i suspect that may be a reportable post there nattie

personally i think Tom very well understands the LA in detail, and also understands its complexities. I personally think he has probably steered clear of it based on the fact the particular aspects of law he is going to be relying on are also very complex.

I think hes just trying to keep things as straightforward as possible without making things too difficult.

He is clearly using damages purely as a tool of leverage, to force the bank into the court room, so he can then force them to reveal their costs.

This isnt about the money for him, clearly he is trying to make a name for himself (the first case ever to be heard...fantastic new london barrister breaks the silence, Tom Brennan..is he the best barrister in england...i can see the headlines ect)

His only purpose is to force the bank into the court room and make them spill the beans...the LA would only cloud that goal and make life more difficult for him.

IMHO

received an offer today from rbs, the offer was in full and final settlement ofcourse and it was £54.03p, they claim they have worked that out from the difference between what they charged me and what the OFT has declared is lawful to charge (i think they need a talking to on the subject of what the OFT do and do not think), which they declare is all of £54

lol.....yeah right

duly replied and informed them that litigation is clearly now the only way forward and their offer was laughable and wholly declined.

BTW they specified the payment would be made directly into my account, which is against what i asked, i also asked for the account to be closed 4 weeks ago.

and these people have control of our money......

Received a reply today from a Ms Rachel Claridge (vice pres no less)

she tells me MBNA are very open and honest and the charges are transparent, fair and provided for by the tariff of charges...lol

she also tells me the PPI was requested by myself and that mbna PPI covers self employed people..lol yeah right

she then goes on blah blah blah...but without admitting anything we offer you £530 as a gesture of goodwill...lol

needles to say i have drafted a quick reply, telling her to stick the offer where the cobwebs probably lie and i'll see her legal team in court (or words to that effect)

the battle goes on

tanz,

lol yeah just a stroke of luck really but i have got him to the point now where is actually starting to take an interest in all this, and every now and then he phones me to give me another idea lol.

Progenic I think £3 is more than generous. If you follow the link to the Whistleblower programme in my sig I think you'll find it is actually £2 maximum, and in reality probably £1.20. Different bank, but costs likely to be similar in my opinion.

caro

thanks yeah i watched whistleblower with interest and fully share your thoughts on this, i was however just asking to see if any concrete proof had arose on this particular bank thats all, as in court i would prefer to use fact.

But i think we all know what the true costs are, £3 is actually very high, based on the fact Syn was basing the estimate of humans doing the work, but in reality its all done by computers, whether i can prove that is a different matter though.

peeks round the corner to see if this thread has changed any....

nope

also on the point of damages and who and what has been lost, well i can ony speak for myself but at the time the halifax and MBNA together decided to make my life a misery it brought me to my knees, and to be honest i lost alot more than anyone would ever know. (and dont want to dwell on right now TBH)

but i dont think the court would be able to repay me for what was cused as a direct result of what they did.

IMHO

bong and aqua

well goes without saying that i would strongly aver that the charges are unlawful.

and further any payments in any shape or form would be declined unless it was full payment of total claimed, so in theory they would have paid nothing and would still have to prove everything.

i asked my dad about this (law lecturer) and hes not sure about the standpoint on this, but does also seem to think that they may be able to admit the claim for the money aspect only, and yet disregard the claim of being unlawful.

If this is the case, then the law sucks big time.

red,

firstly was wondering how you know £3 was the actual cost ?

and rest assured i fully understand the difference between consequential losses and damages.

The claims i have coming towards litigation at present are all fairly different types of claims (as in approach), and i wont be bringing them all at the same time (as much as my sig claims). these claims are now basically ready to proceed to court with, thoug i will probably bring them two at a time.

Luckily i have a dad thats a law lecturer (specialising in contract law and tort) and a business partner thats a solicitor, so between i get a good share of advice and ofcourse my dad wouldnt let me do anything silly.

