Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • sounds pretty typical. scan everything up to ONE multipage PDf please follow upload we dont need any statements. dx  
    • Participants can get £50 - but must permanently consent to the retailer using their personal data.View the full article
    • Documents arrived today dated 27th March.  This is a cc taken out a long time ago (2008) and they don't seem to have been able to provide a copy of a CCA agreement, just reams of print outs of lines of texts from old bank statements, default notices etc.   
    • Documents finally arrived today from PRA group.  New day have sent me lots of paperwork, copies of default letters and statements, print out of what looks like a CCA that would have been completed on online, IP address as signature.  This debt is not too old, so possible this is the true copy of agreement ?  Not sure what my defence would be beyond irresponsible lending. 
    • pers i wouldn't.. all you need to know is in the posts of that thread....that being section 127(3) of the CCA refers. if under a CCA return, the 'creditor' claims its a recon, it must not contain any details like a sig, tickbox, or typed name (whether you signed physically or by online tickbox) 1. those are not necessary in a recon, so why inc them? (faked??) 2, it cant thus be a recon!!, it must be a copy of the 'original' from the original creditor, not from a debt buyers filing cabinet. they shouldn't not be 'mixing' some original docs from the OC with crap from their filing cabinet, claiming its ALL a recon! because some of it is faked. just remember there are far more docs like NOA and a DN that are as equally important to a court claim of 'this debt is enforceable'. never rely solely upon the dodgy agreement argument.
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Chickenlicken


Chickenlicken
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5124 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Claiming pre 6 yrs 1995-2001

Court action

Claim stayed, hearing 9th November

 

I need some advice;

Using hardship arguments for stay removal. Have not pleaded hardship with bank until last minute-does this matter? Emailed this on 6th November but no acknowledgment for this received as yet.

The utccr. Claim is pre 6yrs, how does this apply-I've read it doesn't as previous utccr preceeds this for this claim

The LA. Worried; re laches argument. Have outlined s32 with bank & POC. Feel out of depth, despite reading up on threads here.

 

Any advice would be gratefully received, hearing in 3 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the stay on hardship grounds is concerned you could encounter hardship at any time. You will obviously have to prove your reasons to the court for your hardship claim. This might help you. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cases-stayed-pending-oft/108430-stays-info-guidance.html

Could you post your N1 on the thread ? So we can see how and what you have claimed.

Have a read through this thread. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/11227-limitation-act-1980-lets.html

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 gives the power to the Office of Fair Trading to seek injunctions to prevent the use of unfair terms in consumer contracts. 1999 is nearly 9 years ago so what time period does your claim cover ? It will help greatly if you can supply the information requested. Good luck.

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Particulars of Claim

The Defendant is a well-known commercial bank with branches throughout the United Kingdom.

The Claimant has/had an account, number 12345678 (“the Account”), maintained at the Defendant’s xx Branch (sort code 11-22-33) The account was opened on or around September 1994. The Account is governed by the Defendant’s Personal Banking Terms and Conditions (‘the contract’)

From September 1995 to September 2001, the Claimant’s entire income was derived from Income Support and Child Benefit paid by the Department of Work and Pensions and Child Tax Credit paid by HM Revenue and Customs. This money does not belong to the Claimant but is public money to be spent on the basic needs of the Claimant and the Claimant’s family.

During the period in which the Account has been operating the Defendant has debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract in regards to "exceeded overdraft limit", ‘Overdraft Usage Fee’, ‘Unpaid Items’, ‘Charges Capitalised’, etc. on the part of the Claimant and also charged overdraft interest on these charges once they were applied.

The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

A schedule of the charges is attached to these particulars of claim.

Action to date

The Claimant was only able to obtain complete details of the Charges by virtue of a Subject Access Request, served upon the Defendant, pursuant to s7 Data Protection let 1998. The cost for said request was £10.00 and the date whereof was 1st June 2007

The Defendant subsequently denied the availability of the information on several occasions, claiming i) its deletion from computer records after 6 years of age; ii) £5 per page of information. Only upon the third written request did the defendant provide all the requested information

On 29th June 2007 the Claimant sent a letter to the Defendant asking for a refund of the Charges. In said letter the Claimant made various assertions and arguments to substantiate her request, quoting relevant sources of law and evidence. Claimant concluded therein that the Charges were unlawfully levied to the account by the Defendant.

