Jump to content


madpriest

Bounced Cheque - Cause for Action for Damages? ** VICTORY IS MINE **

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2198 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I'm a vicar of a small rural church which has an account with Santander (previously A+L, Previously Girobank) for our 'Restorationn Fund".

 

In April I received a letter that said that unless we used the account it would be classed as DORMANT. (Its got about 5K in it)

 

I telephoned them and told them not to make it dormant as we need to use it from time to time when we have work to do on the church.

 

The person on the phone said she would email the team dealing with it to tell them this. (This was noted on the file). I heard nothing more so assumed that this was done.

 

At the beginning of this month I issued two cheques for around £600 and £700 which we returned with the big stamp "PAYMENT STOPPED". The inference from this, was that I stopped it.

 

When I telephoned again, they told me that the account was dormant and that I had to apply for it to be made LIVE (which I've done)

 

I believe that bouncing someones cheque, especially when there are funds available could lead to an action for damages to our reputation, stress etc etc.

 

It's particularly bad in that I STILL have had no letter saying that they had bounced the cheque nor did I get a telephone call to ask why a dormant account had become live - which I consider negligent.

 

Obviously our reputation is important because churches are other charities are expected to have the highest levels of probity,

 

How can I start an action for damages? Are there any standard bits of forms, paperwork etc that someone can point me towards?

 

Thanks for your help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds very unfair of them.

 

I would say that you have a very good basis for bringing an action for damages. Please start off by reading all of the information about BCOBS (follow the link).

 

Secondly, I think that you need to write to them immediately to find out what their policy is in relation to dormant accounts. I wonder if they have one which deals with your circumstances. I won't be surprised if there is no policy at all and they are just making it up as they go along. This would be very helpful to you. More Hail Marys for the bank, I think.

I think that you should find out what a dormant account actually implies. In particular what interest rate does it earn? I can imagine that it pays a smaller rate of interest than if the account was live - and if that is the case, then it means that the banks are acting in their own interests at the expense of your interests. Oh Dear. Oh Dear oh Dear.

 

Have you incurred any charges as a result of the bounced payments and has there been any impact on God's credit rating?? Pretty serious if it has.

 

I expect that the bank won't really want to respond on the policy question - especially if they don't have one - and you will get - "we have 8 weeks" letter. This would be unacceptable to me but you will have to judge what it means to you. Do you want to fall in with their way of doing things or do you want to set the timescales and take control.

 

I am pretty sure that the bank wouldn't want to go to court on this - especially against a church - so I think that you are in a good position to demand a good contribution to whatever needy cause you have in mind.

 

Don't make any complaint yet, then. Do your BCOBS homework, gather information then begin your complaint and if they repent not, despair not - hand out the Good News and reveal unto them the wisdom in Galatians 6:7

 

 

 

We'll be very pleased to help you all the way.

 

Verily.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bankfodder - thanks for that.

 

I've trawled through the BCOBS material (A sure cure for imsomnia!)

 

I seen two possible causes for action.

 

a. Failure to communicate properly

(They did not inform me that they had finally made my current account 'dormant')

 

b. Making my account dormant when I specifically told them verbally not to do so.

This was noted on their file and an email sent from the teelephone banking centre to the

dorman department advising them of my request.

 

c. Further failure to communicate when a cheque appeared on the account and bouncing it

marking it "PAYMENT STOPPED" - an outright lie - I didn't stop it unless they mean that they did but the inference to the

company receiving the cheque was that I stopped it. I would have expected that good communication would have demanded that

the appearance of a cheque on a dormant account should have meant a phone call to me.

 

Out of interest --- to date ---- I still have had no letter telling me about the bounced cheque.

 

Those are the BCOBS items.

 

Now in addition I am considered an action for defamation for bouncing the cheques.

 

What are my next steps on both the BCOBS and the defamation.

 

Blessings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just checked the Section 150 and it appears that BCOBS actions can only be started

by private persons !!

 

Hmm Any comments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that it means only private persons. I thought that they could also be started by micro-enterprises - and that may mean you.

 

However, it is not a problem.

You raise the issue of BCOBS much more simply by saying that it is incorporated into the contract and that be treating you unfairly, the bank have breached their contractual duties.

Have you read this:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19511542

 

I would steer well clear of defamation. It is a load of trouble and frankly it isn't worth the candle in these kinds of situations. I can imagine that you might need to get permission from your bishop to get involved in that. If you lost, you would be up for substantial costs.

