Jump to content

Kandinsky873

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

8 Neutral
  1. Givvy Whats happening with you claim? I have been away for some considerble time (work gets in the way of life) and was interested to see where you are at. Let us know
  2. bob I will post a copy of the judgement, once I have worked out how to copy it accross as it is in adobe format.
  3. Hiya Claire I am still waiting for the outstanding money from the bank (£55 for the bailiffs fee) and once I have that I am sending the wasted costs paperwork to the courts which is done and ready to go. I have also done a SAR for the pre-six years, which will be sent at the same time (although I have the bank statements having kept them, but I want it in writing that this info has been destroyed by them). I anticipate that this will be done on Friday coming. Its funny you know cause the bank said that they would contact me shortly about my account (ie closing it), but nothing has happened yet. Could be that they are waiting for me to confirm with the courts that I have been paid!!!! Guess they best get their fingers out. K
  4. Thanks Kate, likewise with yours and I shall keep a watch on how you go. K
  5. Thanks Givvy It's been emotional....but got there in the end. I wont be going anywhere for the forseable future and will always be here to offer support, encouregement advice and resounding congratulations when you and others get what is rightlfully yours. As I was telling a friend today, knowledge and information is power and this site offers an abundance of both, so stay the distance and I have no doubt that you will soon be enjoying success too. Kind Regards to you and all K
  6. Thanks to you all:D My next plan of action is that the minute the money has cleared I will be going after them again....this time for the pre-six year charges. I will first send the DPA/SAR asking for full disclosure, plus a copy of the original contract between us, which will include the T&Cs. I am also at the same time doing the wasted costs order. I have no doubt that they will come back and say that this info is no longer available. Once I have that I will then start all over again ie prelim, LBA etc etc, cause what they don't know is that I have the bank statements and all that info already from the day I opened the account in 1997. The reason I am doing the DPA/SAR is to have it in writing that they do not have this info and won't have sight of it until the court case. I may also consider going for contractual interest rather than 8% CC interest. They have really annoyed me with the way they have treated me and also the way that they have treated all others in this forum. As an aside, if anyone needs the contact details for the Alliance and Leicester Litigation Team, it is: Direct Telephone : 0116 200 3504 Direct Fax : 0116 200 5151 Address: Alliance & Leicester plc, Group Legal Services, Customer Service Centre, Narborough, Leicester, LE19 0AL
  7. Just received the following letter from Jackie McGuirk, Solicitor, Litigation Team, which reads: Dear Kandinsky We have received from Northampton County Court a claim and judgement that you have issued. We have now reviewed your particular case and have decided in this instance to settle the claim. This decision should not be regarded as an admission of liability on the part of the Company, as we consider the charges to be fair and reasonable. We therefore now enclose our cheque in the sum of £3519.35 which is paid in full and final settlement of your claim. Would you please acknowledge receipt and write to Northampton County Court confirming that the case has been settled. As it is clear that you do not accept the terms and conditions for the operation of your account we will shortly be contacting you to discuss its future operation. Yours Sincerely JA McGuirk Firstly….thanks all for your support, encouragement and advice over the past few months. Justice has been done and victory achieved and to all those still on the path, keep the faith and you will have your money back. Now, I would say that this letter is somewhat annoying because firstly it is not their decision to settle the claim….I obtained judgement against them which was issued by the court not me because they failed to acknowledge the claim. The sum paid is not full and final as it does not include the £55.00 paid to send the bailiffs in and they can consider what they like about their charges…..they are unlawful, unfair and unreasonable, otherwise they would defend them in court. As to writing to Northampton Court, I will only do this once the cheque has cleared through my parachute account and not a moment before. Also looking at the dates, the cheque was dated 9 May, the letter dated 11 May and yet I obtained the judgement on 24 Apr. The implication is that had I not sent the bailiffs in on the 10th May I would still be waiting for my money. The only problem now is that I do not think I will be able to go for the wasted costs order, unless someone know differently.
