rrfcfan vs RBOS *** WON ***

[steven4064]

Since they have admitted that they have calculations that support their charges you should request the court to issue an order for them to produce said calculations.That'll sort them out

[rory32]

Since they have admitted that they have calculations that support their charges you should request the court to issue an order for them to produce said calculations.

You can do this by submitting an incidental application to the court.

[steven4064]

Thanks Rory

 

I suddenly was not sure of the system in Scotland

[rrfcfan]

Is it worth sending an incidental application to ask for a breakdown of the 'genuine estimate of the loss suffered by the Defender' ?

 

Will that not hold up the case, considering the Banks representative is to attend court in one week?

 

BTW, should I be sending a copy of the Banks T&Cs and copy of my bank statements to the Defence?

[MARTIN3030]

Is this a full hearing or directions ? How long has been allocated ?

You should have time to get it in Court for 29th and ask for it to be put before the Judge at your hearing.I would take it in person if you can do that.

Can you clarify on this Rory ?

 

You dont have to send copies of T & Cs or your bank statements to the defence-they should have copies of them.

[rrfcfan]

Thanks Martin3030 for your reply. There is no preliminary hearing, full hearing on Thursday.

 

As I will doing an incidental application for Welcome anyway ( http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/payment-protection-insurance-ppi/117453-rrfcfan-welcome-ppi-refund-new-post.html ), no harm in submitting one for RBS.

 

Just 6 days to go now, I am surprised that the bank has not tried to close my current account !

 

Thanks for all your efforts guys, a small donation has been made. More to follow !

[rrfcfan]

I am due in court tomorrow, and still no offer of settlement.

 

Will the Defendant take it right to the wire before making an offer ?

 

It will be very interesting if they attend court and make a defence (do they have something up their sleeve)?

[caro]

It's certainly been known for them to settle outside court.

 

They've submitted their defence and if they want to change it would need to apply to the court to do so. I'm not familiar with court procedures in Scotland, but I would think the court would take a dim view of them asking to change it at the hearing.

 

If they do (which I can't imagine they will) I suggest that you strongly object to it as they've had plenty of time to do it before. If the judge agrees it, then ask for an adjournment because as a litigant in person you need time to digest the new defence and prepare your case.

 

My guess though is that you're more likely to be offered some kind of settlement. I'd suggest that you stick out for full charges refund, interest, wasted costs, and removal of any defaults.

 

If they offer charges only and suggest going into court to decide the interest DO NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING. You get everything or you go into court.

 

Unless tactics have fundamentally changed since the OFT case, they're unlikely to want to go into court. If you've accepted money back for charges before court they won't have to defend that part in court, but won't mind going in to argue interest alone.

 

Stand your ground.

[rrfcfan]

I was really nervous in court today, I was due another hearing later with WF regarding repayment of loan.

 

I waited quite a while, there were quite a number of cases before mine was called.

 

I noticed the RBS solicitor was there ( he was now sporting a beard.) The case was called. The judge asked what I wanted to do, I replied by asking the bank to provide calculations of the 'genuine estimate of the loss suffered by the Defender' ?

 

The Sheriff asked if this was an incidental application , I replied 'that is why I am here today.' The Sheriff then just smiled.

 

The solictor when asked to speak, kept referring to the OFT case. He asked me again what I wanted to do, I replied again that I wish for a breakdown of each charge applied, to represent the true cost of the loss suffered by the defender.

 

I have to return in 4 weeks to hear the outcome.

 

So I guess that the Banks Sol will produce this ??

 

I do not know of any other cases that have gone this far.

 

Do I know sit back and wait for the cheque to arrive ?

[postggj]

rrfcfan

 

looks like you are on a roll

gods were smiling on you today with the two cases

 

not long now, soon be over

[rory32]

Do I know sit back and wait for the cheque to arrive ?

I would be very suprised if you didn't receive a without prejudice offer from them in the very near future.

[rrfcfan]

WOW, all those sleepless nights over the last couple of weeks , all the stress , has now just disappeared today in the courtroom in a matter of minutes.

 

WOW !! What a great day .

 

Firstly the Incidental application submitted to the bank, to show the court the true costs of each charge. Secondly WF case to recover debt was dismissed.