 

A nice clean small claim for a modest sum should be enough for you to make your point in a way which is not forgotten too quickly.

 

As I said earlier, get the info about the policy and then we can discuss the best approach.

 

Thanks for the blessings. The last time I had some of those was after I took four strokes on the arse from my school headmaster. He would then give you a blessing - but it was in Latin - which has always seemed to be more kosher to me.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact I see that BCOBS is also actionable by "any other person"

person:

 

(in accordance with the Interpretation Act 1978) any person, including a body of persons corporate or unincorporate (that is, a natural person, a legal person and, for example, a partnership).4

 

 

 

http://www.fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/BCOBS/Sch/5


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, if you check out the Payment Services Regs 2009 - I think that you will find that they also have a statutory duty to inform you about any bounced payment. Around reg.54, I think or probably in that part of the regs.

 

Let us know if you find it


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BankFodder

 

Thank you so much for the extensive replies.

 

I've done a bit more research as follows:

 

BCOBS Sch 5 is clear that the Rights of action for damages is restricted to a "private person".

 

The rights of action of "any other person" is restricted to "Any rule in BCOBS which prohibits an authorised person from seeking to make provision excluding or restricting any duty or liability" which I don't think is the case here.

 

However ...

 

There is case law (Dontcha just love it!)

 

This revolves around the question of "What is a 'private person'"

 

Regulation 3(1)(b) of the Rights of Action Regulations allows for a person that is not an individual to be a private person

provided that he does not suffer the loss in the course of "carrying out business of any kind".

 

The interpretation of the phrase "carrying out business of any kind" was considered in Titan Steel Wheels v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2010] EWHC 211 (Comm). In Titan Steel Wheels, Smith J's preference was for the phrase to be given a wide meaning, emphasising the use of the words "of any kind". He was reluctant to accept the claimant's argument for a narrower interpretation of the phrase, such as that one-off trades, or trades that were not integral to a company's business would not involve it "carrying out business of any kind". (On the facts of the case, however, Smith J ruled that the claimant was not a private person, even on the claimant's proposed narrow interpretation.)

 

But just a cotton pickin' minute .......

 

In Titan Steel Wheels, Smith J also stated that charities and similar bodies are the "more obvious exceptions" to the broad assumption that corporate entities that sustain losses as a result of the purchase of financial products will usually be in business of some kind.

 

Ergo ........ As a charity We seem to have enough locus standii to proceed with action.

 

(Enough Latin for you ??)

 

Now I've had further conversations with the Bank and it appears that there is no written policy on Dormant Accounts but that it is usually after a period of 12 months of nil activity that one gets a warning letter that it is about to be made Dormant.

 

I telephoned them on 1st May saying "Dont do it".

The telephone banking centre sent an email to the appropriate department on 8th May telling them of my request.

 

The Industry Guidance for FSA Banking Conduct of Business Sourcebook at 5.16 states"

 

Quote

In advance of making an account dormant, following an extended period of inactivity, firms will write to the last known address asking whether the account should be kept open, unless mail has already been returned from that address or the account’s balance is below a de minimis level.

 

Where the customer responds, the account will be kept open

Endquote

 

With 5K in the account it cannot be regarded as de minimus although the "Industry Guidance" isn't the same as the law, I think it still carries weight IMHO.

 

Continuing to the statutory duty to inform me that they were bouncing the cheque. I've looked through Payment Services Regs 2009 and can't find it.

However, the bank will argue (as they have done) that if the account is dormant, no further communication is sent !!

 

Finally, I hear you when you say that libel is a difficult area. You might be right - but I;ve been itching to take one of these boys on since my previous spat with Experian.

 

I might still do it as the principle of a bank bouncing a cheque when there are funds available is quite clear. Getting a simple BCOBS action might net me £100 or so. I'm looking for sufficient funds to repair the church roof.

 

Finally as far as 'four strokes on the arse' whilst being blessed with Latin. Sadly we are not permitted to do things like that anymore :-)

 

 

Solo Deo Gloria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK - thanks for the info.

Could you link me to the source which supports your view of the rights of any other person. I hadn't understood that before. Ta.

