DPA request sent off for my big brother today. Will keep you posted.

Don't blink first I had the same letter and refused the offer.

Don't worry - you'll be fine once you've had a good read of the FAQs.

Just file the claim Good luck with it

We could discuss it all day. No-one in legal practice talks about Denning anymore (which is a shame since he was such an interesting chap) Thats the realm of undergraduate law students. In a consumer contract uncertainty will always be construed in favour of the consumer. My own bank's T&Cs are not clear about the services provided, or whether the charges relate to a service and the uncertainty will and should be resolved in my favour. If the price for a service is agreed in the contract section 15 SOGAS has no application and there will be no discussion about mark-ups or a "reasonable bracket". Looking at the threads on this subject the arguments against the service argument always morph into arguments relevant to penalty charges and not to SOGAS. In reality the whole thing will stand or fall on succeeding in arguing that the charges are penalties and that the bank's description of them as service charges is merely an attempt to disguise those penalties.

Congratulations - enjoy - And don't forget the survey

First they have to prove what services they provided AND that they were part of the contract AND that they are entilted to charge for them AND that these contratual provisions were made clear to the consumer. They just will not be able to do this (well not on my bank's T&Cs anyway). IF they can do this only THEN do we argue about whether the price is reasonable. Tbh if they get over the above hurdles then they will probably win on the price argument. The costs are set out in the T&Cs and the T&Cs provide for the prioce to be changed from time to time - if a court agrees that they are services I don't see the scope for a section 15 SOGAS argument succeeding.

not sure the distinction matters. The charges are not rendered unlawful/illegal by application of the various regulations and statutes and cases we rely on - they are rendered unenforceable

I fully accept that there is the SOGAS argument. And of course we should be forearmed with all possible alternatives. Whilst I accept it is an alternative I think it is much weaker.

Send the LBA to the branch - it will get to the right department soon enough. Then when you get the usual sod off letter you can issue the proceedings to whichever ofice tells you to sod off If they don't reply to your LBA issue at the main trinity road office anyway.

At this point someone turns up and tells you to do the survey Well done - congratulations

Ive just written a long letter to the solicitors acting for a bank I'm suing in reply to their offer to pay me just under half of the amount claimed. They raised the service argument. The points that seem relevant to me are: 1. The bank has never referred to a service or a service charge in any of its letters to me or telephone conversations regarding charges in almost 15 years of banking with my bank. I have always been told that they are default charges applied automatically. (Heck some bank staff (including the famous Stuart Higley of NW fame) are still saying this in letters to forum users to this day). The service argument has only arisen now that these disputes have reached the desks of the bank's lawyers. This shows the bank's position for what it is - a means to disguise the penalties as service charges. 2. My bank's T&Cs do not set out clearly for any consumer what services might be provided to a consumer where events of default occur. Those terms will therefore be construed in favour of the consumer and not the bank. 3. The charge leaflets said to be part of the T&Cs do not describe or label the charges as service charges and again this uncertainty in the T&Cs will be construed in favour of the consumer. 4. The charge leaflets make clear that the charges are payable upon the happening of an event of default. The liability to pay the charges arises immediately the default occurs. The charges are not expressed to arise as a result of the provision of a service subsequent to a default, but immediately the existence of the default arises. 5. Pragraphs 1.19 and 4.21 of the OFT report on credit card charges. The OFT rationale applies to bank default charges and the bank is seeking to disguise them as service charges. The UTCCRs are concerned with the intention and effect of contract terms - not the mechanics. So it doesn't matter what the banks call the charges. If they look like penalty charges then it is more likely than not that they are. 6. The comments made to the treasury commitee by various of the head honchos from the banks. 7. The bank will have to give evidence of exactly what service is provided, how, by whom in respect of each and every charge - when we know that the fees are applied automatically and immediately - and we know that some banks have already confirmed that they don't keep any records of any manual interventions. 8. The parts of the Banking Code referred to by Spiceskull Don't forget that in the civil court the standard of proof is "more likely than not" - "on the balance of probablities" - so there is room for doubt. Is it more likely that the charges are penalties or service charges? If we can see through it the judges definitely will. I reckon that just about does for the service charge argument