The Claimant subsequently received a letter from the Defendant, dated 9 July 2007. Therein the Defendant, informed the Claimant that the Charges would not be refunded. Further, the Defendant averred that the Charges were ‘fair, reasonable and transparent’ and were provided for by the Defendant’s ‘published tariff’ which, it claimed, complied ‘with all applicable laws and regulations’. Unfortunately, the Defendant, was unable to provide any legal and/or factual basis for its assertions.

A letter before action was sent on 17th July 2007 on the Defendant. The Claimant received a letter from the Defendant, dated 18 July, giving its ‘final response’ to the claim, offering a partial refund of inter alia the Charges, to the Claimant.

In a final letter before action dated 18th August, claimant highlighted said charges were taken from Social Security Benefit, namely Income Support and Child Benefit, against s187 Social Security Administration Act 1992. Defendant denies that this law applies to banking charges and fees.

Claimant notes that the Defendant, to date, has made no attempt whatsoever to present a competent defence to the Claimant’s claim.

Brief Outline of Claim

Claimant as part of her basis of claim, advances that:

the charges debited to the Account and detailed in the Schedule constitute assignment by the Defendant and to the Defendant of moneys paid to the Claimant in state benefits and are therefore unlawful by virtue of s187 Social Security Administration Act 1992 regarding Income Support and Child Benefit.

the Charges have been unlawfully applied to the Account;

no contract ever existed between the parties hereto that purports to allow the Defendant to levy the Charges to the Account.

should such a contract exist it could only exist in the form of the Terms & Conditions.

only if this court, being of competent jurisdiction, should find that such a contract existed between the parties hereto then the Charges are penalties relating to a breach of contract and hence irrecoverable as set out hereinafter.

only if this court, being of competent jurisdiction, finds that the Charges are remuneration to the Defendant for services provided then they are irrecoverable due to inter alia the fact that the terms, if any, which provide for the Charges are unfair and the Charges themselves are unreasonable.

In support of part of his basis of claim the Claimant contends, and intends to prove

a) that the Charges are:

punitive in nature;

unreasonable;

generally disproportionate;

excessive;

unfair;

unlawful;

not a genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred by the Defendant in respect of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant;

exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant;

not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss in respect of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which conducts its regime of charging with a view to profit;

not intended to bear any relation to the Defendant’s actual losses which it can show it has incurred and would not have incurred but for any alleged breaches of contract on behalf of the Claimant; and

are held in in terrorem to discourage the Claimant from presenting items on the Account for payment where there are insufficient funds to cover such payment of said item.

b) all contractual provision(s), if any, between the parties hereto, which purport to permit the Defendant to levy the Charges to the Account, are unenforceable by virtue of:

i. the UTCCR;

ii. the Unfair Contract Terms Act /977 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘UCTA’)

iii. the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982; and

iv. the common law; and

c). the processes involved in processing unarranged overdrafts, unpaid items, referrals, etc are entirely, or else almost entirely, automated.

UNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACT REGULATIONS (S 2083/1999)

Any contract between the parties hereto falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the UTCCR as the Claimant could only be a consumer, within the meaning of the UTCCR, in relation to any contract between the parties hereto.

Regulation 5(l) of the UTCCR provides as follows: “A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall he regarded as unfair if contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a sign unbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.”

Paragraph 1 to Schedule 2 of the UTCCR includes all “terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation as being part of a indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which maybe regarded as unfair” (Regulation 5(5) UTCCR).

Paragraph 1(k) to Schedule 2 of the UTCCR includes all “terms which have the object or effect of enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided” as being part of the “indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may he regarded as unfair”. The Terms & Conditions allow the Defendant to unilaterally alter the charges applied for ‘Unarranged Overdrafts’, ‘Unpaid Item(s)’ and ‘Referral Charges’

Regulation 8(l) of the UTCCR provides that: ‘1n unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.’

Accordingly, the Charges being disproportionate and punitive, any term of contract purporting to allow the Defendant to levy the Charges is deemed to be unfair and unenforceable by virtue of Regulations 5(l), 5(5) and 8(I), and paragraphs 1(e) and 1(k) of Schedule 2, all of the UTCCR.

UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT 1977

Any term of contract between the parties hereto purporting to entitle Defendant to levy the Charges to the Account is unenforceable by virtue of s4 UCTA. In this eventuality the Claimant is entitled to judgement as sought in paragraph 15 of these particulars.

Specifically, any such term would represent an indemnity clause in a contract where one of the parties deals as a consumer. Consequently such a term would be unenforceable as it would be unreasonable.

Under s 1 of the UCTA the requirement of reasonableness is that ‘the term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made.’

