Hi LC, It seems like you don't owe them money in which case you don't need to pay or worry. If you don't owe it, they'll know that (despite pretending not to) and won't be taking court action. You can relax and do nothing. Threatening letters could be forwarded to the police. Citizens advice may also have some good advice for you as will others on here. Smells a bit fishy though. If you're feeling like a victim of fraud and extortion it may be worth reporting to the police. Cheers, Richard.

Hi HO, You're not alone. Barclays are a shambles yet none of them have been jailed. They're wrongly protected by the government. £5K is recoverable in the small claims court. £8K + specific losses in the main court is recoverable but much more of a ball ache. £8K has been accepted as reasonable just for general damages to creditworthiness but the maximum claim in a small claims court is only £5K. It depends on what specific losses you might have (I was £250K+). I'd say at least £5K though. Cheers, Richard.

Hi Dave, You're right. You can claim £5K for general damages to creditworthiness in the small claims court. It's a form of defamation and requires no proof except that the default was wrongfully placed. Noddy on here is trying. He's been at it for 6 months and should finally get a result next month. He'll be the first to do so this century. Although it's quite a simple claim, the guilty party can make it very tedious. In Noddy's case, judicial incompetence hasn't helped either. Cheers, Richard

Hi Noddy, Counsel are expensive lawyers who should know the law better than the ordinarys at DG. They'll advise DG that they're onto a loser but they may still gamble that they'll be able to either pull the wool over the judges eyes or buy themselves a decision. In Edinburgh, HFC gambled in this manner and won. The judges considered that the bank had done nothing wrong at all! They didn't even bother addressing the appeal itself from me. The consumer, according to the muppets there must pay for goods they didn't ask for! Everyone in the court, including Counsel for the bank, knew the bank was in the wrong but the judgement still came in the banks favour. Suspicious. The judgement does reiterate though the basic principal that £8K is reasonable (in the eyes of the law - which itself is an arse, often protecting the guilty) for general damages to creditworthiness following a wrongful default, whether you've been done for a few hours or a few decades. If you're happy with £4K and they offer that much, you might consider taking it. Even if it's on the day of the hearing. Counsel can be quite intimidating and will try and put words in your mouth or use trick questions to try and damage your character, something the judge is likely to take into consideration. Nothing to worry about though with nerves of steel! Just be honest and succinct. Richard.

Hi Noddy, You're dealing with muppets. Once they get Counsel involved, they'll be advised that they're onto a loser. The Court of Session, while betraying me personally, still confirmed that £8K of damages is reasonable, simply for damaging creditworthiness (variant of defamation - no proof required). I really wouldn't try and provide proof. It isn't required and will only give the bank further wool to pull over the judges eyes. The Supreme Court will straighten out the other shenanigans that went on here in Scotland. HFC know they're in for a kicking there against me. It's part of the HSBC group. They should know the case very well. Counsel will confirm to them that my case is being appealed in the Supreme Court and I wouldn't be surprised if they increased your offer. I'd love you to stick this out though. You have them on the ropes and countless others will benefit from the judgement. I really can't see you losing, but yes, it's possible and you'd be liable for expenses. Normally you'd have about 14 days to appeal any dodgy judgement. The appeals in Aberdeen go to the sheriff principal so I guess you'd be appealing to the top judge in Nottingham. In the unlikely event that you'd be liable for expenses, the JSA claim may offer protection anyway. Do us all a favour please and send these bullies to hell. God is on your side. Richard.

Cheers, Richard.

Hi Noddy, Kpohraror was awarded £5500 just for general damages. Specific claim was denied. The judge must agree with you, otherwise they'll be portraying themselves as incompetent or worse. I doubt the bank would be offering you money, if your case wasn't strong. They know they're in the wrong but refuse to show any remorse. Protesting outside HSBC would end me up in jail. Funny how it works, eh? It shouldn't matter that you have a fee concession. It's also irrelevant. However, I understand that you should still get the £100 back together with the damages and don't forget "interest thereon"! (8% p.a.) Yours will be the first official award against a bank for wrongfull defaults in 17 years. Others will be inspired. Cheers, Richard.

