Mandy27 v HSBC **WON**

[PPMAN159]

You should get a letter from the court stating that the claim has been issued and giving you the date upon which they deem it has been serrved.

 

Easiest way to track progress is to log onto MCOL and view the claim that way.

 

Any other probs or questions

[PPMAN159]

You should get a letter from the court stating that the claim has been issued and giving you the date upon which they deem it has been serrved.

 

Easiest way to track progress is to log onto MCOL and view the claim that way.

 

Any other probs or questions let us know

[DietCoke]

thats great for now thanks for your help.

[Mandy27]

Sorry this is a bit long!

 

I've received my N157 Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing) form. The hearing is at the end of July at my local County Court.

 

The directions are as follows:

 

"Each party shall deliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents (inlcuding any experts report) on which he intends to rely at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing.

 

A Statement by each of the parties and any person who is to give evidence must be filed at the court and served on the other party (within 2 weeks). The statement must be set out in detail the evidence the party or witness will give at the hearing."

 

The banks defence is as follows:

 

"1. The claimants account is governed by the defendants personal and/or business banking terms and conditions.

2. Pursuant to the defendants terms and conditions the defendant is entitled to makea charge for its services as set out in the defendants price list, including an overdraft review fee for considering whether to provide and providing an overdraft.

3. The defendant denies that the charges applied to the claimants account amount to penalties at common law and/or unfair contract terms for the purposes of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999.

4. The charges applied to the claimants account are reasonable and are properly and fully disclosed in the defendants terms and conditions and published price list. The charges represent the contractually agreed price for the services provided and the UTCCRs are not applicable to them, alternatively they are not unfair contrary to the UTCCRs. Further the charges are not default charges and, accordingly cannot amount to a penalty.

5. Save as set out above each and every allegation made by the claimant is denied. For the reasons set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief."

 

Does anyone have any advice as to what I should include in my statement and court bundle. I no longer have a copy of the terms and conditions that were in force at the time the account was opened, does this matter, will up to date terms and conditions be sufficient? I don't have copies of all correspondence, my partner very helpfully binned some of it but I have the majority of it, is this going to cause me problems.

 

I'm really nervous about this now and could do with some help.

 

Many thanks

 

Mandy

[rob-the-viking]

Mandy, as we speak HSBCrusher is in the process of trying to compile a Library of all the previous T&C's for as far back as he possibly can. What 'correspondence' have you lost/had binned for you?

 

r-t-v

 

ps Don't panic!!!!!!!!!!

[lateralus]

don't worry mandy - you are in good company - look at yazzawood - i just wrote him exactly what i would write to you. exactly - so go look at it. this is all perfectly normal -

the court bundle needs to be in to the court 2 weeks before the court date and it takes about 1 full day of copying and sorting - so i'm saying don't do anything with it until about 1-2 weeks before it is due.

look at the new after 28 day.... link in my signature - post 1 tells you what's going on at this point.

 

what i said to yazzawood about nudges to dg and about enquiring about the allocation fee to the court applies as well - so take a look.

 

and at the end of post 1 the four items is a good starting place for the bundle when you want to start - better to get dg to make an offer by nudging and hope they do before the court bundle is due - but if not - don't miss the deadline.

there are lots of t & c's around - the data base isn't quite up and running yet - the ones i've seen file their court bundles in the last weeks (4 of them) have all used a link on here to a 2004 t & c - we may have more ina few weeks.

[rob-the-viking]

Sorry to hijack the thread mandy, but where's the link to the 2004 t&c's lattie??

 

Thank you kind maiden!!!

 

r-t-v

[Mandy27]

Thanks guys, my other half binned the one and only response I had from HSBC to my latest claim, it was the standard denial and copy of the terms and conditions which also went in the bin. I have copies of all the letters I sent them though.

 

I've seen the thread re T&C's which is really helpful, the ones relevant to me are from 2004 so I've saved a copy ready.