  8. Here is the full article from the "Metro" Without full details of the case it is difficult to comment on what went wrong, but I would not let this stop you from fighting on. Each case is judged on its merits and what I find interesting about the article is that it mentions that Mr Berwick refused to settle??? I wonder what the settlement was.. Perhaps someone from the CAG knows more about this case and would like to comment????? Thousands of bank customers have suffered a legal setback in their fight to reclaim 'rip-off' charges. The blow came in the first court case to test banks' rights to charge overdraft fees of up to £39. Customer Kevin Berwick was told by a judge that there was no legal basis for his claim for nearly £2,000 in fees and interest from Lloyds TSB. Campaigners fear the ruling could deter many other claimants from taking legal action. If it is confirmed by a higher court, it will set a precedent which leaves them with no recourse. Banks have been under increasing pressure for charging excessive fees when clients go over their overdraft limits. Critics say the charges bear no relation to the few pounds it costs to send a letter. In most cases so far, banks have settled claims. On Monday they were warned by another judge that they would also have to pay damages if they continued to prevaricate over claims. But the judge in Birmingham yesterday threw out Mr Berwick's claim after he refused Lloyds TSB's offer to settle the case. Mr Berwick, who was given leave to appeal, said: 'I was expecting to win as I made a good job of arguing my case.' Marc Gander, of the Consumer Action Group, said the judge failed to consider that banks were acting illegally by disguising penalties as a fee for a service. But he added: 'I would urge the hundreds of thousands of people who are making claims not to be disheartened.' Lloyds TSB said: 'The court has agreed with us that these are charges for a service and not default or penalty fees as has been argued by others.'
  9. Thanks for the thoughts givvy and kate I will see what the morning post brings and if they have'nt made payment by then they I will be phoning A&L and giving them a deadline. If they don't meet it then I will send in the bailiffs with their big truck. I find it incredible that even now after three weeks following judgement they are still holding back. I am not sure whether this is a deliberate act or gross incompetence and stupidity. Either way it is not a bank that I want to do business with, but I will let them make that decision so that I can complain to the FOS. Anyway, will let you know the outcome tommorrow. Good Luck to you both.
  10. Here is a further update to the saga that is my claim. I have just finished talking to the bailiffs at Leicester County Court, as my MCOL was showing that the Warrant of Execution had been fulfilled and paid. They advised me that they had gone to A&L, who informed them that the money had been paid on 10 May 07. Well, I have received neither a cheque or credit to my account from 10 May 07 and it is now 5 days on, bearing in mind that I obtained judgement on 24 Apr 07. Essentially they are now defaulting. The bailiffs have advised me that I can re-issue the warrant for free and this time around they will go in with a truck and start removing goods to the value of my claim. They certainly gave me the impression that they would rather enjoy such a prospect. I am of a mind to wait for the post in the morning and see if santa brings me a cheque, or phone Ms McGuirk at A&L now and demand payment by transfer into my account which they can do in 20 minutes. What do people think.
  11. Burdie, first off dont stess and worry about this...you are in the driving seat not them. These are just further and different tactics to get you to drop the claim for a lesser amount. You should bear in mind that they are changing tactics and their tune on an almost daily basis. As to the OFT they are a regulatory body and any recommendations they make are just that. They are not legally binding or set in legislation....the legislation and common law that applies is all that is relevent...they can only charge you their liquidated costs, which can be predetermined, which we all know is considerably less than the charges they do apply. As to your questions. Firstly, make a copy of the cheque for your own file and then return it (torn in half) to the originator on the letter, with a rejection of offer letter which you can find in the templates library. Dont forget to send this recorded. With regards to the letter concerning the thinly veiled threats that unless you accept the offer they will close the account, so what? Are you that bothered.....hopefully you will have a parachute account to switch to. But keep the letter as once you have gone through the process of them closing the account it supports and adds credence to your claim to the relevent authorities that they have acted in a retalitory manner. As to the rest of the blurb in their letter(s), this is their opinion and as we all know 'opinions are like bum holes....every one has one.' The only thing that matters is what can be tested and proven in court...soemthing they are not going to do. As to the latest schedule of charges, this is your charges plus interest charged at 8% per annum per charge, from the date the charge was applied to your account, to the date that the claim was filed with the court. The interest will continue to rise after this date until you go to court and if you win. However it is unlikely that you will end up in court so the schedule of charges plus interest will be until you filed with the court. Hope this is of some help K
