Has anybody seen this probably everybody here i suppose. A High Court judge has warned banks to stop behaving unreasonably when customers accuse them of levying unlawful overdraft charges. Judge David Mackie QC issued the warning at the London Mercantile Court, in the Royal Courts of Justice. He said some banks were wasting the time of claimants and the courts by pretending they would defend claims when they had no intention of doing so. He added if banks continued to do this he might award damages against them. About 300 claims for refunds of allegedly unlawful charges have been lodged at the London Mercantile Court this year. Typically these have been referred from County Courts in the hope that one might be heard in the High Court and produce a test decision. "If the banks had won, many fewer customers would have sued," said Judge Mackie. "If the banks had lost, the claims would have been much easier to sort out than they are now," he added. Fantasy In such cases banks have so far settled out of court, usually a few days before their case is due to be heard. This is fantasy because, at least for the moment, we all know that there will be no trial Judge David Mackie QC Expressing some frustration at this situation, Judge Mackie said: "On the face of things each case raises serious issues which the court would permit to proceed to trial. "But this is fantasy because, at least for the moment, we all know that there will be no trial." Brian Capon, of the British Bankers Association, defended the stance taken by banks saying they were confident their fees are legal. "They take the court process very seriously, but ultimately they would prefer to settle disputes with their customers outside the court process," he said. "Where a customer's complaint dates back over a long period or is complex the bank will need longer to investigate the complaint properly." The consumers association Which? rejected this. "It seems that the banks are deliberately dragging their feet in the hope that their customers will either give up or accept part of the money they are owed," said a spokeswoman. Unreasonable behaviour Judge Mackie pointed out that in some cases bank customers had tried to claim damages for stress and inconvenience. Such claims have been unsuccessful so far, but he warned he would award damages in future if banks and their lawyers continued to: fail to respond to some claimants letters fail to negotiate for months and until a hearing date is set demand extra information from the claimants, knowing they had no intention letting a court hear the matter settle the case without telling the claimants they need not attend court fail to show up in court "Looked at in the real world where there will be no trial these steps, which place completely pointless work and some anxiety on litigants in person, constitute unreasonable behaviour," said Judge Mackie. "From now on we will generally be treating such conduct as unreasonable behaviour thus enabling any claimant who has been put to unnecessary work and inconvenience to be compensated for this." Frustration Judge Mackie's comments appear to reflect growing judicial annoyance at the banks' attempts to avoid a test case at all costs. It would be helpful if there was a decision taken at High Court level to clarify the situation Nationwide Judge Roger Kaye QC Last month, Leeds Mercantile Court listed 77 cases in one day, all of which were settled out of court. Afterwards, Judge Roger Kaye QC said "it would be helpful if there was a decision taken at High Court level to clarify the situation nationwide". In Bristol County Court a successful claimant was recently awarded £84.41 in costs as the judge ruled Lloyds TSB wasted the court's time because it had had no intention of defending the claim. In January, a Judge at Lincoln County Court threatened to strike out some banks' defences for abusing the legal process for the same reason. At the time Judge Paul Collins, speaking on behalf of county court judges in London, said: "It would be very desirable to have a test case to see whether the arguments being put forward by the banks are sustainable or not," he said. The latest warning from Judge Mackie left the banks with what sounded like a final warning. "There may be a need for a more radical approach if the number of cases continues to grow," he said.

Update Sort of won I've negotiated with abbey and received payment for £7036.33p in respect of my claim. They paid the money back into the account and re-issued me with an electron debit card, and access to the internet banking they also removed the default notice on my credit report. I've just logged on to the internet banking and found that they have charged me around £146 during the period that my county court claim was running, I've just rung them to ask for a refund of those charges and they said that they have refunded enough, i even pointed out that i will persue them through the court again if need be to get the charges back and all they said was "that was up to me goodbye". Oh well I'll just at add it to the list, i'll have to take them to court another two more times now instead of one. Unfortunately i cannot make a donation this time as the money received was spent paying arrears on bills, But i'll will make a donation of 5% at some point. regards pmahonc

