Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for this. The first thing to be say is that this means that you are winning. It is pretty well unheard of in my experience for the bank to give way and finally return the money. The fact that they have done this under the threat of a judgement for breach of statutory duty indicates even more that they are worried about their position. Nowhere have they indicated that they have complied with the requirements of the Proceeds of Crime Act and inform the National crime agency. I don't believe they have and this is a very serious breach of statutory duty. Not only that it is a very serious breach of the FCA BCOBS regulations in that they are required to treat you fairly. Treating you fairly in this case means that they must comply with the rest of their statutory duties. It appears that they really haven't done this at all and that they have acted in an arbitrary way in disregard of the law and that they are hoping to get away with it. I find myself wondering how many other hundreds of people have been treated in exactly the same way – and you are probably the first ever to have stood up to them and to get them worried. I think I've already indicated that a press contact of mine in the Sunday Times would be very interested in this story. He has already run stories about the very poor standards applied by banks when deciding that their customers are involved in some fraudulent behaviour. The first thing to say about the letter which you have received is that they are trying to apply conditions to releasing your own money. It's your money and there should be no conditions and my suggestion is that you object to this. Secondly, not only are they threatening to continue to withhold your own money – but also they are saying that if they release it to you you will simply have the net figure without any kind of interest or compensation. It's clear that while they have had your money, they have invested it and earn money on it. They have probably been lending it out at between 16% and 20% and although the usual rate of interest is 8%, it seems to me that justice can only be served by repaying you your money plus the commercial rate of interest – at a compound rate. Normally the 8% is calculated at simple. Thirdly, they are not offering to pay you any compensation and clearly they are hoping to get away with it without any kind of sanction or not even a slap on the wrist.   Fourthly, they had the nerve to impose a seven day deadline. Don't worry about their deadline. It's a load of huff and puff. This is all part of their bluff game designed to intimidate you. At the end of seven days – what? Are they then going to insist on going to court? You can be certain that these people do not want to go to court. In fact they probably wish they had never started. Finally, they want the matter to be kept confidential – and I can't say I blame them. I would be ashamed if people knew that I had treated somebody else in this way and I'm sure they are worried about reputational damage. I'm also sure that there are extremely worried about what will happen if you get a judgement against them for breach of statutory duty. It will have to be reported to the FCA. It will have to be reported to the NCA. And of course it should be reported to the newspapers because people need to know what is going on. If you want, you can simply accept their proposal – get your money back, given confidentiality – and that's the end of the matter. However, you have no idea how this will impact on your record in the future. I imagine that they will bar you from ever opening an account with them again. – But at least you will have your money and you can get on with your life. However, if you want you can stand your ground and make it clear to them that you are going to be mucked around and treated like this and that you are prepared to go to court if they won't make a proper offer. I understand that you need to pay a court fee of about £350 in the next seven days. I expect that the bank is making this offer now hoping to dissuade you from spending any more money and hoping that you will back down. If you have the money to proceed then I would suggest very strongly that it will be a very serious sign of strength that you tell the bank that you're not interested in that you are paying the fee for the next stage of the court process. If the bank knows that you've called their bluff on this and that you have been prepared to invest further money in moving this legal action forward, then they will start to reflect and I can perfectly well imagine that they will make you another more interesting offer – once again on conditions of confidentiality. Without seeing the offer, I'm suggesting already that you will probably be best off turning it down. In any event, I would remind you going back several months that I already predicted that the bank would make you confidential offer – and that has happened. I'm not saying that I'm always going to be right here – but I think that now basically the bank have pretty well admitted that they need to pay you your money, there is no chance of you losing it. You will get your money and it really is just a question of how much else you will get in addition. If you'd like to continue then let me know and I will suggest a draft response to them.
    • The cost of living in Britain over a person's lifetime is over £1.5m, new findings have claimed as the nation feels the squeeze amid soaring energy costs and dismal interest rates on cash savings.View the full article
    • Mortgage approvals for house purchases fell to 67,200 in October, according to the Bank of England’s (BoE) latest figuresView the full article
    • Uncertainty surrounding the new Covid variant is likely to linger into next year, weighing on growth.View the full article
    • An online news and information service for the UK’s commercial and consumer credit industry.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Is It Still County Court When The Alleged Debt Is Over £5000?