 

Yes you are right postggj, the gods were smiling down on me today. :D

 

I have been sporting the widest grin I have had in a very long time, thanks to you Caggers here.

 

Keep up the good work !!! :D

[caro]

They may keep you waiting a bit longer yet, but I think it's in the bag.

[rrfcfan]

2 weeks until the banks to provide 'the actual loss suffered for each alleged breach of contract'.

 

Who would like to place a wee wager that the bank WILL provide this?

 

Will the bank wait to the next hearing date in to settle the claim. They will be adding more bank charges tomorrow.

 

Do I send another summary of charges to the defender showing the new charges or is it too late now?

[caro]

They may well try and hold out longer, but I'd suggest that if they try and settle you tell them that there are now more charges and provide an updated schedule, including interest at 8%. Let them know how much per day the interest will be until the date they settle, and you may like to work out wasted costs too.http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/resources/templates-library/48-bank-templates/143-wasted-costs-order-.html

 

If they don't want to play ball don't be afraid to return to the court, but I've a feeling it won't get that far.

[rory32]

and you may like to work out wasted costs too.http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ts-order-.html

There is no such thing as a wasted costs order in Scotland.

 

Normally in small claims (which I assume this is) the costs are heavily restricted. Only in certain circumstances would you be entitled to claim expenses on the Summary Cause Scale. Examples of these circumstances are the bank having stated a defence does not proceed with it, or does not defend the action, or has not acted in good faith in defending the action, or the banks conduct has been unreasonably during the case.

 

At the end of the case, if the court makes an award of expenses, the amount to be awarded may be determined by the sheriff there and then. Alternatively the amount is calculated by the clerk of court (sheriff clerk), either at the time or on a later date.

 

If the case is continued for a hearing on expenses, the successful party will need to produce an account of their expenses and send a copy of it to the other party, before the sheriff clerk hears their claim for expenses. The account must be lodged with the sheriff clerk, and copied to the other party, at least seven days before the date of any hearing fixed to consider the question of expenses.

 

Any receipts or vouchers for expense incurred which support the claim should be attached to the account.

 

If full court expenses are allowed, the sum awarded will largely depend on the amount and nature of the work which has been done in the case.

 

After the clerk of court has calculated (assessed the amount of expenses), the account will be submitted to the sheriff for approval. If this has been done at a separate hearing for expenses, the sheriff clerk will fix a date and time for the case to call in court so that the account of expenses can be approved by the sheriff.

 

[caro]

There is no such thing as a wasted costs order in Scotland.

 

Normally in small claims (which I assume this is) the costs are heavily restricted. Only in certain circumstances would you be entitled to claim expenses on the Summary Cause Scale. Examples of these circumstances are the bank having stated a defence does not proceed with it, or does not defend the action, or has not acted in good faith in defending the action, or the banks conduct has been unreasonably during the case.

 

At the end of the case, if the court makes an award of expenses, the amount to be awarded may be determined by the sheriff there and then. Alternatively the amount is calculated by the clerk of court (sheriff clerk), either at the time or on a later date.

 

If the case is continued for a hearing on expenses, the successful party will need to produce an account of their expenses and send a copy of it to the other party, before the sheriff clerk hears their claim for expenses. The account must be lodged with the sheriff clerk, and copied to the other party, at least seven days before the date of any hearing fixed to consider the question of expenses.

 

Any receipts or vouchers for expense incurred which support the claim should be attached to the account.

 

If full court expenses are allowed, the sum awarded will largely depend on the amount and nature of the work which has been done in the case.

 

After the clerk of court has calculated (assessed the amount of expenses), the account will be submitted to the sheriff for approval. If this has been done at a separate hearing for expenses, the sheriff clerk will fix a date and time for the case to call in court so that the account of expenses can be approved by the sheriff.

 

 

Terminology may be different in Scotland Rory, but normally costs are not awarded in small claims cases in England either except in similar type circumstances. If the bank decide not to defend themselves at the next hearing I would argue that they have stated a defence, and not proceeded with it, and indeed that they never intended to proceed with it. The OP could suggest to RBS that they may prefer to agree the costs, provided a detailed schedule, without wasting still more of everyone's time, including the courts.

