Lloyds Credit card claim - but bank is using Supreme Court Ruling on Bank charges to defend!!

[Blossomandebony]

Hi,

 

I recently received an N1 claim against me for #2000 credit card debt.

 

I have issued a defence based on them owing me #3000 worth of charges on the account - hence I have counterclaimed for #1000.

 

Now their solicitor has issued an application to have my counterclaim struck out and summary judgment made.

 

I think they have made an incredible mistake within their application; it has a Witness Statement signed by a member of bank staff that, (I believe, but tell me if I'm wrong), really amounts to lying to the court.

 

Namely, in their application they state that I cannot claim back charges due to the Supreme Court Ruling on bank charges!!!

 

Have i missed something? Can a solicitor really be that stupid?

 

As the Supreme Court ruling had nothing whatsoever to do with this, a credit card case, surely this is tantamount to deliberately misleading the court?

 

My thoughts are to now make my own application to have their claim struck out and summary judgment made in my favour. I am thinking of using their blatant lie as the basis for the application for this. What do you all think?

 

Finally, how strongly can I word my application to the court? Can I add a paragraph to ask that the court takes measures to deal with what I consider as deliberately misleading the court or would the judge just think I was being too arrogant / personal?

 

Cheers, BAE

[rebel11]

Hi Blossom

 

Can you please tell us the name of the CC Company?

 

Hold fire on doing anything at the moment.

[bazaar]

as rebel states, hang on a mo, IMHO, dont be telling a judge what to think. You'll word things in such a way as to let the judge make their own mind up. Someone will give some advice soon, you'll need to post up what has gone on so far to let people know what your up against

[Blossomandebony]

Thank you bazaar and rebel11. The cc company is Lloyds tsb.

 

Any more thoughts would be appreciated. Cheers.

 

BAE:-)

[Blossomandebony]

Does anyone know if there is a paragraph in the Supreme Court ruling(on Bank charges) which specifically states that the ruling is for Bank accounts only etc, - if so, I'd be grateful if you could direct me!

 

BAE

[rebel11]

Hi blossom

 

Have a read :- http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snbt-03941.pdf

[AndyOrch]

subbing

Edited July 27, 2011 by Andyorch

[Blossomandebony]

Thanks again, Rebel.

 

I guess I'll start by drafting what might go on my N244 application and see what people think. As I've said I am not sure exactly how to word it. In particularl I don't want to annoy or patronise the judge!

 

On the N244, under section 3, What order are you asking the court to make and why?, I' will write something like,

 

That the claim be dismissed and there be summary judgment for the defendant's counterclaim pursuant to rule 24.2 of the civil Procedure Rules, because the claimant has no real prospect of success, and there is no compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at trial.

 

Under section 10 of the N244 I will tick the box which says I will rely on the attached Witness Statement. My Witness Statement will say something like,

 

 

The claimant denies, in their Witness statement of xxx , paragraph xx, that the defendant can issue a counterclaim based on unfair charges levied on the credit card account because of the judgment of the Supreme Court of 25th November 2009. This judgment was made on bank charges levied on personal current accounts in respect of unauthorised overdrafts and has no relevance to the counterclaim, which is based on charges levied on a credit card account.

 

I will also include paragraphs on the removal of credit entries/ defaults, (which was part of my counterclaim), and a concluding statement asking for summary judgment and costs. But the above paragraph is the crux of my argument. Is it too short? Is it strong enough? Do I need to state that I believe the c c company have deliberately mislead the court?

 

Any ideas appreciated.

 

BAE

Edited July 27, 2011 by Blossomandebony

[Blossomandebony]

I've now received a second hearing date from the court. Whoopee!!!

 

The first one is in about 2 month's time and is to hear the claimant's case to throw my defence and counterclaim out and be awarded Summary Judgment. The second hearing is a month later and is the main hearing, to be heard in the Small Claims Court.

 

Not sure if the court has got this right. If the first hearing results in Summary Judgment against me, then why give a date for the main hearing? Surely the main hearing date is only set AFTER the Summary Judgment Hearing???