BARFLY
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4491 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

With help from this site I've managed to keep several creditors at arms length for about two years now. However, one of the accounts has been sold to to a DCA, with the original creditor ignoring the fact that the account is in dispute. The account stands at about £9000, though charges and interest etc. were added to the account after the original creditor defaulted on a Section 78 request.

 

I,ve a feeling that the DCA is going to go to court with this, even though they have failed to provide any proof of enforceability as required per the CCA. If they've purchased the debt for 10p in the pound isn't it worth them chancing it before the judge when the potential reward is so much larger? Should they proceed down the legal route will the size of the claim mean that it will not be heard in the local county court, and, if so, what does that mean for me?

 

Thanks anyone.

Edited by BARFLY
Link to post
Share on other sites

This claim value would normally put you in a position of facing a "fast track" court hearing - if it ever got that far - but it is not a certainty. Fast track has a draw back in relation to potential costs for the loser, but there is one MAJOR advantage - that of Standard Disclosure.

Anthrax alert at debt collectors caused by box of doughnuts

 

Make sure you do not post anything which identifies you. Although we can remove certain things from the site unless it's done in a timely manner everything you post will appear in Google cache & we do not have any control over that.

 

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

17 Port & Maritime Regiment RCT

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they've purchased the debt for 10p in the pound isn't it worth them chancing it before the judge when the potential reward is so much larger? Should they proceed down the legal route will the size of the claim mean that it will not be heard in the local county court, and, if so, what does that mean for me?

 

 

Still County Court but more likely to be Fast Track than Small Claims, (over £5000). Doesn't really make much difference to you if you can't pay anyway, implication for them is that if they lose, their own costs and their liability for yours would be more than what they paid for the debt, (if that is the case).

 

Who is the DCA?

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the costs be potentially larger?
as answered by Cashins in post #3

And what is Standard Disclosure?

Standard Disclosure is to do with providing documents etc that the court may ask for to help with deciding a case.PART 31 - DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS - Ministry of Justice cover disclosure.

 

Both Part 18 requests and standard disclosure are usually excluded by the Civil Proceedure Rules, if the case is allocated to small claims track, however judges do have the discretion to order them even in small claims cases.

 

The advatage of standard disclosure is it is a mechanism to force the banks to disclose their actual costs. See; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/53570-new-strategy-allocation-questionnaires.html

Anthrax alert at debt collectors caused by box of doughnuts

 

Make sure you do not post anything which identifies you. Although we can remove certain things from the site unless it's done in a timely manner everything you post will appear in Google cache & we do not have any control over that.

 

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

17 Port & Maritime Regiment RCT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

 

So it would seem that the larger the alleged debt, the more chance a DCA takes by proceeding to court without a properly executed agreement. On the basis that it would probably be 'fast tracked', that is.

 

What is the difference? What is a 'fast track' claim? Are these judges more likely to rely on statute and case law?

 

So many questions, I know. But if you don't ask, you'll never know. I know I can trudge through similar listings on here - and I do - but it would be good to hear it concisely here if possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A judge is a judge, they sit in all CC cases Small Claims or Fast Track and the rules should be the same.

 

Not sure if I want to name the DCA. Seem to be a few who keep their eyes on this site. Are some more litigious than others?

Yes, some regard initiating court action as part of the collection process.

 

Doesn't actually make them any better at it though and many cases are withdrawn without ever having a court hearing as such.:grin:

 

I would suggest you use the site search function, ie put in the name of your DCA and see what comes up.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

The judge can decide to swap between small claims and fast track at will with no justification required. So if you get a judge that does not like you or thinks you need taking down by allowing costs against you, they do with a c**** look on their faces at the end of the proceedings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...