 

Regardless of your locus to bring a BCOBS action directly - BCOBS applies generally and where it cannot be enforced by private action, it can be enforced by the FSA. However it will be a cold day in Hell before the FSA takes any kind of action like that against a bank without a very substantial weight of complaints - and probably a lot of political pressure. Private Eye says that FSA stands for Fundamentally Supine Authority.

 

However, as I have indicated, the BCOBS rules - and the others in the FSA handbook are incorporated into the contractual terms and conditions. This hasn't been tested - but it must be true and it would be very funny to see a bank argue that they weren't.

If you brought a BCOBS action directly, then you would be bringing a Part 8 action and asking for a declaration. This would be a hugely satisfying thing to achieve but you would really be waking up a sleeping giant, and there would be a grave risk of costs if you lost because it is unlikely that such a novel action would be allocated to the small claims track.

Much easier to sue for a breach of contract and rely on a breach of an implied terms of the contract - BCOBS.

Not quite as useful as a BCOBS declaration, it still wouldn't be a bad start and would be easier, cheaper and less risky. I'm trying hard to keep you out of harms way.

 

I gather that you have been calling the bank on the phone. You should not do this. You need these replies in writing. Do you have the name of the person you spoke to and who made these useful admissions.

 

I really do think that you must get written confirmation as to their dormant account policy - or lack of - and what their practice is..

 

Also, you need to know - in writing - what the interest rate on a dormant account it.

 

You certainly won't get a new roof - but you should get more that £100.

 

By all means sue directly in BCOBS if you want - and in libel. We'll help all you can but I think that you will be getting in deep water - and an assessment for damages in defamation would still broadly based upon the damage caused.

 

How many people knew that the payments had been bounced. Not very many, I expect. I can't imagine that you would get more than very few £grand - and considerable trouble and risk - and it could take a couple of years.

 

Solo Deo - with a little help from your friends


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BankFodder - Cheers for that

 

Re rights to proceed with action -- Try this http://fs.practicallaw.com/5-504-4195#a283174

 

I've asked for details of their dormant policy and terms and conditions to be sent to me so we will wait and see.

 

I take your point about phone calls but I did record it !!

 

Regarding BCOBS - I understand about the implied breach of contact but I didnt understand about a Part 8 action. Whats that about?

I do understand about it not being allocated to the small claims track. Multi Track can be a tad expensive !!

 

I'll keep this thread posted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the enormously helpful reference.

I can see now that there is something which I have not properly understood.

 

A part 8 action is an action which you bring where you are seeking something other than a money settlement - a declaration or a court order.

 

Having looked at the reference you have linked in your post, I now realise that that I have taken a completely incorrect approach to this.

 

I think that the matter is much simpler than I had stated. Forget what I said about declarations and part 8 - it is nonsense - and not necessary.

 

Simply start a normal part 7 - Small Claims action to recoup the value of the harm you have suffered by their unfair treatment of you in breach of BCOBS.

 

I don't know why I didn't see this before. Thank you for this Damascene moment - although it's probably all in a day's work for you.

 

Well done on recording your calls. If only more people did that, life would be much easier.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly off topic, but can I suggest you change bank accounts. We also had enormous problems with Santander event to the degree that we could not place adverts on Autotrader as it flagged up us a fraudulent site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BankFodder

 

Thanks as always ..

 

Still no receipt of Dormant Policy - we await expectantly although I think its in the terms and conditions as follows:

 

Quote

If you do not make any transactions on your account for

one year in the case of current accounts and five years in the case of savings accounts then we may treat your account as being dormant to remove the risk of fraudulent activity. This means that we will stop sending you statements and letters

Endquote

Next Item - As far as I can see and based on advice from the Financial Ombudsperson, there is no statutory duty to inform me that they had bounced my cheques.

There is also no BCOBS provisions re Dormant Accounts certainly in the 'R' sections, i.e. 'actionable'. Just some 'core commitments'.

You could argue that communication has been 'unfair', in that they failed to communicate re bounced cheque and failed to honour a communication not to make an account dormant.

If I was to start to make a POC, which BCOBS provision(s) would you suggest I rely on and if you were to put your wet finger in the air, have a stab at 'quantum'. I've had no real loss except time, patience, research and telephone calls. I was going to make a nominal claim for £100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are no losses of interest as it was a current account.

Out of interest, the account is STILL blocked despite requesting on 21st of the Month that it be made live.

This is like walking through treacle.

