Jump to content

taylormandy

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by taylormandy

  1. Hi, My own case was against Nationwide and it involved charges more than six years old, so I was using s32 of the limitation act 1980 to try and claim back these earlier charges. Sadly I lost. But - my sister banks with Abbey and I'm not familiar with their tactics. We have a hearing for 13th April and I would like to know if I'm going to end up back in a court room on her behalf!
  2. I am helping my sister with her charges. We are at the stage where we have returned AQs and the court date is set for 13th April. I am just completing the bundles for her. Do Abbey generally let it go as far as a court hearing? I ask because I recently had to go to court for my own claim and found it very traumatic! We have claimed for contractual interest at unauthorised rate, but we would be perfectly prepared to settle for statutory if it meant I didn't have to enter a court room again! So - I would like to know if Abbey tend to push it to court, particularly if it involves contractual interest?
  3. The only thing I would add here is that I recently had to go to court for my claim and one strand of the defence was that I was "vexacious" and abusing the court process. The judge struck out this as he believed I was justified in the 3 claims I had brought against N'wide, but it is a potential risk of splitting. I believe the potential cost liability in fast track is £750 (but just check before you decide what to do)
  4. Hi Tanz, I think it's good to keep current charges in there, as you say, and try and keep the claim intact for court. As in so many situations, hindsight is a wonderful thing and I have been kicking myself with what I could have/should have said. I had so much in my bundle I could have used. I got wrong footed as soon as I went in, because I was expecting to state my own case first, as I was the claimant. When the judge allowed the barrister to go first, I was immediately having to counter his own argument, before I could even get mine over. It's so easy to think of the perfect thing to say after the event. Anyway, the purpose of pointing you here was because I knew you may well get the same judge for the same issues and wanted you to be prepared for this argument. If you know what's coming, you've a better chance of preparing a decent counter argument. Best of luck!! Mandy
  5. Bong, I just wanted to say how well deserved your win is. You have worked so hard for it. You are an inspiration to all of us and your support in my own case was hugely appreciated. I think it is brilliant that you are writing to the judge to point out that you have been refunded the full thirteen years. This will undoubtedly benefit those that follow you. Have a fantastic jolliday!!
  6. Thank you all for your kind words. It really does make the disappointment easier to bear, and I think it is what makes this site so special - the people. I really hope that my experience does help others present their cases in such a way to avoid this possible pitfall and then all that effort will not have been for nothing. I will keep an eye on the forum and will be cheering you all on!
  7. This was only the view of my judge, other may see it completely differently. When I asked as a layperson how on earth I could get evidence of the actual costs, he agreed that this was the problem, but unfortunately not one he could address today! Anyway, I'm going to have the last of several glasses of red wine now and go to bed!
  8. Hi Glenn, Bong. Yes, it was a final hearing. What I found that whenever I tried to present the case that the charges were unlawful, the judge and the barrister came back with "ah, yes, but no court of law has actually said they are unlawful, have they?" So whatever I then put to them the issue about concealment, they said "concealement of what? - It has not been decided in a court of law that the charges are unlawful, so therefore there was nothing to conceal" The same argument went for mistake - either of fact or of law. The charges are not deemed to be unlawful in case law, therefore there was nothing to be mistaken about. I pointed out that there was no judicial decision because the banks always settled charges cases before court. The judge appeared to be sympathetic to this and mentioned the fact that so far, attempts to have a test case to settle the matter have not materialised. The whole argument kept coming back to the fact that the charges are not unlawful in case law! I brought in Dunlop v New Garage and was told that this still didn't provide a judgement that bank charges are unlawful. The OFT statement is merely their opinion that such penalty charges are likely to be unlawful - again not a judicial decision. I brought in Graham Beales statement about deliquent account holders paying for the running of branches etc through high penalty charges. His statement that current account fees would be 'fairer'- I was told this was merely a reported version of what he may have said. It certainly didn't confirm the charges were unfair or unlawful. The barrister didn't want to move away from the limitation issue, because once he had established I couldn't show the charges were proven to be unlawful in a court of law, there could be no mistake or concealement (because they charges are lawful until proved otherwise). Therefore no postponement of limitation period. Maybe if some of the charges were within the 6 years I would have had more chance to explore the lawfullness issue. However, the judge would not budge from the "lack of judicial decision" issue. Anyway, Glenn, you still deserve a kiss!!! You have been brilliant. Bong, I can't believe you won't be as competent in person as you are on paper. The work you have produced is fantastic and extremely professional. I have relied heavily on yours and Glenns work. Redsue - if you can move, you may now uncross everything! As I said, I came away feeling I had earned respect from the judge and I held my own.