 

My worry is that the court directions as set out in my previous post ask for a statement by each of the parties (within 2 weeks) the N157 is dated 14 May 2007 2 weeks by my calculations runs out tomorrow if this includes weekends, I'm trying to get something ready at the mo which I can hand in to the court tomorrow but theres so much to take in. Unfortunately I only got back from a holiday in Greece late yesterday and I've just got round to opening my post. For info the AQ was dispensed with in the notice of Transfer of Proceedings. I'll follow the advice and send the draft to the court and letters to D & G but what worries me is this statement supposedly due tomorrow. I don't want to get it wrong and its getting late.

[Mandy27]

Hi sorry to post again but Rob The Viking or Lateralus you may have read my previous post. In it the directions on the N157 requested a statement from either party within 2 weeks. The date of the notice is 14 May 2007 and by my calculations that 2 weeks runs out tomorrow! Have I interpreted that wrong?

 

I know its very late to be worrying about it but I've only just got back from a 2 week holiday in Greece and so haven't seen my post until now.

 

Any further advice?

 

[lateralus]

rob- i'll get it to you

[lateralus]

no worry, mandy - court date is late july and court bundle deadline is 2 weeks before that. plenty of time

 

ok, i'm reading it again - you think the statement is due 14 days from the letter? ring the court and ask - and if they say yes, tell them you've just returned from abroad, found the letter, can you have an extra week, please...

then get back here - it's not hard i'll post a link

[lateralus]

ok, there are two and this is letter 1 - which pertains to their service charge defence:

 

posting some info with it - if it's needed - get back - i can show you a couple who have used it recently and put their finished ones in the forum

 

 

 

 

Heres the 'Statement of evidence' which can be used for direction c).

 

Remember this is not to be submitted with the AQ, but after the judge has ordered directions.

 

The first statement is to be used if your bank has defended the claim on the basis that the charges are a legitimate contractual service charge - Ie. Lloyds TSB

 

The second statement is to be used if the bank has defended on the basis that the charges are proportionate to, or a pre-estimate of, their actual losses - Ie. Abbey

 

One or two banks don't plead in detail as to why their charges are not a penalty, only that they were debited in accordance with the T&C's, etc - Ie. Barclay's. If this is the case, this statement would be the most suitible - http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/barclays-bank/36692-peter-rabbit-barclays-2.html#post492578

 

Please think carefully about what does or does'nt apply to your own particular claim and amend as necessary. Similarly, if you can think of any more evidence relevant to your claim, add that in too.

 

Usual disclaimer applies - Im not a lawyer (far from it!) and the following is just my interpretation which I prepared for my claim and that I have amended to be relevant to others. Its offered without liability.

 

text in black - template

text in red - guide notes

text in blue - examples. Replace with your own information.

 

'SERVICE CHARGE' STATEMENT -

 

Quote:

 

Claim Number:*******

 

In the ******* County Court

 

 

 

 

Between:

 

Your name

(Claimant)

 

 

and

 

 

 

Bank Plc

(Defendant)

 

 

 

_________________________ ______

 

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE

 

_______________________

 

 

 

 

 

1. The Claimant submits that the charges levied to his bank account, as set out in the enclosed schedule, are, notwithstanding the defence of the defendant, penalty charges arising from and relating directly to breaches of contract, both explicit and implied, on the part of the claimant. As a contractual penalty, the charges are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Unfair Contracts (Terms) Act 1977, and the common law.

 

2. It is admitted that the Defendants charges were levied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the account in question. However, it is submitted that the Defendants charges are not related to or intended to represent any actual loss arising from a breach of contract, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which, by virtue of the legislation cited in paragraph 10 above, exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

 

3. The Defendant avers that the charges levied are legitimate fixed price contractual services, unrelated to breaches of contract, which are therefore not required to be a pre-estimate of loss incurred on the part of the defendant. The Claimant further submits that this contention is merely an attempt to ‘cloak’, or disguise, their penalties in order to circumvent the common law and statutory prohibition of default penalty charges with view to a profit.