 

Thank you for the additional information which I'm sure will help the OP decide how they want to play this.

[rory32]

Terminology may be different in Scotland Rory, but normally costs are not awarded in small claims cases in England either except in similar type circumstances.

Costs are usually awarded in small claims in Scotland and the level of the costs that will be awarded are very clearly defined depending on the amount of the claim.

 

I'm afraid you fail to grasp that not only is terminology different, but procedure is too. The sheriff can only award expenses once a decree has been pronounced.

 

I am very aware of the English legal system so please don't attempt to patronise me.

 

If the bank decide not to defend themselves at the next hearing I would argue that they have stated a defence, and not proceeded with it

Would you know how to argue this?

 

Unless the party has not implemented an order of the court the sheriff may, after giving him an opportunity to be heard, grant decree by default. You will note the word may. Also if they have attempted to settle before the implementation of the order the court has made then the bank do not really fall into the category you have described.

 

The OP could suggest to RBS that they may prefer to agree the costs, provided a detailed schedule, without wasting still more of everyone's time, including the courts.

 

Are you also aware of how the judiciary in Scotland tends to react to such claims by a party litigant? Unless the costs claimed in such negotiations were in line with the costs available through the small claims route (and not the summary cause route) you would be endangering your whole claim and your case may be thrown out.

[caro]

The judge asked what I wanted to do, I replied by asking the bank to provide calculations of the 'genuine estimate of the loss suffered by the Defender' ?

 

The Sheriff asked if this was an incidental application , I replied 'that is why I am here today.' The Sheriff then just smiled.

 

The solictor when asked to speak, kept referring to the OFT case. He asked me again what I wanted to do, I replied again that I wish for a breakdown of each charge applied, to represent the true cost of the loss suffered by the defender.

 

I have to return in 4 weeks to hear the outcome.

 

If the incidental application rrfcfan is granted I somehow doubt that RBS will want to comply, which puts him in a very strong bargaining position. I would not for one moment suggest he ask for any more than he might legitimately be entitled to or risk the claim by doing so. Nor do I think it likely that RBS would offer anything other than a goodwill gesture or ex gratia payment, which co-incidentally may be in line with the amount of the claim.

 

As you yourself have said, if it was necessary to go to court for this he MAY be granted them. If he doesn't ask, he most certainly won't get them, but if costs can be legitimately claimed without risk to the claim then I fail to see the harm in doing so.

 

It is up to rrfcfan to decide if he's happy to accept the amount of his claim to date, or would like some small recompense for the time, effort and expense he's been put to, obviously without jeopardising the claim.

 

I don't know why you think I was trying to patronise you, but please feel free to use the complaints procedure if you wish. My intention was merely to inform the OP of options he may like to consider.

[rrfcfan]

Whoo hoo, RBS have paid in full, plus £60 wasted costs, plus additional bank charges added since the litigation started plus judicial interest at 8%.

 

Talk about leaving it to the last minute, received payment in the morning prior to the hearing.

 

Thanks again guys, keep up the good work.

 

On a side note, is there a way of asking the courts to set aside a proof diet prior to the first hearing to establish the 'true costs of each bank charge'. Is it simply a case of adding it to the particulars of claim?

 

[rory32]

Well done

 

On a side note, is there a way of asking the courts to set aside a proof diet prior to the first hearing to establish the 'true costs of each bank charge'. Is it simply a case of adding it to the particulars of claim?

No. There needs to be an proof hearing. The only thing you could do is present an incidental application to the sheriff clerk before the hearing requesting this information from the bank.

[42man]

Great news well done RRFC...

[caro]

Fantastic news rrfcfan.

 

Don't forget to complete the survey on the front page. If you can manage it, a donation would be greatly appreciated too.;-)

[Bookworm]

Whoo hoo, RBS have paid in full, plus £60 wasted costs, plus additional bank charges added since the litigation started plus judicial interest at 8%.

Just came across this as researching something else.

 

Congrats and can you clarify this? They paid wasted costs? In Scotland? Excellent.

 

Well done Caro for keeping the true spirit of CAG alive: Who dares wins. ;-)

[rory32]

Congrats and can you clarify this? They paid wasted costs? In Scotland?

Nope. Simply costs in line with a small claim in Scotland.