THE OFT

The Claimant also relies on the Office of Fair Trading’s (‘the OFT‘) statement of 5th April 2006 concerning default charges in credit card contracts, as the OFT’s recommendations regarding standard default terms in credit card contracts have wider implications, as regards bank current Account agreements.

Further to a), the charges debited to the Account constitute contractual penalties rather than liquidated damages. A charge is held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison to the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the contractual breach. A penalty clause is void in its entirety and unenforceable.

If the Court finds that the charges are not a penalty, then the Claimant contends that they are unreasonable within the meaning of s.15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

The Limitation Act 1980

The Claimant seeks permission to proceed with the claim under section 32 (1)(b) Limitation Act 1980 on the grounds that the Claimant could not reasonably have discovered the Defendant’s deliberate concealment of the facts relevant to the Claimant’s right of action before the OFT’s report was published on 5th April 2006. The facts relevant to the Claimant’s right of action are that the Defendant is unjustly enriched by exercising the contractual terms in respect of default charges with a view to profit. If the Defendant has elected to present its charges as if they were a legitimate loss or cost, whilst it is in actual fact profiting in a material sense from the charges, the Defendant can be seen to have been operating without Accountability to its customers, and to have consciously concealed the facts. The Defendant is clearly in a privileged position to have a direct means of withdrawing monies from the Claimant’s bank Account. The Claimant is entitled to know whether the charges paid represent a justifiable business cost, or whether they are in fact a penalty, and to expect that the Defendant will always conduct itself with integrity. The defendant has repeatedly denied requests for a detailed breakdown on the said charges.

In the alternative to 19.a), the Claimant seeks permission to proceed with the claim under s.32 (1)© Limitation Act 1980 on the grounds that the payments were conceded on the mistaken presumption that the said charges and interest thereon did not amount to penalties - Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349 - and that the Claimant could not reasonably have discovered the said mistakes before the report of the OFT was published on 5th April, 2006.

Interest

The claimant contends that this aspect of his claim should not be determined until there has been a judicial ruling on the lawfulness of the defendant’s charges. The claimant acknowledges that the terms of the contract only provide for the defendant to charge and receive compound interest on monies the claimant borrows from the defendant. The claimant’s case for claiming interest at the rate applied by the defendant to the claimant’s borrowing, is based in equity and a legal requirement for fairness and balance:

When entering into the contract with the defendant, the claimant had no reason to anticipate that the defendant, having a long-established reputation in the banking industry, would make unlawful deductions from his account. Had this been a foreseeable event, the claimant might well have taken a different view about whether to agree to a contract which did not provide the claimant with a mutual right to charge the defendant interest in the event that monies were wrongly taken from his account, over a considerable number of years, thus producing a false picture of the claimant’s indebtedness to the defendant over the entire period covered by the claim, and unjustly enriching the defendant at the same time.

The claimant’s case is not that the contract should provide for the claimant to be entitled to charge interest at the rate which the defendant reserves for itself in the ordinary everyday course of dealings. The claimant is inviting the court to award interest and therefore compensate the claimant at the same rate that the defendant deems fair compensation for allowing the claimant to use its money, given that the defendant’s withdrawals from the claimant’s account were unlawful, and given that unlawful withdrawals were unforeseeable at the time of the entering into the contract.

If the defendant avers that its charges are fair, reasonable and therefore enforceable, its remedy will be to provide evidence of its actual losses or pre-estimate of costs in relation to the claimant’s account breaches. Since the defendant has been invited to do so prior to the issue of court proceedings, and has refused, and since the claimant is aware that the defendant has failed to defend any other similar claim at trial, the claimant deems the defendant’s charges to the account to be indefensible, and unenforceable at law. It was clearly not in the claimant’s contemplation when entering into the contract, that the claimant would authorise the defendant to apply penalty charges to the account, or to profit in an unlawful manner from the claimant’s account breaches.

It should also be noted that the claimant had no bargaining power to determine the terms of the contract and as all banks trade in similar terms, the claimant had no effective choice in the matter.

The claimant’s claim for compound interest should be viewed in the in the context of the claim rather than in isolation, and with full regard for the seriousness of the defendant’s misdemeanours which have led to the defendant profiting unlawfully from the claimant’s account defaults. It is entirely inequitable that the defendant should have deprived the claimant of the use of his monies for this length of time without repaying it with interest at the rate which it charges the claimant in equivalent circumstances; monies which it is in the business of re-lending at the same commercial rate of interest and which will only restore the defendant to the position where it had not received any benefit from having had use of the claimant’s money.