 

4. The Claimant believes the definition of a 'service' to be a provision of knowledge, skill or other transferable facility that benefits the consumer, and one that the consumer agrees is at a reasonable market rate commensurable with the service provided. The Claimant believes it to be inconceivable that the charges levied to his account by the defendant could be any form of ‘service’, rather than a penalty.

 

5. I understand the definition of 'breach of contract' to be the failure of a party, without legal excuse, to perform a contractually agreed obligation pursuant to any or all of the terms agreed within that contract. I have an overdraft with the defendant. This overdraft has a contractually agreed limit, which is an express term of the bank account contract between myself and the Defendant. When I exceeded this agreed overdraft limit, therefore breaching an express term of the contract between myself and the Defendant, I was consequentially penalised for each such breach by way of a charge of £**.

 

6. In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co [1915] AC 79, Lord Dunedin stated that a clause is a penalty if it provides for;

 

"The essence of a penalty is a payment of money stipulated as in-terrorem of the offending part;”

I.e. if it is designed to scare or coerce or is used as a threat. It is submitted that the charges applied are not representative of any 'service' provided by the Defendant, but instead are punitive, and held "in-terrorem".

 

7. The Claimant further submits that the Defendant’s contention that the charges are now a legitimate service charge represents a contradiction to materials published by the bank previously. Here, add in details of any correspondence in which the bank referred to the charges as ‘penalties’, ‘defaults’ or ‘exist to cover costs’, etc. For example -In correspondence with Lloyds TSB’s ‘Customer Service Recovery’ department in July 2006, Martin Orton, who is manager of the department, stated this in a letter: “As you are aware, I am afraid that it is the case that any items that are returned incur a fee in order that we can recoup our costs”. This was in response to a direct and plain request to justify Lloyds TSB’s charges. Throughout the letter, no mention was ever made of the charges as being the cost of any sort of ‘service’.(If anyone wants a copy of this letter, drop me a PM with your address and I'll post it to you.)

 

8. Additionally, the [claimant believes there to be a high possibility that the] terms and conditions of [his / the claimants] account contract explicitly describe the charges as to be levied in instances of breaching those terms. This is true of the contracts of other customers of the defendant that the claimant is aware. However, the bank has failed to provide me with a copy of the account contract, despite repeated requests to do so, so unfortunately this cannot be proved. A right of subject access request for this document was submitted to the defendant under the Data Protection Act 1998, on 8th September 2006. The defendant has failed to comply. Here, if your account contract states the charges as ‘breaches’ use the text in black. The blue bit was true in my case and I’ve left it there as an example. If it applies to you, keep it in, if not, just take it out.

 

9. The Claimant refers to the statement from the Office of Fair Trading (April 2006), who conducted a thorough investigation into default charges levied by the British financial industry. While the report primarily focused on Credit card issuers, the OFT stated that the principle of their findings would also apply to Bank account charges. They ruled that default charges at the current level were unfair within their interpretation of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. With regard to the ‘cloaking’ or disguising of penalties, the OFT said this;

 

“4.21 The analysis in this statement is in terms of explicit, transparent default fees. Attempts to restructure accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made should be viewed as disguised penalties and equally open to challenge where grounds of unfairness exist. (For example, a charge for ‘agreeing’ or ‘allowing’ a customer to exceed a credit limit is no different from a customers default in exceeding a credit limit.) The UTCCR’s are concerned with the intentions and effects of terms, not just their mechanism”.

 

10. As submitted above, the Claimant believes the charges levied to his account to be disproportionate contractual penalties, arising from clear and demonstrable breaches of express terms of the account contract between itself and the Defendant. The Claimant vehemently refutes the Defences contention that they are legitimate contractual service charges.

 

11. However, and without prejudice to the above, in the event the charges were accepted by this honourable court as being a fee for a contractual service, the claimant submits that they are unreasonable under section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

 

12. Further, under the UTCCR:

 

"5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

 

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

 

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was."

 

Schedule 2 also includes such clauses (to define examples of unfair clauses) as:

 

"(i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;

 

(j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;

 

(m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract."

 

The defendant is a multi-national corporation. The term regarding charges was inserted unilaterally in contract. The contract was pre and mass produced and I had no opportunity to negotiate the clause, or indeed any of the contract.