Blessings

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bounced cheques were returned to the payee weren't they? - not to you. You have not received any notification at all - correct?

 

(1) Subject to paragraph (4), where a payment service provider refuses to execute a payment order, it must notify the payment service user of—

(a)the refusal;

(b)if possible, the reasons for such refusal; and

©the procedure for rectifying any factual errors that led to the refusal.

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/209/regulation/66/made

 

In respect of the loss you may have suffered. In the Beginning you referred to the reputation of the church but in your latest post you are referring only to losses incurred by you personally - as an employee of the church.

 

You have to decide what your heads of damage are - but I do think that the church reputation is important so I would have thought that maybe £200 might be a good target. This is still a modest claim.

 

However, you must also consider what you will do if (probably when) the bank decides to buy you off.

 

You would normally be obliged to accept the settlement and discontinue the claim. However if there is a good reason for continuing, you are entitled to proceed and to try and get a judgment.

For my part, I would be pleased to see you do this - but I have an agenda - which is to set a BCOBS and PSR example for others. - So be aware that I am not impartial.

 

I would still like to know what interest rate your money was earning while it was dormant. I think that you are entitled to an account statement


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BankFodder - Thanks for that extremely useful citation of the Payment Services Regulations. I guess I can bundle this in as an implied condition of contract.

 

Losses - Sorry but it was inaccurate use of language. It is a church account and I act as a public office holder of the church

and the losses are specifically theirs and I act in their name.

 

Interest? - None - Its a current a/c that pays no interest.

 

Heads of damage - Yes Reputation - I think the £200 is rather low. The standard seems to be £1000 + the value of the cheque per incident.

(See Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society at 'General - The guy wanted special damages but didnt get them. He was left with the original

general damages which were £1K + Cheque value) - I reckon that defaming the reputation of the Church of England has got to be worth a lot more -

although methinks recent shananigans at General Synod means it dont take much to destroy the rep !!!)

 

Let's see --- I'm more than happy to proceed with action frankly because I'm not going to fret about £200.

 

It would be great if I could get a solicitor/barrister to take on a conditional fee arrangement for the defamation !!

 

I would really then have fun !!

 

Blessings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no - I still havent been notified by the bank that my cheque has bounced and I have creditors chasing me because the account is still locked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better and better.

 

Make a detailed note of everything that has happened. - and keep it updated

Make a separate note of all of the inconvenience you have suffered - and keep it updated

Keep a note of reputational damage. Keep notes of conversations, phone calls from creditors etc.

 

On quantum - you have done more homework than I have - but make sure that you can justify it if it comes to court. You have to be able to be able to set out very clearly the various ways you have suffered any damage and you have to be able to justify each head of damage and show the judge that you are not just trying to profit from the situation.

 

Are you sure that the dormant account earns no interest?

That would be extraordinary because it means that the bank have locked your money away. They are investing it and yet they give you no return at all. this is hugely unfair and it is an abuse. I would double check this if I were you. If the bank says that they have incurred costs administering your dormant account then that is their fault. They should have done what they agreed to do.

 

I really would leave the defamation element alone. I don't think that it is much of an earner. Also if you can get a grand for reputation damage on this action - you won't get a duplicate payout in a defamation action.

 

So if you want to start, begin drafting your N1.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BankFodder

 

We press on. I'll let you have a draft N1 as and when.

 

Meantime, I take your point as to your agenda and subtext

being getting BCOB and PSR admitted as part of the contract.

 

What would be the reasoning if the bank deny that these are part of the contract? Why in your opinion is it important?

 

As I say, the monetary value is so low, that I may take a punt on it anyway.

 

I've decided not to persue the defamation as these can only be started in the High Court. Would be interested to see how it can be woven into my N1 as a side issue but I reckon Section 66 of the PSR should do it with the right to bring action clear in Section 120.

 

Blessings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defamation actions can be started in the County Court. Under CPR 27 they can potentially even be run as a small claim, I think. In fact you used to be able to have a jury trial fro Defamation in the County Court before a jury of 8.

 

I can't imagine that the bank would dare deny that BCOBS and PSR obligations were part of the contract - it owuld be a hoot if they did.

 

However as you have pointed out, BCOBS stands on its own. PSR probably needs to be implied into the contract - but I don't see any judge disagreeing.

The contract is subject to UK law.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that.