An application to set aside is governed by the CPR (see Part 13) - the bank will have to show that it has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim OR show some other reason why judgment should be set aside. It is entirely within the judge's discretion. Usual excuses are that they didn't get the papers, lost them, so busy they couldn't get round to it. They will present some form of their case against you so be prepared to argue the issues although a set aside application is not a mini-trial. Hopefully the judge will give them short shrift. The one slight difficulty is that judge's often decide that it is in the interests of justice for the judgment to be set aside (and this falls under the some other reason category) and the case heard properly. The prejudice to the bank of being debarred from defending by a default judgment is often viewed as greater than the prejudice to you of losing a default judgment because they can be made to pay your costs of the set aside hearing. So, make sure you go armed with full details of your costs of dealing with the set aside hearing. Time spent preparing, travel, loss of earnings for the day, etc. etc. You should get an order that they pay those costs within 14 days if the judgment is set aside. Alternatively the judge might not be feeling particularly generous on the day and send them away with a flea in their ear given that you are a litigant in person and they should really be expected to have complied with time limits. It really can go either way. Best of luck with it and keep us posted

Well? Dont keep us in suspense (Lol just as the clock on th site is sorted I post - Penny - this was supposed to be after your post no.26)

Is this Ivorbiggun from the Dressed Stupidly Standing At The Back And Looking Stupid Party? If so I'll vote for you:) And best of luck with your claim

Well the court is able to make the order of its own initiative. One of the items for discsussion of course wil be that the "service" argument only ever arises when the papers reach the bank's lawyers. In all the correspondence from banks to people here in reply to their prelim letters or LBAs the banks say clearly that the charges are for their adminstration costs. Some even go so far as to say that they arise because of breaches of the agreement and are applied automatically. The lie about service is so easily seen through. The banks write to us stating that they are charges for default and do represent costs to the bank. Their lawyers say that the charges are nothing to do with defaults but for the provision of a service. The T&Cs (certainly in the case of NW) do not specifically describe any services and the leaflets on charges make it clear that if you do x you will be charged x - NOT if you do x we will have to provide a service in dealing with your account and we will charge you a service charge of x. The liability to pay arises immediately that the circumstances of default arise and are often appied at that time too. BF is right - their lawyers are attempting to "cloak the penalty clause". Look at the OFT report again - para 4.21 - "Attempts to restructure accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services should be viewed as disguised penalties and equally open to challenge where grounds of unfairness exist. (For example a charge for "agreeing to" or "allowing" a customer to exceed his credit limit is no different from a charge for the custimer's "default" in exceeding his credit limit). The UTCCRs are concerned with the intention and effects of terms not just their mechanism." By all means have negotiations but don't accept less than you are claiming and if the bank actually respond to the above in the course of those negotiaions we will all be interested in what they have to say.

Wow - the conspiracy theories multiply apace!! I suspect that all tht's happened is that the bank have ticked the box on the allocation questionnaire asking for a month's stay to try and settle the proceedings. The judge will usually order a stay of the proceedings to allow settlement negotiations to take place if one party indicates that they want a stay for that purpose. There's verylikely nothing more to it than that.

Nope - if the Landlord has served a section 21 notice giving you the usual 2 months notice you dont need to give notice yourselves

Its perfect here Dave. Donation made to this wonderful site tonight - hope it helps

Just get it back - thats all - carry on

Yes the only requirement is that it is in writing and expressed to be a Part 18 request - just put it in a letter. Best to answer theirs and serve yours as a separate document - only so that if they end up before the judge later it is easier for him/her to keep documents separated.

Will do

Yes

Just put all the answers in a reply to their request then. And serve your own if you wish. I can't say if it will persuade them to settle - only served my own versions of the above today so they have not reacted to it yet. What it does do, I hope, is show that you a) understand the issues, b) are not phased by their stock defence and part 18 request, c) aren't taking any sh*t, and d) are prepared to engage with them to properly litigate the issues involved and are not just joe public trying it on. What it will do is make it clear that if they remain engaged in the litigation with you they will have to do a lot of work. Answering that Part 18 request properly and fully would take hours and vastly increase the bank's legal fees for dealing with your case. That is not the intention of it - it is meant to engage on the issues - but for us it is a welcome by product. Be aware that it might even make them a bit stroppy and you may be ear-marked to be taken all the way to court. For myself Im not bothered about that and would welcome the chance to attend a hearing. As I said its your call and I can't and shouldn't tell you how you want to play it. I will always be around as a sounding board but ultimately everyone has to make their own decisions. Nice to know I can bring a smile to the faces of my fellow litigants

Post removed temporarily. Theres a good chance that the bnak will trace it to my proceedings - yes i'm being paranoid! Will repost it here once my claim is finished.