Classic. He may still be a judge. He's dragged you into a conversation you don't even need to have. If he is a judge, he must be made to understand that general damages to creditworthiness don't require proof of specific loss. You must make certain that the judge next month agrees with you on that point. They may not admit it but it's the only thing that you need to say and you could try and object to answering the banks questions on grounds of irrelevance. (Of course, if the judge asks you must answer). I think Mike's point is referring to the hoops that the bank makes it's victims jump through, putting off almost every claimant. In that way they've made money. However, once they've done time, they may think twice about buying into the courts in future.

Hi Noddy, It's all UK law. My case will be in London's Supreme Court later this year. I understand all the other cases were based in England anyway. All cases are identical to yours in terms of general damage to creditworthiness. They're clearly acting maliciously towards you. The mediator was questioning your side because that's what the bank was asking him to do. It's very possible that he didn't know the law. He's just a mediator. The bank were attempting to brainwash him and tell him what the law is. It's despicable. Well done for sticking to your guns. Well, that was experience for you. I thought that might happen. HSBC are full of malice and will continue in that vein until staff past and present are punished with jail. I expect the judge will educate them next month. I'll be looking to start jailing them once the Supreme Court is done with them. Malicious with no remorse. It can't continue. Richard.

If they don't pay you now., the judge will make them pay. Don't worry. They're incompetent fools. Richard

Keep calm. They know the answer. General damages to creditworthiness. You lost your creditworthiness. That's it. Have fun. Richard

I remain surprised that you don't have the cash in time for Xmas. Quite good news though that the judge is keeping it in the small claims court. Bad news that they think it needs a hearing that will last 2 hours. I had guessed 10 minutes max. It sounds like they're prepared to listen to all the bank's waffle which isn't a good sign. Yes, quite busy at Xmas but always intrigued as to how the system allows the banks to delay reparation. Outrageous Yes, it was a waste of time for me. However, it may be good experience for you to get to know the free help in the court. I wouldn't hold your breath at getting HSBC to pay up at that stage. They're full of malice, more concerned about entertaining chums. How many times have you submitted your side now? Just ensure that the court already have your submissions. It seems like they need a fee though. Fairly hefty and offputting for English victims. However, if you're unlucky enough to still be on JSA, just fill in the exemption form for that. The hearing date should be the date the judge should award the cash to you and I wouldn't expect that to change unless the bank miraculously pay you earlier. So, perhaps experience the mediation process but otherwise try and enjoy the festivities. You can be sure the other side won't care if you're struggling. I fail to understand how they get through the season of goodwill, knowing all the people they have caused hardship for. I'm looking forward to the season they'll be in jail to mull things over. I suspect it could be a few more years before that happens though. By that time, they run the risk of other terrible things befalling them. Oh well. They'll get the Christmas message in the end. Merry Xmas to you and your family. Richard.

It seems the Englsih courts are inefficient and I still think this part was dodgy. By having both parties present at the first time of consideration, huge delays can be avoided, in turn lubricating the judicial process. I wonder if you could somehow have lodged the claim in Scotland. Good luck. I hope all these inefficiencies won't affect the festivities too much. Richard.

All I can say is that that's what happens in Aberdeen and it would make sense that both parties are present when the judge considers the case in order that they can answer questions that the judge may have when considering whether or not it goes to trial. It should be possible to get a judgement on the day without a trial in cases such as yours. You'll need to be there though to ensure it goes your way. Things seem a little more complicated in England (although there are hopefully better judges) and someone else (shame there's no in court advisor) will be able to give you a more definite answer. Cheers, Richard.

You should be present when the judge first considers the case. Small claims should be heard regularly every 2 to 4 weeks. Find out when it goes "in front of the judge". That's when you need to be there to avoid the 3 month + wait. That's your chance to explain that your case is indefensible. 22nd seems to tie in with the courts dodgy 7 day rule. You should have kept hold of £40. You'll probably get it back eventually but, as you are experiencing and as is the case with almost every claim, it's a ball ache. Cheers, Richard.