 

I came across a new word - "yeahbut"

 

Leaving aside all the arguments, and leaving aside the question of money, why would we want to persue the BCOBS line? What are we asking the court for? Some kind of statement that its valid? and how does that help everyone else? I mean I'm ready to go for it

but what does it buy?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is just another head of claim. The more ways you can demonstrate that the bank have wronged you, the better it is.

For instance, a bank might act within their terms and conditions - and so they would say that they were permitted to do XYZ by the account contract - which you agreed to.

However, various rules say that the contract must be fair and must be operated fairly. If a contract is operated unfairly then the bank will have breached their overriding statutory obligations.

 

The bank might say that they have no contractual duty to inform you that an account is dormant. In fact that is probably true - because it is axiomatic that the holder of an unused account may not be traceable.

So what is your response? Your response is to say,

a) that the bank has a statutory duty to treat you fairly.

 

If a judge agrees that the bank has not acted fairly towards you and that they have breached the BCOBS duty, you then have a powerful judgment in your hand which you could sned to the FSA as part of a formal complaint.

 

If the bank feels that they might lose on a breach of statutory duty, it is likely to concentrate their mind.

 

I don't know if that asnwers your question.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this for a POC

 

The names and places have been changed to protect the innocent

 

IN THE SMITHSVILLE COUNTY COURT

 

 

Between

The Sequestrators and Parochial Church Council

of St Peter the Great – Great Yarmouth - Claimant

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

Santander Bank - Defendant

 

 

 

Particulars of Claim

The claimants are the parties responsible in law for the affairs of the church of St Peter the Great in Great Yarmouth Norfolk and are a consumer as defined in the FSA Sourcebook and are deemed a private person for the purposes of Section 150 of the Financial Service and Markets Act 2000 and Section 120 of the Payment Services Regulations 2009.

The defendant is a firm regulated by the FSA under the Financial Service and Markets Act 2000 and as such is subject to the Banking:Conduct of Business Regulations (BCOB) 2009 which requires inter alia that firms treat their customers fairly (R.5.1.1).

The defendant is also subject to the Payment Services Regulations 2009.

 

From 1999 the defendant or it’s predecessors have supplied current account services to the claimant - account reference number 515 2134 2345 - subject to contract being the “General Terms and Conditions – Current Accounts and Savings Accounts (including Cash ISA’s) and the implied conditions of contract contained in the Banking:Conduct of Business Regulations (BCOB) 2009 and the Payment Services Regulations 2009.

The claimant has held this account with the defendant for 13 years and the account has at all times been run satisfactorily

In breach of contract and their statutory duty to the claimant, the defendant acted unfairly in that they:

- classified the claimant’s account dormant despite being requested not to do so;

- failed to communicate to the claimant that it had done so;

- returned two cheques unpaid despite there being sufficient funds available;

- and failed to communicate to the claimant that the cheques had been returned unpaid.

By virtue of the above unfairness the claimant has suffered loss, inconvenience and defamation.

Particulars of loss

Cost of Telephone Calls - £3.00

Cost of Transcription - £20.00

Cost of Postage and Special Delivery £8.00

Cost of Research £100.00

Total - £131.00

Particulars of inconvenience

The claimant has had to spend much time in dealing with the defendant by telephone calls etc and to dealing with creditors whose payments were returned.

 

Particulars of Defamation

 

Any church or charity has to operate with the highest levels of probity. The return of the cheques to the payee with the false assignation “Payment Stopped” has cast doubts on the integrity of the church and of it’s officers.

 

 

And the claimant claims £131.00 compensation for actual loss plus damages not exceeding £200.00 for inconvenience to be decided by the court plus damages not exceeding £3300.00 for defamation plus exemplary damages as the court sees fit plus interest pursuant to s.69 County Courts Act 1984

 

 

I believe that the fact laid out in this particulars of claim are true

 

 

Signed

 

Date

Edited by madpriest
tpos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice indeed.

I think that you have missed your true vocation.

 

You should number the paragraphs for ease of reference by the judge and by the defendants.

 

Also, I think that you need to specify the duty in the PSR to inform you of a refused payment order and then allege that this is precisely what they did.

 

Also, I strongly think that you should avoid the word "defamation" even though in effect that is what it is. I think that you should merely allege loss and damage.