 

The court letter also states that there is a fee of over #150 to be paid by the claimant for the 2nd hearing - I think that this means the original claimant, Lloyds, and not me, the counterclaimer???

 

BAE

[Blossomandebony]

The court letter also added that if the claimant does not pay the 'Hearing Fee' by xxxx, then the hearing will be removed from the list.

 

BAE

[Blondie40]

Hi,

 

I recently received an N1 claim against me for #2000 credit card debt.

 

I have issued a defence based on them owing me #3000 worth of charges on the account - hence I have counterclaimed for #1000.

 

 

 

Sorry don't get this. If claim is for only £2000, where have you got £3000 worth of charges from? Is claim not for full debt on card?

[Blossomandebony]

Hi Blondie,

 

Lloyds originally sued me for #2000., (the debt on my credit card when it defaulted).But because there are #3000 worth of charges on the account I am counterclaiming against them for #1000. Does that clear it up?

 

BAE

[bazaar]

no, not cleared up, you counterclaim for 3000. by your calculations you'll still owe them 1000

[Jasper1965]

You would claim 2,000 as 'set off' in the defence but to get the extra 1,000 you would need to counterclaim

[Blondie40]

Hi Blondie,

 

Lloyds originally sued me for #2000., (the debt on my credit card when it defaulted).But because there are #3000 worth of charges on the account I am counterclaiming against them for #1000. Does that clear it up?

 

BAE

 

NO.

 

Why aren't Lloyds suing for full amount including charges?

 

Is it £2000 + £3000 (charges) = £5000?

 

or is it £2000 + £1000 (charges) = £3000?

 

How are "£3000 worth of charges on the account" made up?

 

Are these "charges" those incurred over the lifetime of the account (interest) or since the account defaulted?

 

When was the account defaulted?

 

B40

[Blossomandebony]

When my account defaulted there was a balance of £2000 owed to Lloyds.

 

When I checked statements over the last 6 years, I found that they had levied charges and interest on those charges that added up to £3000.

 

Therefore I owe them £2000 but they owe me £3000.

 

The difference is £1000. This is the amount that I am suing them for.

 

BAE

[Blondie40]

When my account defaulted there was a balance of £2000 owed to Lloyds.

 

When I checked statements over the last 6 years, I found that they had levied charges and interest on those charges that added up to £3000.

 

Therefore I owe them £2000 but they owe me £3000.

 

The difference is £1000. This is the amount that I am suing them for.

 

BAE

 

 

See where you are coming from now. If I might ask: What are the charges over the last 6 years for?

 

Also is it S C M acting for claimants?

 

Is your defence just on them owing you £3000 of charges?

Edited August 8, 2011 by Blondie40

[Blossomandebony]

Hi,

 

Yes - SCM are the solicitors.

 

The charges are for overlimit and late payments.

 

Yes - my defence and counterclaim are based on the charges aspect only, it's simpler and (hopefully) will prove effective.

 

What's laughable is that, in response to my defence, they have issued a witness statement which boasts about 3 pages talking about the validity of the Default Notice and Copy of the Agreement - none of which I have even mentioned, let alone queried! It is an obvious cut and paste job of a witness statement that they have used on 1000s of other claims. Sad really. Hence, I don't think they're particularly on the ball with my case. Anyway, we'll see at the forthcoming Summary Judgment Hearing - I can't believe they'll get judgment at this stage but you never know . . .

 

Are you in the same boat, Blondie?

 

BAE

[Blondie40]

Hi,

 

Yes - SCM are the solicitors.

 

The charges are for overlimit and late payments.

 

 

How many times did you go over the limit and make late payments to get £3000.

 

Hi,

 

Yes - my defence and counterclaim are based on the charges aspect only, it's simpler and (hopefully) will prove effective.

 

BAE

 

If you have only defended on this then I think (in IMHO) you may well lose.