 

The cost of Lloyds charges have increased twice during the period in which my account was held, neither time was I given the opportunity to negotiate, or even notified of this increase. This means the bank has unilaterally altered the terms of my account contract to my detriment, and to their advantage.

 

13. Following on from the above, the claimant does not accept The Defendants contention that the charges are enforceable as a service charge. It is not disputed that the Defendant is entitled to recover its damages following my breaches of contract, and it is entitled to include a liquidated damages clause. I accept without reservation the banks right to recover its actual losses or a genuine pre-estimate thereof. A penalty however, is unenforceable.

 

14. The Claimant cites the case of Robinson v Harman [1848] 1 Exch 850 which states that a contractual party cannot profit from a breach and that the charge for a loss suffered from a breach of contract should be the amount necessary to put both parties in the same position before the breach occurred.

 

15. Lord Dunedin in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co [1915] AC 79 set down a number of principles in definition of a penalty clause and how such clause may be ascertained from a liquidated damages clause. One of these principles being -

 

"The sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could have been suffered from the breach"

 

 

16. The Claimant will further rely on numerous recorded authorities dating throughout the 20th century up to the most recent case of Murray v Leisureplay [2005] EWCA Civ 963, all of which have upheld and reinforced the principles set down by Lord Dunedin defining contractual penalty clauses and the unenforceability thereof.

 

17. Further, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, schedule 2 (1) includes to define an example of an unfair clause as -

 

"(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;"

 

18. On numerous occasions, the Claimant has requested that the Defendant justify its charges by providing details of the costs incurred as a result of my contractual breaches. Each time those requests were rebutted or ignored.

 

19. In a recent study undertaken in Australia, (Nicole Rich, “Unfair fees: a report into penalty fees charged by Australian Banks”) it was estimated that the cost to an Australian Bank of a customers direct debit refusal was estimated to be in the region of 54 cents. By reviewing the charges against the above figure, the study estimated that banks could be charging between 64 to 92 times what it costs them to process a direct debit refusal. The study’s key findings stated that in its opinion the Australian Bank’s cheque and direct debit refusal fees were likely to be penalties at law.

 

20. The Defendant, or indeed any of the UK banks, has never published any information to support how their charges are calculated, or what their actual costs associated with such breaches are, or what revenue they derive from such charges.

 

21. For their recent BBC2 documentary “The Money Programme”, the BBC appointed a commission of former senior banking industry figures and business academics to attempt to ascertain the actual costs to the UK banks of processing a customer’s breach of contract. They concluded that the absolute maximum conceivable cost that could be incurred by a direct debit refusal or overdraft excess is £2.50, and of a returned cheque £4.50. They did state however, that the actual cost is likely to be much less than this. The commission also estimated that the UK banks collectively derive as much as £4.5billion in profit a year from their charging regimes.

 

22. It is submitted that the Defendants charges are applied by an automated and computer driven process. This process consists of a computer system ‘bouncing’ the direct debit, and sending out a computer generated letter. It is therefore impossible to envisage how the Defendant can incur costs of £** by carrying out this completely automated process. Note that the letter received notifying of a charge is identical in every instance, and if multiple breaches occurred on the same day, a separate letter will be sent in each instance.

 

23. Additionally, I asked the Defendant to provide evidence of any manual intervention that may have occurred in relation to my account, under a Data Protection Act 1998 right of subject access request. No such information was forthcoming.

 

24. On 22nd May 2006, the House of Commons passed an early day motion which welcomed the OFT's statement that default charges should be proportionate to the actual loss incurred. The house described such default charges as "exorbitant" and "excessive".

 

25. The Claimant also cites a radio interview in 2004 with Lloyds TSB’s former head of personal banking, Peter McNamara, in which he states bank charges are used to fund free banking for all personal customers as a whole.

