Reclaiming Santander Credit Card Charges

[Womble68]

Hi All,

 

I currently have an ongoing legal claim in the county court against Santander reclaiming credit card charges.

 

All charges in question were applied to the account whilst PPI was on the account, this PPI has subsequently been accepted as having been miss-sold following another claim through the county court. Santander accepted all points in my POC but still managed to drag the case out for another year all the while applying penalty charges to the account.

 

After unsuccessfully attempting to get the bank to repay the charges I filed in court & their new solicitors are playing all kinds of intimadatory hardball in attempts to either have me drop the case by intimidation or have the case set aside.

 

I was just wondering if some of the greater minds on here could have a quick look at some of the paper work & offer some advice.

 

Additionally it it possible to discontinue a case which has had no trial date set so has not been adjudges & the file a new claim at a later date?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Womble68]

Through further reading it appears that despite the fact that I used a standard POC from the library Santanders solicitors are going to apply to the court for a summary judgement on the grounds that I have no prospect of winning so no trial is needed & that my claim is an abuse of process & also despite it being allocated to the small claims track they are asking for costs against me.

 

So it appears that Santander think that it's okay that they & GE took my money for a PPI & then refused to pay out when I was made redundant okay to even when redundant apply charges to the account as a result of them not paying the PPI & even after admitting the miss selling to the court & having judgement made against them & dragging the court settlement out for a year after the miss selling (all the time adding more charges to the account) they are still trying to keep the charges & their solicitors even want me to pay for the privilege of being shafted by them. These people really are ****.

 

Any input from someone with more knowledge than me would be much appreciated as I though I had this one sussed as I had used the POC before with no problems but they argued everything & have got me a little worried now.

[rebel11]

Hi Womble68

 

Hopefully someone with advanced knowledge in this type of matter will pop along shortly. Have you looked at COBS?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?834-Fair-Treatment-for-Credit-Card-Holders-and-Borrowers

[Womble68]

Hi Rebel11,

 

Thanks for your reply I have looked at COBS previously & was considering this anyway & this may be a way to go in the future. I filed in April using the standard charges POC, Santanders solicitor missed the deadline to file a response but managed to get it in before my request for summary judgement have attempted to bully me into discontinuing the case on a number of occasions with the threat of their increasing legal costs even though it's been allocated to the small claims track.

[Womble68]

They now made an application for summary judgement against me on various grounds, that I can not prove the charges are unfair & not what it costs them & have stated in an expert witness statement that I can't prove that wrong.

 

They have torn my POC apart in the areas that suit them but ignored the fact that I referred to the fact that PPI was charged on the account at all times that the charges were applied & also the fact that in a previous case judgement went against them & they had to repay the miss-sold PPI which was a sum far greater than the balance meaning that on a large number of occasiosn when they charged penalty fee's the balance was either made up for the large part of PPI fee's & interest charged on then, entirely of the fee's & interest & also the fact that if the PPI was removed on a large number of times when the charges were applied the account would have been in credit.

 

The problem I have now is that I am concerned that the court staff may now accept this application as they can do under CPR so I will have no opportunity to argue these facts or any others.

 

I was just wondering if there was any response that a claimant cant make to this kind of application by the defendant as I am now getting worried that they might get summary judgement based on their legal trickery & I might even have to meet their costs if they get away with their claim that my case is an abuse of process.

 

I am getting desperate with this one now & was just wondering if anyone with more experience could advise me or point me in the right direction as to what I do next.

[citizenB]

If there was mis sold PPI and they are to refund this, then they are supposed to return you to the position you would be if there was NO PPI added.

 

In which case, if it obvious that charges were added because of the PPI, then those charges should be removed or extinguished.

 

I will ask one of the PPI guys to look in on you and see if they can help.

[citizenB]

Do you have a court date for the Summary Judgment hearing ?

[Womble68]

Hi CitizenB,

 

Thanks for getting back to me so fast. No I don't have a court date or anything yet just the paperwork from their solicitors with the application for the judgement which of course invites me to discontinue the claim & pay all their costs (how nice of them).

 

Would there always be a summary judgement hearing as their application seems to imply they don't need one & invites the court to enter a summary judgement.

 

I can post any files you need to see.

[Womble68]

Sorry I missed your post about PPI in my haste to reply to your trial date query.

 

The PPI with Santander was a long & painful process that started way back with GE on a House of Fraser Card. I had PPI from around 1999 & in 2003 was made redundant just before Christmas. I attempted to claim & was sent claim forms or 3 occasions over a number of months all of which were returned completed but nothing. I continued to chase & harrass GE over this attempted to make a claim for miss selling which was dismissed on a number of occasions. Then the account was sold to Santander & I had to start the process of complaining all over again.

