LLoyds Bank County Court Summons

[the_shadow]

I have made some changes to your response, Mickey, but would like someone to have a look at it before you send it off.

 

Wow it gets so confusing with counter claims

 

2nd AMENDED VERSION

 

DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANTS DEFENCE OF DEFENDANTS COUNTERCLAIM

(Does that sound better? not sure?)

 

I, Mickey33 make this statement in response to the defence dated 27th November and submitted by the Claimant, Lloyds TSB Bank plc .

 

1. In response to the Claimant's claim that the defendant's Counterclaim was insufficiently particularised.

 

1a The Defendant was not in possession of vital information from the Claimant at the time of submission despite requests made under CPR31.14 sent on xx/xx/xxxx and signed for at the offices of the claimants solicitors on xx/xx/xxxx and Data Protection Act 1998 sent on xx/xx/xxxx and signed for at the offices of the claimants solicitors on xx/xx/xxxx (refer to evidence bundle if contained within).

 

2. The Claimant is well aware of the allegations and the case it has to answer in respect of the counterclaim. In that shortly after the Defendant submitted his defence and counterclaim, the acting solicitors in a letter dated XX XXXX, confirmed that the PPI had been added to the Defendant's account, even though the agreement clearly shows it was not requested. ( See Exhibit Mickey33 -001)

 

2a The letter advises that Lloyds TSB plc is able to reduce the amount of their claim by £6,042.99 which is the total of the premiums paid.

 

3. The offer of premium refund only, was formally rejected in a letter dated XXX XXXX (see Exhibit Mickey33 -002)

 

4. Having been supplied with a full set of statements and with the guidance of the Financial Ombudsman, the Defendant was able to calculate a more accurate figure for the counterclaim. This amounted to the premiums paid £6,042.99 and interest at the Bank's own contractual? interest rate in the sum of £4543.92 totalling £10,586.90 as per the schedule attached (see Exhibit mickey33 003)

 

5. The Defendant requested that the Bank now revisit it's offer, pointing out that the whole agreement was tainted due to the inclusion of a product not requested and potentially in breach via the UTCCR1999 regulations.

 

6. In response to this letter, the Claimant has submitted their Defence.

 

7. The Defendant was at all times of the belief the PPI was a mandatory inclusion of the agreement.

 

7a Having included a product that wasnt requested, the Bank further compounded its error in not explaining that it would not be fit for purpose and rejected a claim made on XXXX XXX

 

8. The Defendant was clearly charged for a product that was rendered useless and until the Bank issued their claim and the relevant paperwork received from them, the Defendant was not aware of this.

 

9. The Defendant has suffered a lot of hurt to feelings due to the lack of information and support from the claimant in respect of the original product and the management thereof. I am still not happy about this paragraph. Agree... think this needs to come out.

 

Statement of Truth

 

The defendant believes the facts stated in response to the defence of the counterclaim are true.

 

 

Signed:……………………………………………… ….

 

S.

[mickey33]

Thanks for the time taken to do this and your continued support. I have today received another letter from the solicitors now claiming they have computer evidence that the ppi was sold to me when I activated my new card with a date and time if that was the case why did I not receive any policy details and was denied cover on no less than two occasions without explanation. It seems almost to good to be true on there part they have come up with this now I am fighting it.

 

Its really interesting and very time consuming for all concerned. I am informed in writing by them not to disclose a new offer they have made using CPR 36.13 "without prejudice" not be communicated or disclosed to the trial judge until the conclusion of the trial or liability. They have stated "please do not refer to this offer in any correspondence with the court."

 

I am happy to post it up if all agree I await your comments on the matter.

[the_shadow]

Thanks for the time taken to do this and your continued support. I have today received another letter from the solicitors now claiming they have computer evidence that the ppi was sold to me when I activated my new card with a date and time if that was the case why did I not receive any policy details and was denied cover on no less than two occasions without explanation. It seems almost to good to be true on there part they have come up with this now I am fighting it.

 

Its really interesting and very time consuming for all concerned. I am informed in writing by them not to disclose a new offer they have made using CPR 36.13 "without prejudice" not be communicated or disclosed to the trial judge until the conclusion of the trial or liability. They have stated "please do not refer to this offer in any correspondence with the court."

 

I am happy to post it up if all agree I await your comments on the matter.

 

Hmm for computer evidence read... someone keyed something in on a keyboard... its on the database and therefore you applied...

 

As to the offer if its made in "without prejudice" then no, you cant show the judge until the end of the trial and if its under a CPR36 offer I understand this to mean its in effect an insurance policy for them... if they win and obtain a lesser amount than the offer I think they are entitled to claim not only costs but a better judgment that mirrors the part offer.. need clarification from someone used to fasttrack claims tbh.

 

To really give advice we will need to see the offer...

 

CPR 36 offers

 

S.

[mickey33]

The original rejected offer I received was not subject to this. I will post it up for comment as I want to use this as a learning experience as much as the rest of the forum regardless of the outcome.

[citizenB]

Shadow, thank you. I agree totally with your amendments of my amendment

 

mickey, that does sound rather suspicious. If the policy was sold you to as and when they say, then they will have a record of that call. Also.. if they can give you the date, you can check with your telephone provider if you made the call on that day/at that time.

 

When exactly did the PPI start on the statements ? From the very beginning ?

[mickey33]

The policy charged was originally called cardholder protection plan in July 2002 and then it changed to payment protection cover in October 2004 where the premiums rose sharply compared to the old cover.

[lilly white]

Micky are you well and happy new year,

 

ok i pick a tread without a reply can you update where we are.

 

i see there is a credit card and a loan/

 

 

lilly

[mickey33]

The case has been moved to another local court to be heard by another Judge.

I have not responded to any offers of settlement so far and still pursuing the case through the courts date is still to be set.

I will be writing back to the solicitors to ask for further info I still haven't received to try and get a resolution to all of this.

I will keep you all posted but fairly quiet for now.

[mickey33]

I have got to attend a directions hearing tomorrow regarding this case I will let you know how it goes.

[citizenB]

I have got to attend a directions hearing tomorrow regarding this case I will let you know how it goes.

 

OMG, that came round quickly didnt it. Good luck mickey:)

[mickey33]

It did come around quickly. I have cleared the decks and am now able to focus on any outstanding issues 100% so all good.

 

The case was directed to a small claims route to reduce costs with mediation to take place using a third party between myself and Lloyds seeing as Lloyds have constantly ignored my letters and calls which the judge recognised.

 

The judge was very helpful.

 

I await the directions so on it goes.