Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[JGJ]

Bigdebtor,

 

Thank you very much for your input, it is greatly appreciated.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

[Camdenite]

JGJ

 

Given what Vacma says, I would either ask DJ now for more time (to see outcome of Sharpe v HBOS and other cases) - or if the DJ won't play ball then discontinue and issue new POC after these cases clarify matters.

BD

 

Are we allowed to do that?

[Bigdebtor]

You can certainly ASK for more time - after all the Banks got all claims held up for YEARS while they went through their various machinations up to SC level - and if the DJ doesn't play ball then Vacma's advice on discontinuing is from the lawyer - so presumably she is correct?

 

I think the Sharpe case is due to have its next "debate" hearing in Glasgow in December - if so not too far away - I'm hoping GLC will update us on this if they are allowed to do so?

 

Hope this helps?

 

BD

[JGJ]

BD,

 

Thank you very much for your input/info every morsel is helpful.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

[middenmess]

Hi all,

 

My claims are stayed in the court system until November pending my application to amend POCs, my first

 

application was adjourned by the District Judge pending my seeking further legal advice re the amended POCs.

 

Seeing as there has been no further amended POCs forthcoming, what are my options now ??

 

Would it be the wise thing to reluctantly Discontinue the claims to try to avoid legal costs against me, or could I ask

 

for further time to seek ongoing legal advice.

 

Time is running out rapidly, all advice/information will as always be gratefully

 

received.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

 

 

Starting a new thread with your question will probably get some responders hopefully rather than being buried on here.

[GuidoT]

Be careful, if your claim is not on the small claims track and you discontinue, you will be automatically liable for the other sides legal costs.

[kennyh]

Be careful, if your claim is not on the small claims track and you discontinue, you will be automatically liable for the other sides legal costs.

I have to discontinue my son's claim owing to his ill health; can we disengage without costs if in small claims? I've asked 'their' solicitors but haven't had a response.

[JGJ]

GuidoT,

 

I have written to Lloyds Sols SC@M to give me a written undertaking that they and their client Lloyds will not seek costs against me and they have agreed that.

 

1) Our client is willing to consent to the above proceedings (2Claims) be discontinued on the basis each parties agree to bear their own costs as occasioned by these proceedings.

 

Short and sweet, after posting and receipt of reply 6days remarkable.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

[Bigdebtor]

Does "discontinued" mean abandoned for good - or can you start afresh if Sharpe goes our way?

 

BD

[caro]

If it's discontinued that claim is dead. If you brought another claim on the same grounds that could be seen as vexatious, but if you discover later that there are other reasons for claiming you may be able to argue it, but the issue of limitations may be called into question if you could only go back 5 years (6 in England).

 

IMHO your best bet would be to apply for an extension to your stay on the grounds of other cases that are waiting to be heard, such as Sharp v RBS and Walls v Santander. There may well be others too.

[the_shadow]

The banks need a wake up call, they need to be hurt, yes we are in an unfortunate time, thanks to no economic planning, no regulation, no discipline, other wise the banks will carry on in the same vein. It would be nice if the banks had to report a loss to their shareholders.

 

I'm not usually a fan of french strikes... they managed to disrupt my honeymoon by the fishermen being on strike and blocking a port, also the airport controllers have caused me delays many times but they certainly know how to create public pressure...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11557240

 

If only mass action could be raised against a bank... although no doubt the government would step in to save them again as we all know the banks are too big to fail.

 

S.

[rebel11]

Hi Shadow,

 

This is easy, people are already doing it now, successfully, it's just concentrating that effort on one area, one bank for a period of a month. It would hurt the bank

financially, if repeated across the country with all the banks, they would feel consumer power/pressure like never before.

