Jump to content

goforit

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

2 Neutral
  1. Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Generally speaking, if a letter is an obvious attempt to settle a litigation it is taken to be written without prejudice.
  2. Also res judicata is latin for "a matter already judged" (roughly translated, I believe) so that would be the banks defence to your subsequent actions (which has been rejected by Tayside Central and Fife's Sheriff Principal) - not a plea that you would table.
  3. That was actually Sheriff Principal Dunlop's opinion, on appeal. If my knowledge of precedant is correct, that opinion is binding on Sheriff's in that Sheriffdom (i.e. Tayside Central and Fife). However, the opinion can still be cited as a persuasive authority in other Sheriffdoms. I believe the ratio of the decision was that each charge (insofar as wrongful) represented a separate cause of action. Therefore it was theoretically acceptable to raise subsequent individual action in respect of each charge (or, in normal practice, to "divide" the actions into blocks of just under £750.00 and raise them one after another). HTH
  4. I believe you can ask for the ajuidicator's decision to be reviewed by an ombudsman. However, given that the amount in controversy is only £150.00 it's upto you whether its worth pursuing it. It is also worth pointing out that having had a complaint decided by FSO does not preclude you taking the matter to court, or otherwise prejudice your position at all. However, you must bear in mind the current situation with England & Wales courts staying the majority of bank charge cases.
  5. You can usually get a copy from the court
  6. No. Law and Jurisdiction are sepearate (although often related matters). We really need to more info from the OP. Do you still have the original claim form that you were served with. In the first instance you would write to them asking them to agree to judgement being set aside (based upon your grounds).
  7. Did this ever get sorted out? Am I right that, thus far, Jen is only out £10.00 trying to sort out this mess?
  8. Have you spoken to a solicitor - Govan Law Centre would be a good start.
  9. If you do take previous posters' advice and get legal advice then I strongly suggest that you contact a law centre with experience in dealing with bank charge claims (or alternatively other poverty related issues), they may not be able to help you themselves (for example you might live outwith their catchement area) however they will be the best people to point you in the right direction (no conflicts of interests etc). If you live in Scotland then I suggest you make contact with the Govan Law Centre who, as far as I am aware, are probably the most experienced lawyers in Scotland with regard to reclaiming bank charges.
  10. That's what I found unusual. I was under the impression that judges don't like to waste court resources so presumed that the judge in this case would of wanted the bank to be given an a chance to comply with his order before expending the use of court-bailiffs' time. Also, even although the judgement is marked "forthwith" it has to be understood that nothing is insantaneous - it takes time for cheques to come through the post (and sometime the client has to lodge a cheque with the solicitor first) - if things go wrong and it is decided the judge acted ultra vires (i.e. outwith his authority)and his order is recalled, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the act, of immediately instructing bailiffs to repossess a high-street bank's property (who, let's face it aren't going to run off into the night) without giving them an oppurtunity to satisfy the judgement against them, is viewed as being unreasonable when the matter of costs arises. Just my two pence. I would hate for someone to be hit with a big bill.
  11. From the outset I would indicate that I'm not a lawyer and that if possible you should get legal advice. Whether from CAB, Legal Aid funded solicitor, private funded solicitor, law centre, etc. Whilst I can give informal advice, which is proffered to you without any liability whatsoever and on a strictly informal and causal basis, this can be no substitute for proper legal advice. With this in mind I would, for background information and subject to the preceeding caveat give the following. Here is a good, brief article regarding jurisdiction specifically relating to consumer contracts (and particularly Scots domiciled consumers) from the Govan Law Centre (this article is best viewed in Internet Explorer): Can I be sued in England? | free help from Govan Law Centre , Glasgow . The only problem I have with the above article is that its "form defence" quotes legislation which, as far as I can tell, is meant to determine which Scottish court(s) have jurisdiction, once it has been determined that the Scottish Courts do infact have jurisdiction over a case. The issue in point here is in fact whether the English or Scots courts have exclusive jurisdiction or whether they have concurrent jurisdiction in this matter, not which court in Scotland has jurisdiction. Also, in this case you aren't defending this case, as such, but initially arguing for judgement to be set aside. However, I have prepared a pleading below arguing that the Scottish Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over your case and that judgement should be set aside. Without knowing the full details of your case it is quite hard to comment exactly on this situation, however, it would APPEAR to be the case that Northampton CC (who would of probably been acting in their capacity as the Bulk Processing Centre for the England & Wales Court sytem) didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case if the subject matter of the claim was a consumer contract; you have always been domiciled in Scotland; there weren't other Defendants to the action other than yourself; you didn't enter into a agreement prorogating jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action/dispute/contract and the claim didn't fall under other certain "exceptions" to the general rules regarding jurisdiction. The general rule tends to be, subject to certain specific exceptions, that you being domiciled in Scotland means that you can only be sued in the courts for the location where you are domiciled. Domicile in MOST CASES refers to the place that you normally live, although there are exceptions. If any of the "exceptions" apply to your situation then things get more complicated. Although the court may have had no jurisdiction to hear the case, it is still in your favour to get this Judgement cleared I think you will need to have the judgement set aside by filing a N244 (Application Notice) with an appropriate fee (unless you are entitled to an exemption or want to apply for a remission). I have prepared a pleading below arguing that Scotland have exclusive jurisdiction over your case and that judgement should be set aside. I am, however, unsure if you are entitled to do this since you didn't enter an acknowledgement of service. You may have to seek advice from another board member or, an English legal adviser on this matter. * delete as appropriate
  12. I believe you can also claim your Solicitor's fees for advising you prior to claiming, prior to entering judgement, prior to entering warrant etc. However, although I wouldn't purport to be more knowledgeable than your solicitor, I wouldn't think it wise to appear unreasonable even if you can insist that you are paid there and then (i.e. I would of written to the bank and given them 7 - 14 days to pay before ordering enforcement of the execution warrant). Did you solicitor say anything about this?
  13. I wonder if this judge has realised that he will now have every litigant filing in his court now? I do think the banks have a good case to have the order set aside, unless there was a specific statute allowing the judge to strike out in these particular circumstances.
×
×
  • Create New...