DETAILS OF JUDGEMENT SOUGHT BY CLAIMANT

Accordingly the Claimant seeks:

The return of the amounts debited between 16th September 1995 and 22nd September 2001 in respect of charges in the sum of £580.00

All applicable Court fees

Contractual interest at an annual 16.9% compounded daily from the date of each transaction to 29th June 2007 of £3297.87, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £1.79

the return of the Subject Access Request Fee, in the amount of £10.00, that the Claimant was required to pay in the perusal of this case

Costs allowed by court

Save payments into and/or determined by the Court, any sums paid in settlement of this claim are required to be made by cheque, which should be made payable to the Claimant.

The Claimant also respectfully asks the court to make an order requiring the Defendant to cease making charges in contravention of s187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and s 45 of the Tax Credits Act 2002.

 

Hope this is what you meant-its been a litttle while since I did it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also;

1)I haven't got a list of settled cases, so am having to use 'a number of cases...' N&P aren't that well known. I have several usernames & amounts if the court will accept these??

2) T&C's not got either, only new version stating fees for a service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that. i am going to ask some of the mods to have a look also. Back to you soon.

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you got all the info from the bank templates library on stays, including the bundle?

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bundle info I have prepared is;

Skeleton Argument

Witness Statement

Copy of Stay Set Aside request

The Office of Fair Trading Particulars of Claim

Financial Services Authority Waiver

The Overriding Objective

Bank Charges in the Media articles

Copy of correspondence

List of settled cases (by username only)

Got HRA to do-do I need all of this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need as much as you can. So far I think the only stays removed have been on the grounds of hardship, and it needs to be a pretty compelling case.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/114505-bundle-stay-hearing.html#post1134427

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/115023-application-removal-stay-grounds.html#post1142776

 

If the removal is not agreed, see if the judge will consider ordering the bank not to impose more charges.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Claiming pre 6 yrs 1995-2001

Court action

Claim stayed, hearing 9th November

 

I need some advice;

Using hardship arguments for stay removal. Have not pleaded hardship with bank until last minute-does this matter? Emailed this on 6th November but no acknowledgment for this received as yet.

The utccr. Claim is pre 6yrs, how does this apply-I've read it doesn't as previous utccr preceeds this for this claim

The LA. Worried; re laches argument. Have outlined s32 with bank & POC. Feel out of depth, despite reading up on threads here.

 

Any advice would be gratefully received, hearing in 3 days

 

3. Equity -- doctrine of latches -- requirements of. -- The doctrine of laches requires a detrimental change in the position of the one asserting the doctrine as well as an unreasonable delay on the part of the one against whom it is invoked.

4. Equity -- laches & equitable estoppel -- distinguished. -- The doctrine of laches is based on a number of equitable principles that are premised on some detrimental change in position made in reliance upon the action or inaction of the other party; it is based on the assumption that the party to whom laches is imputed has knowledge of his rights and the opportunity to assert them, that by reason of his delay some adverse party has good reason to believe those rights are worthless or have been abandoned, and that because of a change of conditions during this delay it would be unjust to the latter to permit him to assert them; laches requires a demonstration of prejudice to the party alleging it as a defense resulting from a plaintiff's delay in pursuing a claim.

 

 

Their Laches argument would only be valid if you knew you had a course of action but delayed. The Laches argument has no merit for the simple reason you have only recently found out that the charges are unlawful and there has been no detrimental change in the banks position. Which i would ask the bank to provide details of their position being prejudiced.

 

 

Paul

 

 

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem here is your claim is all pre six year. The bank will apply to strike out your claim if the stay is lifted by virtue of sec 5 LA or Laches.

 

I would argue that a prerequisite on a ruling of concealment would be to first establish whether the charges are unlawful.

 

Paul

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they managed to argue that the case was barred by the Limitations Act, the issue of charges would not be raised in court. You need to have your arguments prepared as to why you have a case despite the age of the charges. If you get that point agreed the case for charges would then be at issue, and in all likelihood stayed pending the outcome of the test case.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul would you mind if I borrowed some of your wording in your post?

The banks operate a highly computerised, automated process when dealing with charges.

The process operates many thousands of times each day and millions each year so that the cost of it is spread over a huge number of transactions and shared equally between them.

There is no evidence of any personal involvement by a member of the defendant’s staff. An account is flagged as being over the limit/non payment of a direct debit etc and the computers sends a mail-merged (by computer) letter which is fulfilled by an automated mailing house and posted.

 

Caro so order of arg; hardship, lawfulness LA if raised?