I do not want to give away too many of my arguments at this stage, but my technique is a combination of the standard and some new stuff to cag, and hopefully if i succeed with them i will reveal all. (incidentially one of these claims has just been settled, based on my terms before litigation even started)

I understand the risks involved in fast and multi track, and in many ways the money doesnt bother me, its more a point of principle. (and fun )

i'll keep you posted as and when i know anything, best of lcuk and sorry to highjack your thread somewhat

Johnny

zoot,

as much as i feel honoured when you respond to a post of mine, you cant just say that and leave.

please expand on this, in what way, how could you do yourself alot of damage ?

would the judge not just simply dismiss it if he/she felt it wasnt a correct course of action, or may the judge simply dismiss the claim ?

welcome home muggins

lol i received the self same letter, not even signed by hand just a copied version of some very old original.

you will probably receive another letter in about 10 - 14 days saying sorry they still havnt replied but are very busy and are looking into it.

stick with the game plan hun

johnny

zoot,

thanks for that and for the record i fully understand that you cannot bring a criminal action via the civil court system

My point i was trying to get across was that, IMHO there is nothing wrong morally with applying a claim for damages to a bank fee case, as i seemed to have picked up from various places around the site. And the fact that a tort in simple terms anyway, is a civil injustice that may be awarded some form of compensation if it were bought before the court. And that a breach of contract is not a tort either,

what i was saying simply is this, i dont think we should feel bad about claiming damages.

How a claimant goes about that is another topic altogether.

Oi thats my thread

lol

well as much as i dont agree/fully understand zootscoot tells me that the banks or anyone in court for that matter can do the following.

Banks accused of being unlawful and taking £2000 without consent

Banks accept the £2000 but do not accept being unlawful, and this is all fine.

my personal view is that if somebodies claims that an tort or injustice has occurred and that has costs attached to it, how can you accept the costs but not the act ? surely by accepting the costs by default you then accept the act, do you not ?

well apparently this is the new approach in court to avoid everything claimed, apart from the bare charges aspect. ie they are now fully admitting liability but denying everything else.. ie the CI, LA, Damages, Costs anything and everything else. And aparently because they admit in their defence the liability of the charges then clearly they do not have to disclose anything in court.

My question to zoot (which she did not fully answer) was why then are they not doing this in each and every case, thus avoiding having to pay thousands of pounds over the odds. Zoot tells me they do do this sometimes but didnt give reasoning about it.

I cannot for the life of me understand the reasoning, the law, the basis of bringing the whole claim if this is the case. But why dont they do it all the time then ?

any thoughts ?

(BTW i argued till i was blue in the face with Onlines solicitor, and this evening he offered settlement on my terms, via email, so maybe the argument was a bluff) but id still like thoughts on it

meagain,

but i think it does depend on how the case was bought to the court, if for instance it were a private customer bringing the claim of fraud relevant only to their account then, every customer in the bank could bring this claim and bring it on the same basis. If however the claim of fraud was against the banks legal department, or any individual department then again as long as the department was different or the basis was different it wouldnt matter.

There are a thousand ways to aproach a fraud case and even more case scenarios based on fraud. Put simply there are many ways to skin a cat and one person really couldnt jepordise the entire nations ability to have justice served upon them.

Clearly the only real chance we have of significant success is if the CPS brings the action, as a private case of this magnitude would easily run into hundreds of thousands, quite possibly hit the million mark and take probably over two years or more to settle, i dont imagine an individual is going to rush out and do this really. If we all keep on collecting as much evidence as we can, combined with the OFT rulings and hopefully a judgement in the small claims then we may stand a chance.

Or perhaps this is bigger than all of us care to imagine

bloodster,

rule number one do not assume the other side have any common sense whatsoever, because generally speaking this is a misconception

You will need to attach a list of charges to the part 18 request thats for sure, as the bank and their defence solicitors are two different things altogether. Then you can either clarify the points in question (personally i would do this, especially as you filed via mcol) or tell them you dont need to do that and send the template letter.

The judge will of course see your response and bear in mind that if your claim is lacking in detail ( a non legally recognisable claim) then it may well be struck out.

The claim in law, needs to make sense, and needs to be fairly specific about what you are claiming has happened, what law your using, where your using that law and on what points. Put simply the mcol claim (over exagarated i know) goes something like this....the bank have robbed me, now pay or die and BTW i know the law !

All the defence want are specific points clarifying eg, what is the contractual term you are relying on (from the banks own terms and conditions)...the one that gives them the contractual right to debit money from your account, then just tally that term up with the UTCCR and generally make your claim a "proper claim" and your done.

Any other worries just ask

hi bloodster,

did you not send a spreadsheet with a complete list of charges to the account and or copy statements ?

dont worry too much, like steve said its standard cobbetts stuff just asking for clarity and a legally recognisable claim. Part of the fault is with mcol (which i personally recommend knowbody uses) but as steve also said there are standard templates you can send back to them. Spend a good few days looking around the site and get to know your way around.

