest charged thereon; b) Court costs; c) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act of 8% - £6681.21 continuing at 8% until judgment or settlement at a daily rate of £6.68 6. Alternatively, if the charges are a fee for a service, then they must be reasonable under S.15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act (1982). I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true
  11. DS my head hurts:) Just to say I have got the judgement and been awarded the full claim plus interests and costs. DG are now claiming that they forgot to defend as an oversight and that this case should not be paid out as they would have defended etc etc. not sure what docs I will need to take to court if I have been awarded claim unther than to refute the fact that it will cause the HSBC some gigantic loss. I forget the term but their covering letter nearly made me weep:)
  12. Sorry that I've been away for a while but a lot has happened and on this reclaim I now won this case (for the moment) as the HSBC forgot to post a defence...... Anyhow on 26th October I am due at court as HSBC are claiming that they forgot and they need a second chance et etc. Any suggestions as to the strategy for finally getting my cash back This is the letter from DG Solicitors We enclose a copy of our N244 Application Notice to have the Default Judgment dated 30 August 2007 set aside , together with enclosures. Application Notice dated 7/9/07 Part A We, DG Solicitors, on behalf of the defendant, HSBC Holding Plc intend to apply for an order ( a draft of which is attached) that the Default Judgment dated 30 August 2007 be set aside Because As a result of an administrative error a defence to the Claimant’s claim was not filed within the stipulated time period. Part B I wish to rely on Evidence in Part C in support of my application Part C We wish to reply on the following evidence in support of this application The Claimants claim form was issued on 1 June 2007 and served upon the Defendant at 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ On June 12 2007, an acknowledgment of service noting the Defendant’s intention the defend the claim was lodged with the Court As a result of an administrative error, a defence to the claim was not filed withing the stipulated period for response. Default judgment was entered for the Claimant on 30 August 2007 Whilst it is acknowledged that a defence should have been filed within the time period allowed, the error has arisen purely as a result of an administrative error. The Defendant has a good defence to the claim. Attached to this application is a copy of the defence which the Defendant would intend to file, properly verified by a statement of truth. Because of the high value of the claim, the Defendant will suffer significant prejudice if the Judgment dated 30 August 2007 is not set aside. In light of the above, we respectfully request an Order as follows Default judgment dated 30 August to be set aside This application is made with due consideration to CPR Part 1 relating to the overriding objective Defence Statement 1 The Claimants account is governed by the Defendants personal and/or business banking terms and conditions 2 Pursuant to the Defendants terms and conditions the defendant is entitled to make a charge for its services as set out in the Defendants price list, including an overdraft review fee for considering whether to provide and providing an overdraft 3 The Defendant denies that the charges applied to the Claimants account amount to penalties at common law and/or unfair contract terms for the purposes of the Unfair terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR’s) 4 The charges applied to the Claimants account are reasonable and are properly and fully disclosed in the Defendants terms and conditions and published price list. The charges represent the contractually agreed price for the services provided and the UTCCRs are not applicable to them; alternatively, they are not unfair contrary to the UTCCRs. Further, the charges are not default charges and, accordingly, cannot amount to a penalty 5 Save as set out above. Each and every allegation made by the Claimant is denied. For the reasons set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or an relief.
  13. Domf2002

    Domf vs HSBC

    Just to update you as its been a while since I was on the site. Settled with HSBC for £6000 in July but then hand a tussle with my trustee in bankruptcy over the charges. after the official receiver saying he had no interest in them, he claimed that we should have listed them on our statement of affairs at time of bankruptcy, even though we did not know we could claim them at the time. If that doesn't make sense to you it certianly doesn't to me. anyhow a settlement is a win so thats good news (even if the money did all go to buy back my share of my house:( )
  14. Domf2002

    Domf vs HSBC

    OK have sent the new no AQ letter asking for £6550, thats saving HSBC £5.97 and court time. As the HSBC are the new environmentally friendly bank they should be into saving things. Will let you know how this progresses.
  15. Domf2002

    Domf vs HSBC

    actually the posts for the DG approach are on this thread:oops:
×
×
  • Create New...