  12. Jansus I have to admit it has been a bit of a slog, but it would seam that I am nearing the end of the road....finally. The bailiffs going in was because they were still insistant on messing me about and I got fed up with their attitude and complete lack of competence in dealing with this and all other claims. I am not sure if I am the first to send the bailiifs in and I am sure that I wont be the last. At the end of the day I acted within and used the law to its fullest extent and I hope that my saga shows other people in a similar situation that if you stick to your timetable, follow the guidance given by the site and members that you can achieve the rightfull return of your unlawfully taken money. Hopefully I will be able to end on a positive note soon. Regards and stick with it. Kandinsky
  13. Mimijane This may be the article that you are refering to..... The Alliance & Leicester appears to have acknowledged that a fee of only £4.50 might be a fair charge for bouncing cheques. The bank has put this charge forward to settle a customer's claim for the refund of £2,035 in overdraft fees. The letter to the customer, who wishes to remain anonymous, quotes research for a recent BBC Money Programme as the basis of its offer. The bank's standard charge for bouncing a cheque is currently £25. The Alliance & Leicester's letter was sent from its customer service centre in Bootle in January. It argues that the charges levied on the customer's account for going overdrawn without permission were "raised correctly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the account." But it then goes on to say: "A recent report commissioned by the BBC claimed the cost would be no more than £4.50. "Therefore, I propose to offer you the difference from £4.50 up to the amount of charges that were raised, which totals £1,558." One-off offer? The offer to calculate the charges at just £4.50 each appears to be a one-off offer, as the letter goes on to stress that any future charges for bouncing cheques would be charged at the published, higher, rate. A spokesman for the bank said: "Each case is considered on its own merits. There is no blanket policy to offer to cut charges to just £4.50." Even so, the proposal seems to be a break with the current practice of all the high street banks who argue vigorously in defence of their overdraft fees, claiming that they are fair and not unlawful. However, Marc Gander of the Consumer Action Group, which has been leading the campaign against bank overdraft charges, said: "This is a wholly unusual letter. They always say their charges are transparent and reasonable." Money Programme The idea that it actually costs banks far less than they charge to bounce customers' cheques was highlighted by the BBC's Money Programme in December 2006. Two business academics and a former senior executive of NatWest Bank were asked to calculate just how much they thought it actually cost a bank to deal with customers who went overdrawn without permission. They estimated that it would be £4.50 to bounce a cheque and just £2.50 to stop a direct debit. More recently, the BBC News website revealed evidence from a time and motion study at the Yorkshire bank, which showed that the labour costs of bouncing a cheque were probably no more than £2.00. In the past year hundreds of thousands of people have written to their banks, claiming that their overdraft charges have been unlawfully high, and demanding refunds on charges going back up to six years. Many have been successful, with the banks consistently refusing to admit any fault, but equally refusing to let the arguments be heard in court - and often settling our of court at the last moment when threatened with legal action. Earlier this month a businessman from Norfolk won a record refund, so far, of almost £36,000 for overdraft charges levied on his business account by NatWest. (BBC NEWS | Business | Bank retreats on overdraft fees)
  14. Thanks Givvy Good luck with yours....I am keeping an eye on your progress. I take the attitude of 'Don't get Mad, Get Even'....that said I did lose the plot a little, but I'm back on track now and am looking forward to using my money wisely when it gets here. Keep the faith Givvy and always remember that you are in the right and that knowledge is power.....something the bank is missing and there is plenty of help and advice in the CAG to see you through to a successful conclusion. Kandinsky
  15. Givv You can do the MCOL from abroad as long as you can access the internet. You do not have to be in the UK when fill out the MCOL....I wasnt. I am sure that where ever you are going you can get access to an internet computer. All you need do then is leave the schedules of charges with covering letters packaged and ready to be sent to the court manager and A&L. Leave them with a friend or relative and ask them to post them on a specific date, by special recorded delivery, so that they arrive shortly after or on the same day that MCOL is deemed served (roughly 5 days after issue). If not then you may have to wait until you get back. At the end of the day it is your deadline and you have a legitimate reason for the delay of MCOL and no it does not look bad on you. Good Luck
×
×
  • Create New...