Quick question re: interest on N1 please!

[yourbank]

Is the amount they are threatening legal action against you for the same as the charges you are claiming against them in court for (ie your overdraft) ? I(or might have been Esmerellda) mentioned on MSE about the overdraft I think. The overdraft is in dispute (if the charges claimed are more than they want that is) so you need to tell them that. Also with your stayed claim, I would check once more with the court whether the bank have submitted any applications/letters regarding your claim. (they appear to be asking for summary judgment without a hearing and forgetting to tell claimants)

[yourbank]

All banks are sending out decline letters so I would expect that a lot of people are getting the standard letter.

You have to be more concerned with the case in court and the terms of any stay so as ever, don't worry

[yourbank]

It depends if you want to cover your arse if it turns out you cant reclaim the charges. Personally I'd negotiate an affordable repayment plan with them pending the conclusion of the dispute under terms they dont continue any action against you or wreck your credit rating.

 

Yes the court should inform you but it never hurts to check, we KNOW what county courts are like. Yorkshire bank for one are telling courts that they have sent the docs to the claimants as well, and well havent done. Most courts are ignoring requests for summary judgment and holding general application hearings. You have a diff situation in that you have a specific stay to negotiate - you wrote to the bank asking them if they wanted to didnt you so your job is done in that respect. (read next post in conjunction with this too)

Edited January 16, 2010 by yourbank

[yourbank]

Also

 

3. If no application to lift the stay is made by 4.00pm on 26th February 2010, the claim be thereafter and without further order Struck out

 

If you hear nothing by say 14th Feb then you obviously don't want your claim to be struck out so you need to tell the court you want to continue with the claim, else the bank will be quite merry to see it struck out. the court have basically given you time to sort out your case.

 

Its Lloyds so you have the no T&C's pre 2007 arguments to use as well as the CCA/5(1)/misrep etc arguments. and before the 26th you need to ask for stay lift and amended particulars to be served.

[yourbank]

Yes of course if there are other reasons the charge shouldnt have been incurred and why the overdraft is in dispute other than the legal arguments its another matter.

 

I've posted on your thread on Bagles too re a way forward for before 26th Feb ref a hearing on 17th Feb re Lloyds

 

Legally wise, Consequential's I guess is a difficult argument to make as you would have to show a direct link from the PPI being paid and the charges being incurred.

 

Ie. If you can show that it was solely that PPI amount that you were short by to cause the electric bill not to be paid thus incurring a charge by the bank, and probably by the electric company, and that if you had only paid the loan amount without the PPI the electric bill would have been paid.

 

I think its an argument in part and is kind of consequential losses - an argument which is one of the things which was being looked at for after test case if the OFt had won and was also a difficult argument (ie had the bank charges not been taken you would have kept up mortgage payments and not lost your house type thing ) you still have to show a direct relationship and all other factors would be taken into account to get the argument accepted.

 

So look at statements and work through examples where the PPI was the cause of the other charges - I guess that would be a good place to start strengthening that argument ?

 

A direct loss is a loss that arises directly from a breach of contract. The leading case of Hadley -v- Baxendale established that:

 

Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either:

 

(1) arising naturally, ie according to the usual course of things from such breach of contract itself; or

 

(2) such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract as the probable result of the breach of it.

 

Consequential loss is any other type of loss that arises from a breach of contract.

 

To take a simple example:

 

You have a coffee table and the day after you buy it it collapses. You have it repaired. The shop must pay for the repair. The loss is direct.

 

You have a coffee table and the day after you buy it it collapses with your collection of Ming vases on it. You cannot claim the value of the Ming vases. The loss is consequential.

 

(Aequitas explained that quite clearly I think) You can also look at the British Sugar case and I'm not sure on the Terms and Conditions of the PPI limiting consequential loss liability ( as thats where the claim would have to be made rather than against the bank account - that is you sue the bank for the consequential losses of incorrectly charging you the PPI )

Edited January 16, 2010 by yourbank

[yourbank]

thanks Landy how you getting on now ?