alanfromderby v Abbey - 2nd Claim - Judgement awarded

[joneshousehold]

Perhaps my eagerly anticipated trip to court will now happen unless they realise the error of their ways and pay up! Love the letter - sort of an eloquent 'stick that in your pipe and smoke it'.

[Odd Fellow]

A most excellent response.

 

It must surely be worth them just coughing up the £35 - they can hardly want to take this any further.

 

It is interesting to see how the stance has altered between Semi's letter and yours. I would imagine mine will be on it's way within the next week. I have a doubt that it will exactly mirror yours

[Seminole]

A most excellent response.

 

It must surely be worth them just coughing up the £35 - they can hardly want to take this any further.

 

It is interesting to see how the stance has altered between Semi's letter and yours. I would imagine mine will be on it's way within the next week. I have a doubt that it will exactly mirror yours

 

Yes, they obviously hate me a lot more than they hate Alan.

[alanfromderby]

Yes, they obviously hate me a lot more than they hate Alan.

 

That will be until they receive my letter on Monday morning!!

[CrispDust]

Abbey seem to be totally missing the point here- the point is, not wether it a relevant filing system or not, but that they ahve data /information on you to which you are entitled - period. The fact that Abbey choses to use an antiquated, ineffectual archiving system is their problem and theirs' alone. It is not a reason for allowing a slow response. They have information to which you are entitled access under the DPA. The filing system might not be "relevant" to them but it is very relevant to you and the DPA!

[CrispDust]

good luck you brave brave boy!

You don't get if you don't ask matey bob

[alanfromderby]

Excellent news - Abbey are going to defend my refund claim!!

 

Look forward to receiving the AQ in due course.

[give_me_it_back]

Hi Alan

 

Any news from Abbey on the refund defence?

[alanfromderby]

Glad you mentioned that as I had just taken my eye off the ball!!

 

They have acknowledged the claim, but had to file a defence by yesterday. I am shortly going down to enter judgement...and since they acknowledged the claim they can hardly try and get it set aside on the basis that they didn't know about it!!!

 

Fun! Fun!

[Seminole]

In entering judgement I think you'll find that there will have to be a hearing but I'm not sure if Abbey can take part in it.

[alanfromderby]

No problem - they just needed the completed slip from the Notice of Issue. Presumably it needs to be signed off by the Judge as she says it will take about five days for it to be issued. That will teach DLA not to use a "trainee" solicitor on my claim!

[Seminole]

No problem - they just needed the completed slip from the Notice of Issue. Presumably it needs to be signed off by the Judge as she says it will take about five days for it to be issued. That will teach DLA not to use a "trainee" solicitor on my claim!

 

I'm not sure how that can work. Forgetting for one moment that they've supplied the information already, what does entering judgement actually mean?

[andibenni]

It took me about 12 weeks to get my statements via e-banking from Abbey although I did chase them up by phone and by letter.

[alanfromderby]

I'm not sure how that can work. Forgetting for one moment that they've supplied the information already, what does entering judgement actually mean?

 

This is the financial claim we are talking about, the DPA claim is still in play.

[Seminole]

Ah, well you're definately looking at a set aside then.

 

I'm popping into the court tomorrow to pay the fee so that my claim is amended to the correct value. I then intend to write to DLA and Abbey confirming what I've done. I have absolutely no intention of giving them any wriggle room on trying for a set aside with my claim.

[alanfromderby]

They will have a rough ride if they try for a set-aside as they acknowledged the claim - they can hardly say they didn't know about it!!

[alanfromderby]

Received my 50% offer letter from DLA this morning, plus a copy of their defence which they are going to have great fun trying to file since they should have done it last Monday.

 

I have to say that if this defence got anywhere near a court it would be laughed out. It is not up to the standard of other defences I have seen - the general gist being that they are entitled to make a charge. It seems to be very generic - and makes no mention whatsoever of my claim for contractual interest.

 

One classic line states that, "The fees reflect and are proportionate to the Defendant's administrative expenses incurred due to the Claimant's breach of contract and are a genuine pre-estimate of damage suffered by the Defendant".

 

So, that would prove half of my claim then.

 

It amazes me just how many mistakes one trainee solicitor can make on one claim:

 

1) Case acknowledged two-days late - only after I reminded them.

2) After sending acknowledgement, defence not filed by deadline.

3) Generic defence sent which makes no mention of the one potentially contentious issue.

 

Anyway, I have just emailed to reject the offer - see what happens on Monday.

[JonCris]

Hi, and thanks for the advice.

 

I have had mixed responses from branch staff locally. The ones who have been there for some time are great and very friendly. However, I do find that their response to anything out of the ordinary is to direct you to the call-centre telephones.

 

The best one recently though, was when I wanted to present a cheque for Special Clearance. The account I have has a five-day clearance time for cheques, and I wanted to request faster clearance for one cheque - the value of the cheque was such that I was prepared to pay the fee.