 

Particularise the loss in terms of a) special losses - qualtifiable in terms of value - phone calls, time etc. Cost of research is probably not a valid head because this would equate to the cost of preparing the case and that head would only be allowable if the case was allocated to other than the small claims track. You should, though, specify the time it has taken you to sort out the mess - and continuing??

b) general damages - non-quantifiable losses left to the discretion of the court - your reputation not exceeding £XXX. Don't specify exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are punitive. They are not about repairing a damaged reputation.

 

Let's have a look when you have assimilated that lot into it.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi thanks for your kind comments. If I win the lottery, I'll take up a new hobby - vexatious litigant :-)

 

 

Here's my second attempt. The cost of research is not for preparation of case but costs

of research to find out out position so unless you feel otherwise.

 

Out of interest - would the court fees be on the £131 or the £4500. I've kept it under 5K in order to try and keep it in

SmallClaims Track? I wondered whether if we left this to 'the discretion of the court' it would be classed as 'unspecified'?

 

Anywhere - what do u think?

 

Particulars of Claim

(1)

The claimants are the parties responsible in law for the affairs of the church of St Peter the Great in Great Yarmouth Norfolk and are a consumer as defined in the FSA Sourcebook and are deemed a private person for the purposes of Section 150 of the Financial Service and Markets Act 2000 and Section 120 of the Payment Services Regulations 2009.

(2)

The defendant is a firm regulated by the FSA under the Financial Service and Markets Act 2000 and as such is subject to the Banking:Conduct of Business Regulations (BCOB) 2009 which requires inter alia that firms treat their customers fairly (R.5.1.1).

The defendant is also subject to the Payment Services Regulations 2009.

 

(3)

From 1999 the defendant or it’s predecessors have supplied current account services to the claimant - account reference number 515 2134 2345 - subject to contract being the “General Terms and Conditions – Current Accounts and Savings Accounts (including Cash ISA’s) and the implied conditions of contract contained in the Banking:Conduct of Business Regulations (BCOB) 2009 and the Payment Services Regulations 2009.

The claimant has held this account with the defendant for 13 years and the account has at all times been run satisfactorily

(4)

In breach of contract and their statutory duty to the claimant, the defendant acted unfairly in that they:

- classified the claimant’s account dormant despite being requested not to do so; Contrary BCOB 2009 R5.1.1.

- failed to communicate to the claimant that it had done so; Contrary BCOB 2009 R5.1.1.

- returned two cheques unpaid despite there being sufficient funds available; Contrary BCOB 2009 R5.1.1

- and failed to communicate to the claimant that the cheques had been returned unpaid contrary to it’s statutory duty under Section 66 Payment Services Regulations 2009

By virtue of the above unfairness and breach of statutory duty the claimant has suffered loss, inconvenience and damage.

(5)

Particulars of loss

Cost of Telephone Calls - £3.00

Cost of Transcription - £20.00

Cost of Postage and Special Delivery £8.00

Cost of Research £100.00

Total - £131.00

Particulars of inconvenience

The claimant has had to spend much time in dealing with the defendant by telephone calls etc and to dealing with creditors whose payments were returned.

Particulars of Damage

 

Any church or charity has to operate with the highest levels of probity. The return of the cheques to the payee with the false assignation “Payment Stopped” has cast doubts on the integrity of the church and of it’s officers.

 

 

And the claimant claims £131.00 compensation for actual loss plus damages not exceeding £4500 for inconvenience and damage to reputation to be decided by the court plus interest pursuant to s.69 County Courts Act 1984

 

 

I believe that the fact laid out in this particulars of claim are true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The court fee will be levied on the maximum possible value of the claim -= £4.5k in this case.

Your paragraph numbering should descend to 4.a, 4.b etc

 

I think that the value of the claim is unrealistic.

That's not a problem because the judge will apply his discretion.

However, the heads of claim break new ground in a way and generally the claim will look more credible if it were more modest.

 

On the other hand, only you can understand what this event has meant in relation to the hurt to the reputation of the church - and it will be you who will have to make the case for the value you are seeking.

 

I still think that research is about case preparation. Even if it were claimable, you would not be dealing with it at this juncture.

On the other hand, you haven't listed the time it has taken you to sort the mess out - both dealing with the bank and dealing with the creditors.

 

I think that you need to reflect on the value you are asking for and whether it is achievable.

 

 

As I said, there is no claimable interest element here - so best not to clutter the claim with unachievable objectives.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...