I take it you filed your claim by using another websites information then ?

best of luck

sorry to post again so soon but

just read a few of the links to certain threads that seem to have taken up issue here.

Firstly as you know red i am also claiming damages....why ? becuase like tom brennan i am trying to use it as a tool of leverage against the banks, (i must also add that this action of my own has nothing to do with tom brennan and i decided this months ago)

Tort ! tort is basically a civil injustice, i do not mean to knock people on this forum higher up the command chain that i, but some people dont seem to have a full understanding of what tort is.

we all have the right to apply damages to our claims, whatever the basis of claim is, regardles of whether its criminal, contractual or tortious or a mixture of them all.

On the aspect of damages the judge will simply decide on whether he agrees with the fact the banks have done something worthy of damages, ie the bank being stripped of what they have taken from you and some more as a punishment for their wrong doing. I personally thought i might stand a better chance of getting them into the court room if i used damages on the claim aswell.

But dont think your doing anything wrong here, there seems to be alot of contrary arguments going around lately, and clearly alot of them are based on....well lets just say not fact anyways

Hi Red,

just dropping by on your thread, and please forgive me for jumping in half way through (and based on the fact i have only read page 10) but i noticed some comments on jurisdiction, of which i happen to know a little about. Firstly i dont know where you live but im making a big assumption that you live in England.

If a contract/agreement/Terms and conditions or anything at all binding written or verbal are written under scottish law, but the claimant lives in England, then almost always the contract/agreement thats being challenged can be heard in English courts (and it usually says this on the contract) If the contract is Scottish and the claimant lives in Scotland, then almost always the claimant will only have jurisdiction under Scottish law.

However if the company in question has premises outside Scotland, ie England then jurisdiction comes back into England.

your probably thinking yeah i know that and this was discussed on page 2, (and if so strike from the record :grin: )

anyway subscribing

good idea i think i'll join you

Nuts - V.Good if you like Lucy Pinder (fully exposed)

have a good day

welcome oneofakind,

i agree cloaking of charges or in a legal sense (concealment) or even (misrepresentation) is even worse than just the charges, especially in court as concealment puts the defence in a different light altogether, i just found it quite telling that they have been advised to go down this route, ie lets say its a service fee and hope for the best.

Anyway the N1 gets filed this week hopefully (if i get my act together) the charges go back to 99 to its a time barred case as far as the defence are concerned, that plus damages plus CI

could get interesting

welcome Red

i have just been working out the totals involved with my claim and realise by the time i have applied damages and costs my claim goes over £10,000 so claerly is going to be fast tracked, unless i do separate them and keep both claims around the £5,000 mark, though i didnt really want to argue the PPI issue on its own.

Or i could ask MBNA to agree to allow the 10k claim be heard in the small claims (by agreement) lol fat chance of that happening.

you may have guessed i dont care too much for MBNA after the years of hell they put me through, i will relish taking them down

muhaha

BOOOOO!!!!!

 

see someone is reading it...LOL

 

yeh, they might change the T's & C's but remember at the time of the unfair charges twas the old T's & C's.

OMG nearly falls off my chair in shock..i have a poster on my thread :o

Lol

yes i realise its the T+C's that were issued at the time that must be used in the court room, and the update T+C's are only relevant to charges from today onwards (or are they only relevant to new accounts from today onwards)

received an interesting letter yesterday from barclays, it was basically a standard template letter saying please read the enclosed.

So looks at the "enc" and low and behold its barclays brand new and fully updated "terms and conditions"

On looking through them i have found a much more detailed approach to charges, and lots of "get out clauses" regarding anything a claimant may try and bring against them.

They are now saying the charges are more of a fee for a service, ie the service is in deciding whether to allow or decline a payment (making out its very human process), when you read it, it sounds like a supervisor is sat there looking at a monitor tracking every payment in and out of the bank. Then having to make important decisions whether to allow them or not...lol yeah right.

Clearly all these processes are fully automated requiring zero human intervention. I thought a very telling tactic by the bank though to use such an argument.

Still they are still going to have to prove the breakdown of these charges in court, regardless of what they claim to be the case, either way an impossible task for them.

not that anybodies reading this thread anyway could be writing anything in here really, might actually change direction of this thread vegatable growing, or fishermans news, perhaps last weeks world changing copy of nuts magazine :o oh my.