  9. Thanks for your good thoughts everybody. Sadly I had my case dismissed under the terms of the limitation act. However much I argued my point, both the judge and the barrister said the issue was that there had been NO judicial decision on whether or not the charges are unlawful. Therefore my argument that there was concealement, or that I paid under a mistake of fact or of law, was irrelevant. If the charges are not PROVED to be unlawful in a court of law, then I cannot claim concealement or mistake because in law, there is nothing to conceal or make a mistake about. So basically, my particular judge said that until there is a JUDICIAL decision regarding the unlawfulness of the charges, I cannot claim postponement of the period of limitation. The barrister kept saying he was not there to discuss the charges, he was there to discusss the limitation isssue. The barrister also tried to state that I had "harrassed" the Nationwide and was vexacious. I put my point, and the judge was very nice and said that I had every right to bring the claims that I had! He said "it behoved badly" on the N'wide that they had tried to present me in any way vexacious. the barrister also said that because I was relying on UTCA 1977 and other earlier case law, e.g. Dunlop v New Garage, that with "due diligence" I could have discovered many years ago that the charges were unlawful and brought my case then. I said the said test appied to them. They therefore with due diligence could have found the charges were unlawful and they therefore concealed the true nature of the charges from me. In his summing up, the judge rejected the point the barrister tried to make. He said you could only have been expected to find out this type of information if you were a good lawyer, not a layperson. So all in all, I feel that I held my own. The judge commented on the fact that I had obviously put a great deal of work and research into my case. Redsue, Bong - we didn't even get onto the the contractual interest issue, so I can't provide any additional insight from that point of view. So, I have to console myself with the fact that I tried, and the N'wide had to fork out for a barrister for the day!! (Also also that I've already had approx £9000 off them already!) I would just like to say a HUGE thank you to those who have taken the time and trouble to provide advice and support. It has been much appreciated, and I wish you all well in your own claims. XXXX
  10. Glenn - I could kiss you!! I'm in such a tizzy and I suddenly had this thought about the date of the UTCCR. I really needed your sensible, clear advice. Thank you. What you say makes perfect sense.
  11. I am in court at 2p.m. Quote: Originally Posted by BankFodder By the way, I should point out that in a pre-6 year claim, you would only be able to rely directly on the UTCCR 1999 if you entered into your banking contract after 1995. I need some URGENT advice. I am in court in 3 hours. I started banking with the N'wide in 1993. I have used the UTCCR 1999 heavily in my argument. Please can somebody provide me with a counter argument if they throw this at me. Thanks Mandy
  12. I need some URGENT advice. I am in court in 3 hours. I started banking with the N'wide in 1993. I have used the UTCCR 1999 heavily in my argument. Please can somebody provide me with a counter argument if they throw this at me. Thanks Mandy
  13. Cheers Westy. I am here at 04.33 hrs, absolutely terrified about tomorrow! Reading through the Guides to Court Hearing etc and it says to "tell my story", which I have have just started to write out. It then occured to me that I wrote an 8 page witness statement for my bundle - is this what I should be reading to commence the hearing? Can I add to it if I want to?
