Court Action for Default Linked to Unlawful Charges

[Tobes]

Hi guys,

 

 

If someone were to make a court claim for unlawful charges, not including mention of a default which it could be argued was pretty much brought about by said charges, which went on to be settled out of court with no liability accepted could they after that bring a new claim to have said default removed because of those penalty charges... i.e. the argument of the claim would be that the charges were unlawful and led to the default and so it should be expunged...Would that be possible? If so, with the proper wording, the bank/CC company would be having to face the same argument possibly in court again and so I assume would be just as reluctant...Or would a judge see it as too similar a claim or too late, that you should have included it in the first claim...What do you think?!

 

Cheers

[pmhread]

Any reason why it wouldn't be included with the claim for the bank charges back?

[Tobes]

Loads of reasons, but that's not the point of the thread!

[Tobes]

Any thoughts, guys? I'd really appreciate your input!

[pmhread]

You can bring whatever claim you want as long as you pay the fee..... You pays the money you takes the chance...

 

Still don't see the point of not including it in the first instance.

[Tobes]

I see, ok, well thanks

[pmhread]

Oh.... I should mention that if you make a habit of bringing claims, you face the risk of being put on the Vexatious Litigants Register.

 

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. It is considered an abuse of the judicial process and almost always brings down sanctions on the offender

[Tobes]

Well cheers for that, how reassuring

[Tobes]

You can bring whatever claim you want as long as you pay the fee..... You pays the money you takes the chance...

 

Still don't see the point of not including it in the first instance.

 

The point was that I am completely new to the making of claims and am therefore very wary of possibly over-complicating them, that my credit record is as low as it gets and so I wasn't particularly bothered about defaults, rather the money that was taken from me, that from reading this forum it seemed that the banks were more stubborn and unyielding in relation to credit record matters than actual penalty charges, that as a total lay person I am perfectly entitled to making mistakes...Is that enough? The point of this thread was not to debate whether default matters should be included in the same claim but to discover whether it was possible and valid to make a separate claim if the matter of default was not included. OK?

[pmhread]

Now then... wouldn't it have been easier if you had said that in the first place?

 

And sorry if it's not reassuring for you... would you have preferred it if I had lied?

[Rooster-UK]

The point of this thread was not to debate whether default matters should be included in the same claim but to discover whether it was possible and valid to make a separate claim if the matter of default was not included. OK?

 

The simple aswer is.....YES.

 

You would have to show that the default was a direct result of unlawful charges.

[MARTIN3030]

You completely lost me with the last post but I can see what you are saying and can see what the mod is saying.

 

The faqs explain why its better to do it this way than that.

I am not saying you havnt read the faqs but the mod was asking why you dont want to address the 2 issues together they are presumably both connected as you say.

 

There are temp letters here that address both in the same vein and the fact that you are asking if they can be dealt with sep begs asking the question the mod asked you.If you arent bothered about a default and the possibility of removing it then thats your choice but you are not really being clear enough.

 

I wonder if you maybe are thinking that tackling the default side may delay the money side is this youre ask ?

[Tobes]

Now then... wouldn't it have been easier if you had said that in the first place?

 

And sorry if it's not reassuring for you... would you have preferred it if I had lied?

 

Erm, I do not see why, since I asked a clear question and I considered your question to be irrelevant, which it was. You were totally missing the point.

 

As to reassurance, I was being ironic, my dear.

 

You could not possibly be labelled as such a litigant for one claim. If you use your brain for three miliseconds, you would be able to comprehend that for such a claim to be made the original claim would have been settled out of court and therefore cancelled anyway.

 

Your posts have been really unhelpful and you seem to have some kind of attitude with me which I do not appreciate in the slightest. I'd rather you stopped posting on this thread if you don't mind.

[alanfromderby]

I think the balance would be that it had to be a major contributing factor. The best place to look is under "DPA/Defaults" under "Legalities". However, it seems to be thought that where the default amount included more than 50% of unlawful charges, then it would be reasonable to expect removal - less than 50% and the chances of getting a judge to agree would proportionately diminish.