 

I'm not usually a fan of french strikes... they managed to disrupt my honeymoon by the fishermen being on strike and blocking a port, also the airport controllers have caused me delays many times but they certainly know how to create public pressure...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11557240

 

If only mass action could be raised against a bank... although no doubt the government would step in to save them again as we all know the banks are too big to fail.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Hi Shadow,

 

This is easy, people are already doing it now, successfully, it's just concentrating that effort on one area, one bank for a period of a month. It would hurt the bank

financially, if repeated across the country with all the banks, they would feel consumer power/pressure like never before.

 

far better to cocentrate on one bank and let the others see the consumer power and react to it imvho.

 

s.

[JGJ]

GuidoT,

 

I have written to Lloyds Sols SC@M to give me a written undertaking that they and their client Lloyds will not seek costs against me and they have agreed that.

 

1) Our client is willing to consent to the above proceedings (2Claims) be discontinued on the basis each parties agree to bear their own costs as occasioned by these proceedings.

 

Short and sweet, after posting and receipt of reply 6days remarkable.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

 

If I change direction and request further stay from the court, as opposed to discontinuation, would that be viewed as being "Vexatious" bearing in mind my previous request from them.

[caro]

If I change direction and request further stay from the court, as opposed to discontinuation, would that be viewed as being "Vexatious" bearing in mind my previous request from them.

 

Have you already said/implied that you agree to discontinue, or were you just exploring your options to decide the best way forward?

 

EDIT - just read your earlier post and see they've agreed to back out without costs.

 

It's not a bad outcome.

[JGJ]

caro,

Thank you once again for your swift reply.

 

 

I was just exploring the options as I would not want them coming at me like an express train for their costs

 

and that is why I wanted it in writing before/IF I Discontinue. I am still considering my options but I need to act

 

pretty swiftly as the stay is only until Nov. I have already done "battle" with Lloyds Barrister at court when he

 

wanted his costs.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

[kennyh]

I seem to recall from some way back in the bank charges saga that, if the opposition actually file a defence then that case may not be revisited; but there again me little grey cell ain't wot it were

[elsinore]

CPR Part 38.7

 

A claimant who discontinues a claim needs the permission of the court to make another claim against the same defendant if –

 

 

(a) he discontinued the claim after the defendant filed a defence; and

 

(b) the other claim arises out of facts which are the same or substantially the same as those relating to the discontinued claim.

[kennyh]

TU Elsinore. My family dwell in the fond belief that I can't tie my own shoe laces so a degree of affirmation and/or clarification is always welcome.

[Bigdebtor]

Looks like Vacma's lawyer wasn't as clued up as Kennyh and Elsinore.

 

Kenny - as a fellow sufferer of family imposed senility I'm sorry to burst your bubble about tying shoe laces.

 

My family claim that being able to do things ingrained in my subconcious like sleeping, snoring, breathing, tying shoe laces and ties (and knowing the difference), shaving, finding my way to (and from) the pub etc. does not mean I am still as mentally "alert" as I was in my prime:wink:.

 

I blame the stress of 30 plus years of shelling out to support a wife and offspring - and now the family are independent I'm expected to pay unfair charges to help the banks afford the £7 billion bonus payments recently announced.

 

BD

[kennyh]

bd - SNAP!

[lord_tiger_putin]

I recently send a letter to HSBC to refund the theft charges by using the template letter from MSE:

 

I am writing to request that you repay all the charges in relation to direct debits, unauthorised overdrafts and standing orders that have been applied to this account of which the majority were levied post -July 2007.

 

By issuing me with these charges I feel that you have broken the FSA’s regulatory principle to ‘pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly’. I am also claiming a refund of the fees for the following reasons:

The charges are unfair under section 140A(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and contrary to the requirement of good faith, having caused a significant imbalance in our relationship and a detriment to myself, and under regulation 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, in the following respects:

 

 

1. The charges were excessive and punitive in comparison with the costs to the bank caused by my conduct which triggered the charges.
   
2. The charges were set by reference to the overall cost to the bank of providing current accounts to all of its customers which held such an account, rather than merely to the cost of my conduct thereby effectively requiring me to subsidise the provision of current accounts by the bank to other customers.
   