Link to post
Share on other sites

May be of interest

 

 

20. Lord Denning MR explained the meaning of the expression "concealed by the fraud of [the defendant or his agent]" in King v Victor Parsons & Co [1973] 1 WLR 29, 33-34 as follows:

    "The word 'fraud' here is not used in the common law sense. It is used in the equitable sense to denote conduct by the defendant or his agent such that it would be 'against conscience' for him to avail himself of the lapse of time. The cases show that, if a man knowingly commits a wrong (such as digging underground another man's coal); or a breach of contract (such as putting in bad foundations to a house), in such circumstances that it is unlikely to be found out for many a long day, he cannot rely on the Statute of Limitations as a bar to the claim: see Bulli Coal Mining Co v Osborne [1899] AC 351 and Applegate v Moss [1971] 1 QB 406. In order to show that he 'concealed' the right of action 'by fraud', it is not necessary to show that he took active steps to conceal his wrongdoing or breach of contract. It is sufficient that he knowingly committed it and did not tell the owner anything about it. He did the wrong or committed the breach secretly. By saying nothing he keeps it secret. He conceals the right of action. He conceals it by 'fraud' as those words have been interpreted in the cases. To this word 'knowingly' there must be added recklessly': see Beaman v ARTS Ltd [1949] 1 KB 550, 565-566. Like the man who turns a blind eye. He is aware that what he is doing may well be a wrong, or a breach of contract, but he takes the risk of it being so. He refrains from further inquiry least it should prove to be correct: and says nothing about it. The court will not allow him to get away with conduct of that kind. It may be that he has no dishonest motive: but that does not matter. He has kept the plaintiff out of the knowledge of his right of action: and that is enough: see Kitchen v Royal Air Force Association[1958] 1 WLR 563. If the defendant was, however, quite unaware that he was committing a wrong or a breach of contract, it would be different. So if by an honest blunder he unwittingly commits a wrong (by digging another man's coal), or a breach of contract (by putting in an insufficient foundation) then he could avail himself of the Statute of Limitations" (emphasis added).

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not Lifted

 

We entered the room, there were two solicitors. Stay bundle handed over (1.5 inches in depth), defendant had about 10 sheets of paper, and they handed me some information about the benefits act 'thats what you're relying on'. They did have a good look through my stay bundle.

 

Judge had already made up his mind;'I understand this money is a drop in the ocean for you (defendant) and a huge sum for you (us). These stays are constantly under review. Unfortunately with the test case so near, I cannot accelarate your case to a full hearing before this test case. 'i have to remain consistent in my decisions and it is better that this stay remains. Reservations for costs?' Defendant nearly snapped his hand off with a loud stern 'yes'.

 

When the judge went the defendant rubbed it in abit by saying about the test case- if the banks win there will be an appeal, if the banks lose there will be an appeal'. They also said why couldn't the judge have just wrote to us with this decision?

 

So there you have it, I didn't get a word in. Better stayed than time barred & struck out I thought. Tell you what though.... those butterflies certainly had their lead boots on!

 

they had;

OFT POC

OFT Agreement between banks & BS

Statement of acc for each me/hubby

 

In the end we had;

Skeleton Argument

Witness Statement

Copy of Stay Set Aside request

Summary report ‘OFT’s action on credit card default charges’

The Office of Fair Trading Particulars of Claim

Financial Services Authority Waiver

Copy of The Overriding Objective

Bank Charges in the Media articles

Case Law relating to penalty charges

Section 6 Human Rights Act

Copies of Correspondence

List of Settled Cases

Published statement from Defendant iro Test Case.

Personal Financial stuff

 

Never mind, I can concentrate on bringing up baby (not 1950's)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Small comfort I know, but at least you have been to court now, and it's less likely to be so worrying if you have to go again. I believe that no stays will be lifted now for any reason, especially as the test case gets closer.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
  • 1 year later...

I am in a quandry as to what to do now. I have read so many posts and different advice that I am confused, like so many others.

I have two cases here;

1) Pre-6yrs rule as discussed on this thread. At court, stayed, bank have asked for it to be struck out.

2) 2001-07 complaint with bank. They wrote to me giving me 8 weeks from the date of the SC decision to respond or they would consider it closed. However a second letter received last week offered me a further 8 weeks to respond. What are they playing at?

Can anyone offer any advice on this and my best course of action?

Thanks

x

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

If your cases are with the court it's not up to them to decide to close the case. They could apply to have it struck out or ask you to discontinue it, but it's up to you if you want to do that.

 

Is your stay still in place, and if so when does it end?

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...