Co-operative Bank / Haddington Sheriff Court

[Mentzer]

Hello, I am new to the forum and it's my first post.

My wife has a court date of next Monday, 19 November 10:00am v.

Co-operative Bank. Does anyone in Scotland have any experience with the Co-operative Bank. Also, the various threads & posts regarding sist/non-sists were very interesting. I have seen almost every Sheriffdom except the one her case is calling, Haddington Sheriff Court. Does anyone have any experience / information there?

Thank you in anticipation of your help.

[Bigmac versus]

Hi Mentzer and welcome.

In answer to your pm if you win your case you will win what you have claimed for so any charges levied after you filed at court would need to be reclaimed, before the announcement of the test case some people were lucky enough to have the bank pay these also to avoid further action being taken or simply for the claimant to drop the case.

Regarding the possibility of sisting your case this is really down to the sheriff, there are no blanket sists in place but that dont mean it wont happen, you would be wise to take note of claims which have managed to proceed by the sist application in Scotland.

Regarding appearing on behalf due to ill health you need to have in writing from the other party that this is acceptable. (ex)

 

Anything else?

 

Regards

George

[Mentzer]

Thanks for that.

She is not ill now, but said all along if it went all the way to court I would need to go. Do I need to lodge an authorisation letter prior to the court date, or simply take one with me on the day?

[Bigmac versus]

I would suggest prior to calling.

[texel]

I would be surprised if you haveto go to court. In my case both suits ended up being settled out of court before the court date even though they said the cases woulod be defended.l Best of luck in your case:)

[Mentzer]

Attended court at 10:00am today, with a Lady Sheriff presiding. A young lady member from the bench (wig) approached me and advised she was representing the Co-operative Bank Plc. She requested a sist on proceedings, on the basis of the OFT case. I opposed the application to sist on the basis OFT was English law;it could also be several years before a proper outcome in terms of appeal procedures etc; most Sheriffdoms had agreed to go to proof; and it was not equitable to sist. The Sheriff ask the bench what other Sheriffs had done in Haddington - she was told they had been sisted (I thought that was therefore that) but the she said she was of a mind to refuse the application and it would proceed to proof in 14 days, the period they now have to prepare a defence.

As to lodge a credible defence would require the presentation of a transparent costs model I am quite happy with this. Perhaps they shall now credit the required sum back to the account prior to the expiry of the 14 days....

[texel]

Great news glad you had a decent sheriff. Now I would expect you will get your refund because it will cost Cooperative a whack havi ng to pay for a defense:D let5s know what happens:D

[Bigmac versus]

Mentzer great news for you and hopefully something even better within the next 2 weeks.

[Mentzer]

Well things have certainly got interesting. Case called again today - it was continued so that the regular Sheriff could deal with it. In the interim, a letter was received from the solicitors acting on the Co-op Bank's behalf.

"In the meantime,we have been in discussions with our client regarding the matter. In view of the relatively low claim and the mouting costs to our client in proceeding to a further hearing, our client is willing to settle this action in full. We calculate the sums due to you as follows;-"

Not quite sure who the "we" is regarding interest calculation, but they would not pass and 11+. "Interest 29.09.07 to 10.12.07 £7.34"

"Our client will remit this sum to you in advance of the next hearing".

A detailed without prejudice letter was sent straight back via fax and recorded delivery post. This pointed out that they appeared to be pulling random dates out of the air - i.e. the interest (as both the bank and their solicitors are well aware) are payable from the date each of the charges are levied until settlement. 29.09.07 was simply the date the action was raised - 10.12.07 represents what? The day their letter of offer went to the typist? No settlement was effective on that date, nor since. They were informed add £23.07 to the total and have these funds in the account by 17:00 hours on Friday and it would be accepted, otherwise we are in Court again on Monday.

 

Attended Court this morning, provided the principal copy of the offer letter to the Sheriff, they countered with it was rejected on the basis of the interest calculation; the Sheriff queried this and I pointed out the inaccuracy of the dates and the random nature of the dates used. He then looked at thier solicitor and asked "Is this to be settled today then or not?" response given "No". Sheriff countered with "What about the letter of offer", response "Oh, that was of course without prejudice my Lord." The Sheriff then said he was therefore approving the sist pending the OFT case.

 

Driving home from Court something was nagging away at me. I pulled over and read the 1 and a quarter page letter of offer from their solicitor. He told the Sheriff "Oh, that was of course without prejudice my Lord." - it certainly WAS NOT. In no part of either page was the phrase "without prejudice" used, either on it's own nor incorporated within the text. The response to their letter WAS without prejudice. I therefore intend to fax/send them an acceptance letter today waving the £23.07 and hold them to pay the amount per their letter. They have acted without due diligence, if their typing pool nor signatories do not do the i's and cross the t's then I shall hold them accountable for it. I intend to point these matters out in the fax/letter and give them 48 hours to have the funds credited to the account, or I shall found upon their letter enforcing recovery of the funds....

[Douglas52]

I recall that the OFT or FSA have told the banks that once an offer has been made they must honour it so press on and don't waive £7.34 already offered!! Good luck.

[goforit]

He told the Sheriff "Oh, that was of course without prejudice my Lord." - it certainly WAS NOT. In no part of either page was the phrase "without prejudice" used, either on it's own nor incorporated within the text.

 

Unfortunately it's not as simple as that.

 

Generally speaking, if a letter is an obvious attempt to settle a litigation it is taken to be written without prejudice.

[Mentzer]

Settled in full....

[texel]

Congratulations:D I knew i:D t would work out ok:D Now on to bigger things