Enquire at the court. It'll be a bonus if you can submit it directly but I've heard rumours that it's necessary to send the claim away first. You shouldn't need a solicitor but an in-court advisor might be available to help with basic procedure. Again the court admin folk should be able to advise. Meanwhile, I'm gunning to get a few of them jailed (but ideally banished). It's likely to be 2014 before that happens though (Govt. currently supports them) Have fun. It should be quite straightforward but you'll be doing well to get paid before Xmas. Try highlighting this to your MP too, just in case you've got one that cares. Richard.

If you're in England you can claim £5k in the small claims court for general damages to creditworthiness. It takes a couple of months but it's quite easy. You've a clear case and they deserve to be "punished" for their malicious actions. It depends on whether you can be bothered. As DX suggests though, your credit file should be repaired swiftly but it's a shame HFC are so malicious. They shouldn't be allowed to trade with such an attitude.

Judge has already granted extra time. In Scotland you're allowed to object to that. It seems that their original AQ will stand 7 days from whenever the judge gets to consider things, which ideally would have been yesterday and so a hearing should be set sometime next week. Not "a good few weeks" Personally, I don't see the point in the extra 7 days. They've had long enough. This drawn out process serves only to prolong the victims misery. I'd be checking in at the court every week. Did you ever try contacting CAB by e-mail? Cheers, Richard.

She should know or know someone that knows. It's yesterday (according to the judge). Ensure you are able to object to any further extensions that the judge may grant in your absence. It's not right and I wouldn't accept a similar excuse to the last balls up. Cheers, Richard.

I think you should only speak about that info if you're asked. The longer the hearing goes on, the more likely it will go to trial which will delay things. All you need to ensure is that, above all else, the judge recognises that a wrongful default has been left on your credit file and that it is accepted by HSBC. Job Centre should give you a letter but in my case the signing on book was fine. The court accepted it and there was nothing to pay. Cheers, Richard.

Somehow, you'll need to appeal to the human side of SP (and hope that such a side exists!) They've discretionary powers to help you. Let's hope they do. Good Luck, Richard.

So, it seems if you've provided extra info (perhaps you haven't) it would be better to send it to the defenders anyway. Here in Aberdeen, the court does it all for you (but you pay £65 instead of £40). If they have your AQ with the additional info, they can't say that they don't (that would have the possibility of delaying proceedings which will be one of their tactics). So, despite the lass at court telling you not to bother, if it has any additional info that you've not already sent, it may be better to send it. Hopefully the hearing will be soon. Within a couple of weeks say. No, I shouldn't think there are any more loopholes apart from the hassle of showing up in court. The judge should, in my opinion, avoid a trial by spotting that there is no credible defence. Ensure they spot this through all the wool the defenders will try and pull over their eyes. A trial would likely be more of a ball ache but at least you'd be exempt from fees. Good luck.

Hi Noddy, I had understood that you had already submitted your "AQ" as the deadline is Monday? Because the deadline is Monday, I'm guessing there's no point in sending a copy to the defenders. I assume it doesn't tell them anything that they didn't know already (although they might not tell the judge that!). Hopefully, you'll get a date soon before the judge. It's unbelievable how long it's been already. Cheers, Richard.

Hi Noddy, E-mail seems to have worked a treat. When I was on JSA, I didn't bother paying (I couldn't anyway) and just filled a form in each time. If you can be bothered claiming, you should get the money back but it seems you'll soon be getting paid anyway once the judge is involved properly. The date must be close now? Cheers, Richard.

I spoke to Warren during my frustration at being ripped off and extortion tactics. He too "couldn't help". More like "wouldn't help". Yes, I've heard the best way to speak to the English management is to e-mail them first. Alison sounds like she cares. Try her. I'm assuming you're not out in the sticks and it'll cost them millions to run a line out to you? Before long, winter will set in and they could use that as an excuse to not put a new pole in. I hope they'll just do the decent thing and give you what you've paid for. Tomorrow. If not sooner. Yes, perhaps I've a cheaper deal because I already had Sky TV. Sorry to have misled there. However, Tesco is definitely cheaper than BT, as are most I think. Check out the opera. Obviously, I'm yet to find out about the new service but it was too frustrating when even Warren didn't care. Perhaps he's changed his tune after eating away at BT's profits. Cheers, Richard.