 

26. As set out previously, it is submitted that The Defendant’s charges can not be considered to be a service charge. In arguing that they are, they also effectively admit that their charges make profits. The Defendant seemingly contends that their charges are not subject to any assessment of fairness whatsoever. This implies they can set these fees at whatever level they like without limit or regulation. Similarly, as set out above, the charges cannot be considered to be liquidated damages. They, by The Defendant's own admission, are not a pre-estimate of loss incurred as a result of the breach of contract. The charges are punitive, held “in-terrorem", and unduly and extravagantly enrich the Defendant. As such, they are a contractual penalties and unenforceable at law.

 

I, the Claimant, believe all facts stated to be true.

 

Signed, dated.

 

 

 

Documents attached in support of this statement

• Letter from Martin Orton, Lloyds TSB Customer Recovery Centre - or any letter or material in which the charges are described as 'defaults', 'penalties', 'covers costs', etc.

• Office of Fair Trading report, April 2006
  
• House of commons early day motion, May 2006
  
• Automated charge notification letter/s. Include a couple of examples. Preferably use ones where charges have been incurred over ridiculously small shortfalls and if possible, include 2 letters notifying of charges incurred on the same day
  
• BBC commission conclusion - BBC NEWS | Business | The Money Programme bank commission
  
• Australian Default charges report, Nicole Rich - Domain Names, Web Hosting, Web Design, Search Engine Optimisation, and Search Engine Marketing at Melbourne IT
  
• Transcript of telephone communication with Lloyds TSB 'personal banking' department.
  
• Data Protection Act Subject Access Request for evidence of manual intervention

[Mandy27]

no worry, mandy - court date is late july and court bundle deadline is 2 weeks before that. plenty of time

 

ok, i'm reading it again - you think the statement is due 14 days from the letter? ring the court and ask - and if they say yes, tell them you've just returned from abroad, found the letter, can you have an extra week, please...

then get back here - it's not hard i'll post a link

 

Thanks Lateralus - Yes my interpretation of the second direction on my N157 form is that they want a statement of evidence from each party within 2 weeks of the date of the notice. I popped into the court today (its just next door to my work) to see if I could speak to someone but I was told the Court Office was closed until tomorrow. I've tried phoning too and there is no answer.

 

I've copied and pasted the statement of evidence you provided in your next post into a word doc, thanks for that and I'll fill that in tonight. I'll send it with a letter explaining that I've been on holiday and apologising for the delay in getting it to them, I'm guessing I won't have received anything in the post from the bank when I get home so I've calmed down a bit now. Do I need to actually provide copies of the evidence being relied on with the statement now or can that wait until the court bundle is due 14 days before the hearing? Also should I include in the list of documents in the Statement of Evidence, my charges summary, statements etc.

 

Should I send the Statement of Evidence at the same time as I send the Draft directions and letters to D&G regarding the dispensation of the allocation questionnaire? I'm guessing the answer is yes, I want them to know I'm not going to take any **** and I'm serious about getting my money back and if all this preparation gives them a nudge in the right direction that's got to be a good thing right?

 

Thanks for all your help, I have to admit to probably being a little niave about how much work there might be with this, I just kept pinning my hopes on the fact that they'd settle since they have done twice before.

 

On that note, should I include copies of the letters HSBC have sent offering to settle my previous claims in my court bundle? My thinking is these provide good evidence that they have settled in the past so why not now?

 

Ta again

 

Mandy

[lateralus]

mandy, i'm having a real dilemma here - can't decide which of two statements you should use (this is the other one:Examples of Witness Statements / Disclosure by List / Draft Directions / Case Summary(1 Viewing) ) - so i've pm'd zootscoot on your behalf and hopefully you'll get an answer here pretty soon - so hold off til you hear which statement is correct.

[oi-giz-it-back]

Hi mandy,

Its ok im in the same boat as you.

In my letter (n157) it says:-

 

Each party shall deliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which he intends to rely at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing.

 

this gives me till 18/07/07 to get it all in 7 weeks.

are you sure your reading it right? when is your court date?

[Mandy27]

 

"Each party shall deliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents (inlcuding any experts report) on which he intends to rely at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing.