Yes heres the link BBC NEWS | Business | Court adjourns bank charges case And here's the article Court adjourns bank charges case Brennan said he was very disappointed at this latest delay An attempt to force the NatWest bank to justify its overdraft penalty charges has been postponed again. A barrister, Tom Brennan, is claiming damages from the bank for levying penalty fees he says were unlawful. He was charged a total of £2,500 by the NatWest for unauthorised overdrafts when he was a law student. Judge Peter Simpson, at the City of London County Court, adjourned the hearing until a full day could be set aside to hear the arguments. The judge said the issues were "extremely important" but the two hours set aside to hear the case would not be sufficient. Outside the court, Mr Brennan said he was very disappointed at this latest delay as it was to his disadvantage. "It should be noted that any delay is going to assist the defendants because only six years of charges can be made," he said. "Every day that passes, more money is being saved by the bank," he added. Settlement In an attempt to settle the case, NatWest has refunded Mr Brennan's penalty charges, and offered to pay him £1,500 extra if he does not take the case to court. Mr Brennan has refused to accept this and is pursuing his claim for exemplary and aggravated damages to punish the bank for what he claims was the unlawful seizure of his money, causing him economic harm. The court hearing, which will now take place on 30 April, will not be a hearing of the full case. It will be to establish, first of all, whether Mr Brennan does in fact have the right to claim these extra damages. pmahonc

Bong I thought it might be the reporters to but they are quoting him therefore i thought they couldn't change what he is supposed to have said. I'm just supprised that as a barrister he would know his case inside out with all the legal stuff backing him up. So i wonder how strong his case actually is for what he is actually trying to do. pmahonc

feefofum A non-chartered accountant should not cost a lot, if it's more than £150.00p i'd be very much surprised. It would probably only take him a few hours. Just have a look on yell.co.uk for a local one and ask for a quote. pmahonc sorry about the empty last post i keep hitting the tab button and then the enter key thinking i'm using a word proc.

Feefofum

just seen the news article on bbc business about the barrister taking Nat west to Court and how it been adjurned till 30th April and that it's in the bank's interest to delay as people cannot claim beyond 6 year's? Surely if he's got links to this site he knows people are going for greater than six years or does he know something we don't. Here's the link BBC NEWS | Business | Court adjourns bank charges case pmahonc

The Citizens advice bereau do a leaflet about about basic accounts, Try the co-op i have a default { thanks to good old Abbey }and still managed to open an account, another one to try is the post office, they have a basic account that allows you to pay by direct debit etc and get your wages paid into. pmahonc

feefofum Just one thing with the fsa i think that they require you to have at least asked the bank for the charges back ie prelim before they do the rest. pmahonc

feefofum Would it pay you to get an accountant to do the spreadsheet for you. and then get a local solicitor to do the rest, you wouldn't need to get a chartered accountant, any normal cheap accountant would do. Once he's done the calculations for you, a local solicitor should be able to handle the rest i would have thought for a reasonable price. Or even once the accountant has done his bit hand the matter over to the FSA, They don't charge and you get the full amount back without a lot of the hassle. pmahonc

newbody and Mad Nick I like both your answers, in fact newbody i'm in the same boat as you except that i didn't or rather haven't as yet received a GOGW, I've done a lot of reading up on the CI Debate and i'm comfortable with all the arguements for and against it. The only problem i could see was keeping the claim intact and was trying to think of various way's the abbey are likely to try to trip us up {knowing how devious they can be}, now though i think i'll follow both of your reasonings and refuse any offers they come up with {unless of course they concede to all my demands}. Thanks for clearing things up for me. pmahonc

Newbody I was trying to think along a more devious line of thought in that they may wait until the very last minute so we don't have a chance to respond until we are just about to go into court. that way we would have to say to the judge that they have made the payment and then explain the reasons that you and Nick have come up with to keep the claim intact. whereas if it's charges that have been levied against us by other firms because of the bank's action, then the whole point is that you need to have the judgement that the bank's charges are unlawful and the payment of the charges and cost's etc are secondary matters, and that for us to withdraw the claim before a court hearing would be Charges + Costs + CI at 28.7% + removal of default{s} that way the 28.7% is in some way restituition for the charges the firms have applied and the fact that in my case a default has been applied for over several months on my credit file because of the unlawful charges. pmahonc

