Summary Cause Summons - What I was told by the Sheriff!

[KHMcBey]

Hi everyone!

 

I went today to my local Sheriff Court to file my Summary Cause Summons. Here's the guidance I was given to complete it, hopefully it will help everyone else! A Summary Cause Summons is for claiming between £750 - £1500.

 

First off, this is a link to the PDF form that you need to use to file against a Bank or credit card company:

 

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/sheriff/summary_cause/docs/summary_form_01_b.pdf

 

Second, this is what the Sheriff told me to write on the notes section. Please note that I had copied this from the bit at the top of the page for filing a small claims action, but that the Sheriff told me to amend a few details. Here is what I had to write:

 

"The Pursuer, YOUR NAME HERE, has held a bank account with the Defender since on or before DATE, the account number beingYOUR ACCOUNT NUMBER. The Defender deducted from the account various amounts of money in penalty charges during the period DATE to DATE. These were in respect of "charges as notified" (levied if a cheque or direct debit was returned unpaid because the specified overdraft had been exceeded.)

 

The Pursuer contends that these charges were legally unenforcable and the Pursuer is demanding the repayment of money. The Defender has refused full payment of these monies due. (Copies of correspondance can be provided.)

No admissions are made by the Pursuer as to the incorporation of any term into the contract between the Pursuer and the Defender purporting to entitle the Defender to levy these charges. If the Defender is able to establish that the contract did contain such terms, the Pursuer will contend that these charges are unenforcable at law, being penalty charges designed to penalise the Pursuer for a breach of contract and generate profit for the Defender rather than being liquidated damages designed to compensate the Defender for the actual loss occuring to the Defender as a result of the breach.

 

The Pursuer claims from the Defender a sum equivalent to the amount unlawfully debited to the Pursuer's account in the period from DATE to DATE. The sums are detailed in the attached schedule.

 

The contractual provision that permits the Defender to levy such charges is unenforcable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and common law.

 

The Pursuer is claiming all monies to be sent to the Pursuer's home address, therefore it is under the jurisdiction of this Court."

 

You'll notice that the only differences from the statement that has been produced for the Small Claims form is use of the terms Pursuer and Defender, as Defendant and Claimant are both English legal terms, well so the Sheriff told me anyway! Also, the bit at the end had to be changed to say that the money was to be paid to my home address, as this put it within the Court's jurisdiction.

 

I'm by no means an expert or even a novice at this (I'm a complete newbie) but that's what I was told this morning by the Sheriff himself. Hope this helps some of you and please feel free to PM or Email me if you have any questions!

[JMio]

Thanks for this

[alexcraw]

If you don't mind me asking, which court is it you are using? How much is the cost of raising this claim?

 

Was there any indication (wee slips of the tongue, etc) from the Sheriff of likely outcome or other ways in which it could progress?

 

Thanks

 

Alex

[alexcraw]

I've not put my forms in yet, but I've also changed bits, like the 'charges as notified' bit. I altered it to - This was in respect of: 'Charges', 'Excess O/D Charges', Unpaid SO Charges' and 'Recall S O Charges' (levied if a cheque...........)

 

This brings the actual wording from the statements onto my claim.

[KHMcBey]

If you don't mind me asking, which court is it you are using? How much is the cost of raising this claim?

 

Was there any indication (wee slips of the tongue, etc) from the Sheriff of likely outcome or other ways in which it could progress?

 

Thanks

 

Alex

 

Hey!

 

I didn't have to pay for filing the papers because I'm in receipt of incapacity benefit, but I think it's about £39?? It does tell you on the court website, anyway.

 

As to the Sheriff, he seemed amazed that I had been charged so much in such a relatively short amount of time. His exact words were "I've never seen anything like this!" lol, I bet he hasn't! I'm claiming through Elgin Sheriff Court, so I'm presuming no one from my area has claimed yet!

[msneddon]

I am claiming through Hamilton sheriff court but have used the term claimant. Did the Sheriff say if the difference in terms would make any differance to the claim as the clerk how looked over my claim did not see anything untoward.

[KHMcBey]

I am claiming through Hamilton sheriff court but have used the term claimant. Did the Sheriff say if the difference in terms would make any differance to the claim as the clerk how looked over my claim did not see anything untoward.

 

If the Sheriff was happy with your claim then I doubt there's anything wrong with it! Maybe the Elgin Sheriff is just more pernickity. He didn't say it would make a difference to the case, so it probably won't.

[sn00psmum]

Hello KHMcBey! Just dropped in to say i'll be claiming in Elgin too, am going to file against Nationwide and Capital One hopefully tomorrow! I know of other claims at Elgin but I think they were members on a different forum.

 

SM:p

[sn00psmum]

I am claiming through Hamilton sheriff court but have used the term claimant. Did the Sheriff say if the difference in terms would make any differance to the claim as the clerk how looked over my claim did not see anything untoward.

I believe that in Scotland it's 'Pursuer' and 'Defender' rather than 'Claimant' and 'Defendant' but as KHMcBey says, if the clerk hasn't picked up on it it should be ok. SM:p

[Aaronsdad]

I don't think there is any reason to panic over whether you write Pursuer or Defendant. In law the basic is 'what a reasonable man thinks'. It's pretty much self explanatory what a claimant is and I can't think of anything it could be construed as other than what we mean.

I have found courts to have the most helpful staff when you are on your own (ie without a solicitor) but ultimately it's up to a judge, magistrate, sheriff to read and understand our point. I know some of them live on another planet but the majority put their trousers on one leg at a time like the rest of us.

BUT apart from that guy with Lloyds how many of us anticipate actually going to court?

A D

[chocolatte]

Hey!

 

I didn't have to pay for filing the papers because I'm in receipt of incapacity benefit, but I think it's about £39?? It does tell you on the court website, anyway.

 

As to the Sheriff, he seemed amazed that I had been charged so much in such a relatively short amount of time. His exact words were "I've never seen anything like this!" lol, I bet he hasn't! I'm claiming through Elgin Sheriff Court, so I'm presuming no one from my area has claimed yet!

 

I have had a claim at Elgin Sheriff Court and that's what they told me too. My claim for Abbey went through, although the Abbey tried a few tricks along the way.

However, when my hubby tried to claim against the Lloyds, using the Elgin branch, it was returned by the Sheriff asking why this case should be under this duristiction.

So we are re filing quoting my Abbey case and this...

Jurisdiction over consumer contracts

 

3. - (1) In matters relating to a contract concluded by a person, the consumer, for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession, subject to rule 5, jurisdiction shall be determined by this rule if -

 

(a) it is a contract for the sale of goods on instalment credit terms; or
 
(b) it is a contract for a loan repayable by instalments, or for any other form of credit, made to finance the sale of goods; or
 
© in all other cases, the contract has been concluded with a person who pursues commercial or professional activities in Scotland or, by any means, directs such activities to Scotland or to several places including Scotland, and the contract falls within the scope of such activities.

The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Order 2001