 

A Statement by each of the parties and any person who is to give evidence must be filed at the court and served on the other party (within 2 weeks). The statement must be set out in detail the evidence the party or witness will give at the hearing."

 

The banks defence is as follows:

 

"1. The claimants account is governed by the defendants personal and/or business banking terms and conditions.

2. Pursuant to the defendants terms and conditions the defendant is entitled to makea charge for its services as set out in the defendants price list, including an overdraft review fee for considering whether to provide and providing an overdraft.

3. The defendant denies that the charges applied to the claimants account amount to penalties at common law and/or unfair contract terms for the purposes of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999.

4. The charges applied to the claimants account are reasonable and are properly and fully disclosed in the defendants terms and conditions and published price list. The charges represent the contractually agreed price for the services provided and the UTCCRs are not applicable to them, alternatively they are not unfair contrary to the UTCCRs. Further the charges are not default charges and, accordingly cannot amount to a penalty.

5. Save as set out above each and every allegation made by the claimant is denied. For the reasons set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief."

 

 

In the quote above from my first post is word for word what my N157 said and the defence I received from HSBC. Thanks Lateralus, I'll wait to hear back again before doing anything else.

 

Thanks Oi - My court date is 30th July, you'll note the second paragraph in the directions on my N157 which I've quoted above says about a Statement of Evidence within 2 weeks. I interpret that to mean within 2 weeks of this notice. Currently trying to double check with the court but the court office is closed today. Will let you know.

[lateralus]

mandy?? i'd love oi- to be right - have you reread the direction?

i'm sure you'll get an answer - but failing a quick reply - i'd still think you could ring the court tomorrow and ask for an extra few days as you've been on holiday. if you are sure of the directions and getting antsy just put "moderator - bump" as a reply in big letters - and someone will see it.

[lateralus]

our posts crossed - i do believe you - just not written very clearly is it?

[Mandy27]

our posts crossed - i do believe you - just not written very clearly is it?

 

Thanks - no not clear at all, I think the court will be the only one to be able to clear this one up. I'm hoping since I've been away and that the court office is closed today if they did want the statement sooner rather than later they'll give me a few more days to get sorted.

[lateralus]

and hopefully a MOD!!!!! will be along to clear up my confusion as to which statement they want. i think i'm having another senior moment!!!

[Mandy27]

MODERATOR - BUMP!

[zootscoot]

Hi Mandy and Lateralus,

 

Yes the correct statement is the statement of evidence you have posted in post 8 and it appears this needs to be in 14 days from date of order. They may give some leeway for the bank holiday.

[Mandy27]

Thank you Zootscoot, I'll make sure I use the correct statement in my court bundle.

 

Quick update, I've just telephoned and spoken with the Court Manager at the Court Office and he confirmed that they were not expecting to receive a statement of evidence from me within 2 weeks of the N157 notice and that I have until 16th July before I have to provide any paperwork. He apologised for the fact that N157 notice seemed unclear. Phew!

 

I'll be sending the draft directions (after dispensation of the AQ) and a chase letter to D&G today though.

 

Thanks for all your help, here's hoping I don't find myself actually having to go to court on 30th July, having said that though, the fact that I'll waddle in 8 months pregnant may work in my favour with the judge!!!

[Mandy27]

Just been reading all the threads re the AQ having been dispensed with and potentially sending a polite letter to the court suggesting draft directions as well as chaser letters to D&G.

 

I note they started in early April and was just wondering whether or not draft directions is the way to go and has anyone had an order granted as a result?

 

Was about to send the draft directions but wanted to check if its worth doing or if I should just stick to the chaser letters to D&G?

 

Thanks

 

Mandy

[Castlebest]

The draft directions have been around for a lot longer than the beginning of April, they used to be sent in as part of the claimants AQ but with MCOL dispensing with AQ's and leaving it up to the local District Judges they system has been amended somewhat.

It is certainly worth sending them to your local court in fact one or two judges actually use this wording without being prompted by our draft. It is however up to the particular judge who reviews your case whether he/she adopts our draft or directs one of the other courses of action open to them.

pete