MadNick I must admit i thought about the without prejudice route and then realised that they could just make a payment straight into the account without consultation as per their GOGW payments and therefore would not be subject to WP. and if they did that surely they could then argue that the charges have been paid which leaves us in the same position as glenn arguing just your second point. regards pmahonc

On the subject of keeping a claim intact to be able to claim contractual interest by refusing abbey's offers of paying all charges and costs, i was wondering whether or not the following arguement would stand up. When the abbey return a dd unpaid some firms also charge for the dd so you end up paying for the abbey's charge of 35 and the firms charge of 25 so to be able to get the 25 back from the abbey { if they hadn't charged so much the dd would have been paid } you would need a decision from the court that the charges were unlawful. Plus to get a default from the abbey removed as i have not included the removal of default in my POC because it was applied after the n1 was issued, again a decision from the court would be needed. Just thinking out loud. pmahonc

been trying to finish off my Court Bundle and the desciption is as follows Description Pages Correspondence Claimant p 1 to 25 Correspondence Defendant p 26 to 33 Court Correspondence p 34 to 53 Latest Schedule of Charges @ 28.7% p 54 to 59 Latest Schedule of Charges @ 8.0% p 60 to 65 Bank Account Statements p 66 to 323 Relevant Law Summary p 324 to 326 Early Day Motion from House of Parliament p 327 Dunlop v New Garage p 328 to 329 UTCCR 1999 p 330 to 340 UTCA 1977 p 341 to 350 SOGA 1982 p 351 to 363 OFT Statement Summary p 364 to 367 Andrew George MP Press Release p 368 Settled Cases List p 369 BBC News Articles p 370 to 374 Yorkshire Bank Mechanics of Penalty Charging System p 375 to 377 this is the part ordered by the court. 2. Each party shall give to the other party standard disclosure of documents by serving a list of documents [by serving copy documents with a disclosure statement] by 4.00 pm on 24 April 2007. I notice when i look at the example of disclosure list that there are several items on it that i do not mention in my court bundle. namely (EE) -- Office of Fair Trading Report April 2006 (OFT842) - 35 (GG) -- House of Commons Select Committee on Treasury Second Report: ‘Transparency in charging’ - 10 (HH) -- Report by Kendall Freeman on Liquidated Damages (May 2005) - 3 (JJ) -- Case Law Reference: Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Ltd v Tilebox Ltd [2005] EWHC 281 (TCC) - 2 Seeing as how i've included OFT summary of statement, is (ee) necessary. Also can i just add the rest to the end of the court bundle? TIA pmahonc

thanks Karnevil I'm doing that one along with the letter from andrew george, Guardian, bbc news etc... pmahonc

Found this on the bbc website BBC NEWS | Business | The true cost of bouncing a cheque? pmahonc

Dillydee if you go to the user cp at the top of the forum and click on that it will take you to another page with all your details on and there you can choose on the left hand side to edit your avatar, after that its just a case of finding a suitable picture. regards pmahonc

Rolling stone i just followed the instructions on the following link http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/11644-allocation-questionnaires-guide-completion.html hope this helps pmahonc

webbster Unfortunately it doesn't mean they have admitted they owe you that's for the court to decide. The Court bundle is quite simple for the most part just tedious, You need three copies all identical. Yours which contains all the originals and one copy for the court and one copy for Abbey. You can get a sample which contains most of the documents you need along with a guide to the layout, just fill it out with documents that you think will help your case. here's the link http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/33060-basic-court-bundle.html don't forget to get a supply of ink and paper so far i think mine's up to about 350-400 pages long although I'm admittedly using only one side of a page as my printer doesn't support printing on both sides. Actually the notice of allocation isn't that complicated it just looks it, each step has a date it has to be completed by so i just follow each step one at a time. The real hard part will be trying to keep the claim intact if they make me an offer to pay all charges + 8% + costs. regards pmahonc

try this link for ccj's http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/11411-trying-build-decent-credit.html post #20 onwards And this one for defaults http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/11659-how-get-your-default.html?highlight=defaults regards pmahonc