  14. Hi Westy - thanks for your reply. I used bong's excellent post to appeal against their application to amend their defence, but unfortunately, the judge allowed the amendment to stand. (Originally they didn't even mention limitation) Yes, all they have supplied are the statements, but as you point out, my feeling was that if they supplied that, what don't they have what else they need? I truly hope I haven't made a blooper with my bundle, but I am going to re-examine it thoroughly. Your other points are extremely helpful and I will certainly keep them in mind. I did look up CPR 16.5 - but I couldn't see how this would apply, because they have entered a defence and then amended it. Thanks again for your help. Mandy
  15. Thanks to you all. I think I will take along the extra case laws I want to rely on, with copies for N'wide and the judge. Paul - I thought if they wanted to rely on something in the hearing, then it needed to be mentioned in their defence? Or is their defence of my claim being statute barred sufficient for them to spring Laches?
  16. Thanks for the good wishes! Glenn, yes, I have read that case, However, it is not in my bundle because I had already posted it to them at that point. Do you think I can get away with taking extra evidence along with me on Friday that is not in my bundle? I do have DMG v Inland Revenue and Kleinwort Benson, but they are dealing with the mistake issue (as you know!!!) Sarahpp has also sent me some OFT stuff I would like to take, but again, that is not in my bundle because I only got it yesterday!
  17. Bong, thank you. I couldn't understand how they can defend against a case, if they are not relying on any evidence. I have not read of anybody who has gone to court where the bank has not relied on any documentation. I just wondered how on earth they can rely on my own evidence. (Unless I've made a horrible mistake in my bundle and proved their defence for them! ) Anyway, thanks for offering the support. It really is very much appreciated. I will let you know how I get on!
  18. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/nationwide/54166-taylors-nationwide-3rd-time-3.html I would be very grateful if somebody could look at my thread. I have been informed that the Nationwide are not in possession of any documents they wish to rely upon at my final hearing in 2 days time, other than those I have already disclosed. That is why I haven't received their "bundle". Their amended defence states my claim is statute barred. If they are not relying on any documents, how can they defend that it is statute barred? Or are they going to depend on my own info in my bundle I sent them? Sorry to post here, but I need to undertand my position for Friday's hearing. Thanks.
  19. I have today received this from Nationwide "Further to your letter of 28 Feb I write to confirm that, at present, N'wide is not in possession of any documentation which it may wish to use at the final hearing of your claim, other than that already disclosed by you and the enclosed copy Notice of Charges in respect of the items for which you are making a claim." What does this mean? Are they not relying on anything???? What do they intend to say then??? Does this mean they cannot defend against the limitation issue if they are not relying on any documentation? Or - does "other than that already disclosed by you" mean all the info that I have put in my own bundle? I would really really appreciate some help! Mandy
  20. Thanks to you both. The thought of court terrifies me. I will do as you say - step back, get my thoughts straight and go for it!
  21. Glenn, thank you for your rapid response. I am just getting a bit twitchy now! I have read endlessly for months now, as I also have the limitation act to argue against, although I feel reasonably confident about this, having followed yours and others responses in other threads and of course doing my own research. I perhaps have got to the point where I have read so much and tried to absorb so much new information that my confidence is being eroded with so many different arguments and counterarguments. Thanks again.
  22. Well I was told the argument for claiming unauthorised contractual rate was a load of [edit] last night in the chat room. This has really done my confidence a great deal of good seeing as I have to go to court in 3 days time. I know it is untested. I know many people have different theories about it. I have read and read and read and thought I had got my rationale sorted based on Unfair Contract Terms etc, discussing equity, fairness and balance etc. I am not greedy. I only ever wanted my charges back, but the spirit of the first post in this thread, and the new way of looking at interest thread state quite clearly it was thought to be a reasonable approach. I was also encouraged by PM to think about going for contractual interest by a senior member. I really don't want to add to the ever decreasing circle of the contractual interest debate, but, if it now seems that CI is seen to be greedy and unreasonable by judges, which is the impression I was given last night, then perhaps this should be made clear. I really wish I had not gone down this route, but it is too late now.
  23. Thanks for your best wishes redsue! I hope you don't mind me hijacking your thread, but Sarahpp - would it be at all possible to have copies of those OFT findings? I presume that as Nationwide have not sent me their bundle, I am at liberty to take new information along to the hearing. Again, apologies, redsue! I won't do it again!
×
×
  • Create New...