 

Hi,

 

 

What's laughable is that, in response to my defence, they have issued a witness statement which boasts about 3 pages talking about the validity of the Default Notice and Copy of the Agreement - none of which I have even mentioned, let alone queried! It is an obvious cut and paste job of a witness statement that they have used on 1000s of other claims. Sad really. Hence, I don't think they're particularly on the ball with my case. Anyway, we'll see at the forthcoming Summary Judgment Hearing - I can't believe they'll get judgment at this stage but you never know . . .

 

 

BAE

 

If the Judge accepts their witness statement then it does not matter if it is a cut and paste job.

 

Have you checked the agreement and Default Notice - do they comply? If you have not queried or challenged these in anyway, then unless you can prove the charges are unlawful they will get Summary Judgment. If claimant points these charges out to the judge in their agreement/T&Cs and you have not challenged the agreement/T&Cs then the Judge will accept them.

 

 

Hi,

 

 

Are you in the same boat, Blondie?

 

BAE

 

Was, but settled. Agreement had no signature(s), T&C's they gave had different interest rates than those on 'copy application form/agreement' and 'reconstituted agreement' and DN was defective.

 

Claim was stayed, claimant indicated they wanted to settle after stay lifted - I made a Full and Final settlement with each party meeting own costs - they accepted.

 

Whilst I felt I had a good defence against claim, did not want to risk the DJ Lottery.

 

I wish you the best of luck, as I think you will need it.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Blondie40

[Blossomandebony]

 

 

 

If you have only defended on this then I think (in IMHO) you may well lose.

 

 

 

 

There is no sense in defending a claim on invalid points, any DJ will see through them. In fact you would only make things worse by appearing tro be trying to squirm your way out of a debt. How many times have we heard DJs saying, 'You spent the money so you pay up'?

[Blossomandebony]

H

 

 

If the Judge accepts their witness statement then it does not matter if it is a cut and paste job.

 

.

 

It is a witness statement so - obviously - the judge has to read it! Whether he believes it is a different matter. . .

[Blossomandebony]

Was, but settled. Agreement had no signature(s), T&C's they gave had different interest rates than those on 'copy application form/agreement' and 'reconstituted agreement' and DN was defective.

 

Claim was stayed, claimant indicated they wanted to settle after stay lifted - I made a Full and Final settlement with each party meeting own costs - they accepted.

 

Whilst I felt I had a good defence against claim, did not want to risk the DJ Lottery.

 

I wish you the best of luck, as I think you will need it.

 

They had an agreement with no signature!!!

 

Therefore you could not lose - they would have discontinued and you could have claimed costs!

 

BAE

[Alloyz1]

I disagree, the invalid defence is more than strong if approached correctly.

 

DJ's have ruled against, but only when the "Claimant" "Does not acknowledge the debt"..... very weak.

 

However as the "defendent" and arguing "Compliance with the law".... strong

 

Blondie40 is on the ball with this (IMHO)

[Blossomandebony]

I disagree, the invalid defence is more than strong if approached correctly.

 

(IMHO)

 

Hi,

 

I think you have misinterpreted what I made by saying there is no sense in defending on 'invalid' points.

 

In my case there is a valid agreement. I have never tried to argue otherwise. The DN is invalid because it contains charges but DJs will look usually view defences simply based on this fact dismissedly. So to try and defend on issues like these would make no sense.

 

BAE

[Alloyz1]

There is no sense in defending a claim on invalid points, any DJ will see through them. In fact you would only make things worse by appearing tro be trying to squirm your way out of a debt. How many times have we heard DJs saying, 'You spent the money so you pay up'?

 

Well i think what you said is fairly clear! Not acknowledging the debt is a weak defence if there is proof of use of the account. But that was my point, a defence based on points of compliance with law is a much stronger position as the defedant.

 

Points of validity do fall short when arguing from the point of a claimant and not acknowledging the debt.

 

But putting the claimant to strict proof of compliance and having a yard stick to measure compliance i.e. the law, is a strong arguement.

 

Like i said, it depends on the approach, defence etc