 

Obviously it is better to deal with the default at the same time as dealing with the financial claim - the problem you have is that the grounds for removal of the default are primarily exactly the same. This means you will be having to issue a claim on almost identical grounds as your first claim - albeit over a different issue.

[pmhread]

Your posts have been really unhelpful and you seem to have some kind of attitude with me which I do not appreciate in the slightest. I'd rather you stopped posting on this thread if you don't mind.

 

My pleasure...

 

But hey... good luck

[MARTIN3030]

Phew......Alan where have you been ?

 

[Tobes]

You completely lost me with the last post but I can see what you are saying and can see what the mod is saying.

 

The faqs explain why its better to do it this way than that.

I am not saying you havnt read the faqs but the mod was asking why you dont want to address the 2 issues together they are presumably both connected as you say.

 

There are temp letters here that address both in the same vein and the fact that you are asking if they can be dealt with sep begs asking the question the mod asked you.If you arent bothered about a default and the possibility of removing it then thats your choice but you are not really being clear enough.

 

I wonder if you maybe are thinking that tackling the default side may delay the money side is this youre ask ?

 

Thanks for trying to help but I asked the original question in that way because I have already issued a claim without mentioning defaults and I'm now trying to decide if I should persue the matter of defaults and so I need to find out if I still can or if I've closed that avenue...Site Helper guy didn't seem able to comprehend this...I did read the FAQs and at the time I decided not to persue the default angle because it seemed quite complicated to include everything in one claim plus I couldn't fit it all in when using the online Moneyclaim system anyway!

 

I guess he wanted to rub my nose in it for possibly making a mistake?

[Tobes]

I think the balance would be that it had to be a major contributing factor. The best place to look is under "Data Protection Act/Defaults" under "Legalities". However, it seems to be thought that where the default amount included more than 50% of unlawful charges, then it would be reasonable to expect removal - less than 50% and the chances of getting a judge to agree would proportionately diminish.

 

Obviously it is better to deal with the default at the same time as dealing with the financial claim - the problem you have is that the grounds for removal of the default are primarily exactly the same. This means you will be having to issue a claim on almost identical grounds as your first claim - albeit over a different issue.

 

Thanks for clarifying the issue, Alan

[MARTIN3030]

Tobes I made the same mistake in that I was not aware who actually listed the thing on my credit file till after I saw the report.

The dpa did not show me that.

I have since sent an additional letter that is running alongside my lba.

You can of course deal with this in accepting any settlement by making it a comdition.

Theres a lot of stuff getting discussed off the claimforms.

 

A bit of advice tho...if they do agree to remove the default make sure you get it in writing as there was a case where they agreed but later renagued

 

 

[Tobes]

Thanks

[pmhread]

I guess he wanted to rub my nose in it for possibly making a mistake?

 

At which point was I trying to rub your nose in it? I simply wanted the full story before advising anything.

 

I tell you what, I am here as a volunteer dealing with [EDITED] like you but not any more.... it really isn't worth the hassle.....

 

[EDITED: Let's not get personal, please]

[Tobes]

At which point was I trying to rub your nose in it? I simply wanted the full story before advising anything.

 

I tell you what, I am here as a volunteer dealing with [EDITED] like you but not any more.... it really isn't worth the hassle.....

 

So you're being lovely and kind and altruistic going around calling people [EDITED] are you?

 

Where does arrogance come in to it? I've admitted I've possibly made a mistake with dealing with my claims in the way I have and I am asking for help, how does that equate to arrogance?

 

[EDITED]

 

 

[EDITED: Let's not get personal, please]

[Bookworm]

.

 

MOD: Argument over. Tobes, you got your answer? I think Alan has explained nicely where the pros and cons of an action such as you describe lay, can we move on, please? Thanks in advance.

 

.

[deathshead]

try the CCA 1974 approach for the default

its mentioned in several places i believe, only costs a pound too