 

Anyway, I was told that it could take longer than five days if I used that system, due to "delays with the post".

 

I asked why the cheque could not be put through the normal system - as it would, if it had been put through a standard current account.

 

The reply came that "Abbey is not a clearing bank".

 

I asked how then it was possible that Abbey's standard current account quoted a three day clearance.

 

She replied that my account had a five day clearance time.

 

"That's not the point", I said. "You have accounts that offer a three day clearance, so why can't you process my cheque in three days if I pay for Special Clearance?"

 

"Because Special Clearance relies on the post and it can take as much as ten days"

 

At this point I gave up.

 

On another occasion I wanted to bank about twenty cheques at the counter...only to be told that this was "most irregular", and I should use the ATM - of course that adds another day to the processing time!

 

In the end though, I think all banks are as bad as each other. The patronising and unhelpful chap on the Nationwide advert shows to me the real attitude of the banks, and other financial institutions, that we are trying to take on.

 

However, within these unfeeling corporations, you do find some staff who care...and as I said at the start of this post, there are several at our local branch who do try to be as helpful as they can.

 

BTW...do you think there is any posibility of getting my money back from a local Coca-Cola Championship Football Club, after years of under achievement?

 

As I recall Abbey use Barclays to clear cheque payments which is why it takes so long. Also it should be noted that since being taken over & unlike most other "banks" Shabbey now treat postal orders as ordinary cheques & you have to wait at least 5 days for the funds to find their way into your account. That also includes Bank Drafts & any other forms of payment which were previously treated as cash

 

One way to get up the banks nose is to take any cheques you receive to the issuers bank request a paying in slip & pay it into your account using the issuers bank. They may claim you have to pay it into your account 1st or have to pay because your not their account holder tell them to take a jump. The cheque is from their customer & they are required to accept it without charging. Also you are entitled to ask if the cheque payment will be met

[alanfromderby]

One way to get up the banks nose is to take any cheques you receive to the issuers bank request a paying in slip & pay it into your account using the issuers bank. They may claim you have to pay it into your account 1st or have to pay because your not their account holder tell them to take a jump. The cheque is from their customer & they are required to accept it without charging. Also you are entitled to ask if the cheque payment will be met

 

That's very interesting, and something I never thought of. Thanks for the advice.

[alanfromderby]

Is it only me that finds this irritating. Both parties to the DPA claim were supposed to file Allocation Questionnaires by 6th July. Abbey knew this - and even noted it in a letter to me.

 

Today I rang the court to check whether Abbey had filed their AQ, and was told that they had not. However, I also learnt that the Judge has now given them an extra period of time in which to file.

 

Why bother with deadlines when they are so easily circumvented at the whim of the court?

[Seminole]

Is it only me that finds this irritating. Both parties to the Data Protection Act claim were supposed to file Allocation Questionnaires by 6th July. Abbey knew this - and even noted it in a letter to me.

 

Today I rang the court to check whether Abbey had filed their AQ, and was told that they had not. However, I also learnt that the Judge has now given them an extra period of time in which to file.

 

Why bother with deadlines when they are so easily circumvented at the whim of the court?

 

This is for the DPA action? The court seems to have taken a long time to deal with the AQs in my case as well. I must check what's happened.

[alanfromderby]

The court in their infinite wisdom have agreed to accept Abbey's defence to the financial claim late. Oh well, at least I haven't got to go through a set-aside hearing.

[Seminole]

The court in their infinite wisdom have agreed to accept Abbey's defence to the financial claim late. Oh well, at least I haven't got to go through a set-aside hearing.

 

In one way that's the best thing that could have happened. They have less scope for delaying things!

[alanfromderby]

Since the financial claim is now back on the usual course, I have been considering one last shot across the bows for when I finally receive the AQ. Although my claim is for just over £3.5k, I am going to request that it be heard in Fast Track. This is what I intend to put on the form:

 

I would respectfully ask that this case be heard in Fast Track. The reason for my request is based on clause 8 of the Defence filed by the Defendant. It is contended by the Defendant that the fees levied "are proportianate to the Defendant's administrative expenses incurred due to the Claimant's breach of contract, and are a genuine pre-estimate of the damage suffered by the Defendant".

 

In order for the Defendant to substantiate this argument, it will be necessary for evidence to be produced showing how these fees have been calculated, presumably this will mean that the Defendant will by relying on detailed accounting information. If this is correct then it would be reasonable to ask that this evidence be made available prior to any court hearing - and that I be able to request documents that could challenge this evidence.

[Odd Fellow]

Whoop whoop!

 

This will be interesting. Very Interesting.

 

I think that many of us wouldn't be doing this if we thought for one second that we could have costs to pay, just in case we lost. I'm umming and arring about filling an AQ on my DPA claim as, frankly £100 to argue something that's completely untested so far is a bit of a gamble.