Yes i'd go standard case for the bank charges, and sort out about the ccj later. i'll have a look as well for defaulted accounts. regards pmahonc

AngelaT I think the best thing to do would be to follow the step by step instructions and faqs first for the charges. I think you can get the CCJ removed but takes a lot of doing, it would take possibly getting the court to make a judgement that the charges were unlawful, after which you could possibly appeal against the CCJ, or you might be able to put it's removal into your claim as the only reason it was served on you was because of the unlawful charges, Probably someone else on this site might be able to help more with the CCJ. Also with Monument do exactly the same claim back the charges, the oft statement mentioning the £12.00p is only the limit above which the oft would take action, Monument would still have to prove the charges like the banks have to. regards pmahonc

Abbeyshambles As suggested earlier open another account and think carefully before going for contractual Interest as it is a lot more involved than just getting your charges back, do as nick suggested and read the step by step guides and the faqs. I believe that if you are out of work you could be exempt from paying court fees, if not and you cannot afford the court fees then perhaps the fsa route could help as you don't pay for anything that way {it takes about two months i believe going the fsa route}. It might help if you send the abbey a letter saying you are disputing the account, this way they should put the account on hold, in the letter put something along the lines of why you are disputing the account such as unfair charges etc. regards pmahonc

just received this morning, N154 from the court. Notice of Allocation to the Fast Track To the Claimant In the GLOUCESTER County Court Claim Number 7GL00308 Claimant (including ref.) Defendant Abbey National Plc (including ref.) TS6 B03.BCT Date 03 April 2007 DISTRICT JUDGE xxxxxx has considered the statements of case and allocation questionnaires filed, and allocated the claim to the fast track. The trial of this claim will take place during the period commencing 06 August 2007 and ending on 24 August 2007 at a venue to be notified. IT IS ORDERED THAT 1. The Claim is allocated to the Fast Track. 2. Each party shall give to the other party standard disclosure of documents by serving a list of documents [by serving copy documents with a disclosure statement] by 4.00 pm on 24 April 2007.Court bundle ? + Disclosure by lists 3. All request for inspection of [or copies of] documents must be made by 4.00 pm on 1st May 2007. 4. The parties mutually disclose by 4.00 pm on 5th June 2007, the signed statements of all witnesses of fact on whose evidence they intend to rely together with any notices to rely on hearsay evidence. 5. No expert evidence being necessary no party has permission to call or rely on expert evidence. 6. Each party must file a completed Listing Questionnaire by 4.00 pm on 3rd July 2007. The parties must file with their listing questionnaires a succinct case summary and schedule of issues (which they must seek to agree) and, if any party seeks leave to call oral expert evidence, copies of the relevant reports and any joint statement(s) and/or replies to questions. 7. The matter to be listed for a Directions Hearing on a date to be fixed after 12 weeks with a time estimate of 30 minutes. (Date to be notified by the court) 8. The claim [issue] will be tried during the period ("the Trial Window") commencing on 6th August 2007 and ending on 24th August 2007. The provisional time estimate for the Trial is three hours and the parties must inform the Court if that estimate varies. 9. The parties are reminded of the provisions of the Practice Directions to [CPR 28 (Fast track)], concerning variation of direction and failure to comply with directions and in particular of the time within which applications to the Court should be made. 10. The costs of obtaining this order be in the case. Is it me or does 6 conflict with 5 also disclosure by lists, isn't this the same as the index on the front of the court bundle? Wonder how abbey will react to this? almost finished my court bundle i could even get it filed and sent off by the end of the week. one of the last bits i have to add to the court bundle is the updated schedule of charges. Seeing as how in my POC i have claimed for CI and if failing that 8% shall i include two seperate schedules reflecting both rates. wonder if they will make an offer now? regards pmahonc