3. In the premises the bank did not deal fairly as between myself and its other customers.
   
4. The existence and quantum of the charges were inadequately and/or insufficiently explained and/or drawn to my attention either; when my account was first opened; when I gave an instruction which would result in the levying of a charge; or otherwise before any particular charge was applied.
   
5. The circumstances and manner in which the charges were levied created potential for the application of multiple charges and the levying of charges to give rise to the application of further charges.
   
6. The complexity of the charges and/or the circumstances in which they were levied.
   
7. The nature of the charges and/or the circumstances of their application were such as to cause me inherent difficulties in predicting the incidence and amount of such charges in advance.
   
8. The absence of any effective competition between providers of current accounts which restricted my ability to chose a current account operated on terms which did not provide for charges such as (and/or equivalent to) those levied by your bank.
   
9. The charges were excessive in comparison with the level of borrowing which triggered the levying of the said charges.
   

In particular, and without prejudice, the burden of proof for the above rests onHSBC to prove that the circumstances of our relationship are fair (pursuant to section 140B(9) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974), so unless you can provide evidence to the contrary I expect a refund of the full amount requested by return.

It took them only a single day to come up with the response, letting me to believe it is a "Ready Made" counter argument against the new arguments that is evolving. It could be of interest to many and also could be the arguments many of the banks will be using.

 

Edited October 20, 2010 by lord_tiger_putin

[manchesteruni]

thanks for posting that Lord Tiger

[Carningli]

Thank you L_T_P,

This response would also be most helpful in the HSBC forum. This is quite obviously a template reply as from my experience with HSBCs Customer Service Officers, none of them have ever indicated to myself that they were capable of providing such a lierate response.

 

It would also be interesting to see MSE's take on this response, but I would quite understand if they wished to keep it under wraps for the time being. HSBC have purely dealt with your complaint on the basis of fact as you percieve it, I believe their achilles heel to be, how the situation arose that created those circumstances ie: what other actions taken by HSBC caused the problem, I would doubt that they were 100% of your own making?

 

Carningli

[Aequitas]

Thank you L_T_P,

This response would also be most helpful in the HSBC forum. This is quite obviously a template reply as from my experience with HSBCs Customer Service Officers, none of them have ever indicated to myself that they were capable of providing such a lierate response.

 

It would also be interesting to see MSE's take on this response, but I would quite understand if they wished to keep it under wraps for the time being. HSBC have purely dealt with your complaint on the basis of fact as you percieve it, I believe their achilles heel to be, how the situation arose that created those circumstances ie: what other actions taken by HSBC caused the problem, I would doubt that they were 100% of your own making?

 

Carningli

 

Template or not, it is difficult to refute anything that is said with the possible exception of the last point about the lack of effective competition, and that is something that it is going to be difficult for an individual to argue/prove, particularly if it is indeed the case that the OFT has investigated and come to the conclusion stated.

 

It is though, as you suggest, open to anyone to argue that in their particular case the charges were incorrectly applied or that the bank manipulated the account so as to give rise to charges or more charges than would have otherwise been payable. However, when it comes to manipulation the banks cleaned up their act some time ago so you are probably going to have to go back a while to find an instance of it.

 

The problem with many of the arguments put forward is that they amount to arguments that customers should not pay bank charges. That is the same as saying that banks should supply free banking services. What confuses the whole issue is the fact that the way banks charge for their services is, compared to anyone else I can think of, odd. Only some customers pay them and the deal is that if and for so long as you stay in credit you do not pay, but when you overdraw you do. We must not forget that this is what bank customers demanded. From the banks perspective their customers are like punters who are happy to collect their winnings when their horse comes first, but insist on having their stake money back when it falls at the first fence. How much profit the banks make on current accounts is irrelevant to any of the legal questions being asked because you can still ask the same questions if the banks were operating current accounts at a loss