 

To cut a long story short they refused to pay out so I filed in court against them in April 2011 & the only defence they filed was a statue barred claim against the who thing. A trial was set to hear this claim & shortly before this they applied to the court to file a new defence which admitted everything except the value of my claim that was July 2011. In November 2011 Judgement was made against them with costs to be assessed by the court. We submitted our calculations as directed & a trial date was set but 3 days before in May 2012 Santander settled the claim in full. The account balance stood at around £1,000 whilst the settlement was £2,500. Due to my financial predicament during the period I incurred a number of late payment charges but since my balance was made up entirely of PPI & the interest applied to it I attempted to claim.

 

That's where we are now they refused to refund anything so I filed in court & their solicitors have argued all of the points in the charges POC from the library about fairness etc but ignored the elephant in the room, they were adding penalty charges to an account whose balance was made up almost solely of PPI charges & the interest which they had applied on those charges. Many of the charges applied after they admitted the miss-selling, & even after judgement. This bank really is low they even defaulted the account after the judge had entered judgement & they were supposed to have paid the claim but that didn't take too long to rectify.

 

Thanks again for your help mate, your input is much appreciated.

[slick132]

Hi Womble,

 

A simpler way to argue this may be that the penalty charges applied to the a/c are unlawful and should be refunded in any event.

 

This can be argued without referring to whether the penalties should or should not have been applied, due to the balance on the a/c being made up of PPI chgs.

 

[Womble68]

Hi Slick132,

 

Thanks for your input, what you suggested is exactly what I did.

 

I used the standard POC from the library to argue that the penalty charges applied to the account are unlawful and should be refunded I did however also include a paragraph referring to my PPi claim and the fact that the penalties should not have been applied due to the balance on the account PPI in an attempt to cover both angels.

 

They are really playing hard ball on this one arguing everything, in the POC regarding lawfulness and fairness. They have made an application to strike the claim out on the grounds that it has no chance of success & their lawyers really are threat monkeys threatening massive costs if I don't discontinue now and pay their costs so far.

 

I have to admit they do have me a little spooked.

 

Thanks again

 

Womble68

[slick132]

Hi Womble,

 

In the circumstances, I suggest you post up a copy of your POC's and of their Defence and their Appl'n to Strike Out.

 

Remove info that'll identify you and post up as a PDF. See the guide at post #122 here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?214191-HSBC-solicitors-northampton-claim-help-pls&p=3808613&viewfull=1#post3808613

 

[Womble68]

Hi Slick132,

 

Thanks for your fast response & my lack of response, things got hectic & I had to go away at the same time. To cut a long story short Santander's solicitors have filed their application ignoring everything I say & attempting to rail road me into dropping the case & paying all their fee's. So I consulted a local solicitor that I have used before & he was quite confident about my case he wrote me some letters but they had no effect. The set aside hearing is scheduled for the 14th & the case had been placed in the solicitors hands to deal with, not ideal I know but their bullying junior solicitor needs to realise that he's not dealing with a LIP anymore & see what happens when he has to deal with an experienced litigation specialist.

 

Thanks again for your input I'll let you know how things turn out.

[tedney]

Good Luck for Monday Womble68.

t

[Womble68]

Hi Tedney,

 

Thanks for your good wishes mate unfortunately they managed to get what they wanted & had my claim set aside

 

Santander have managed to get away with charging me late payment fee's on an account

who's balance was made up of miss-sold PPI charges which they admitted to.

 

The judges did make a number of interesting statements in his summing up that could have wide ranging implications on future cases,

 

I know that District Judges don't make case law but once Santander get the ruling from this one you can bet that they will try to use it to influence other judges.

 

I attempted to argue that the ruling in OFT v Abbey National handed down by the supreme court only applied to bank charges

& he stated that he believed that as a point of law by implication it must also apply to any situation where a bank provides a services & charges a fee

meaning in his eye's it applies to credit card penalty charges too.

 

Okay I didn't win but at least it's over,

 

it's just annoying that I have to pay Santander £500 costs now but at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that the charges they gained plus the £500 costs

in no way cover the more than £2,200 that they spent on legal fee's to get the application to set aside my claim through the court

 

so they are still £700 out of pocket

 

Bit of a hollow victory that one.

[tedney]

Sorry to hear your result Womble68. I wonder what other more knowledgeable people on here think about the ruling vis a vis credit card charges, as comments on here, especially on the "stickies" suggest that credit card charges are, as you tried to argue, not covered by the Abbey ruling. I was about to start a case myself on the same basis as yours. I will have to rethink now. Glad that you indirectly stuck them for £700.00 though:-D

[tedney]

Hello again Womble68, just posted this up on the "legailites" section on here. Thought you might like the link.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?405936-Is-this-correct&p=4368257#post4368257

[slick132]

Hi Wombles and sorry this ended badly for you.

 

The result of any hearing in court will always depend on the judge on the day.

 

Clearly your judge was wrong about the the implications of the case of The OFT v Abbey and others. That case decided on the treatment of bank current a/c default charges and it did not address credit card or loan account or catalogue or mortgage penalty charges.

 

All of these items are still fully reclaimable.

 

Did you present a Witness Statement to put forward your objections to the Strike Out application or were you given a chance argue that your case had merit ?

 

[Womble68]

Thanks, as soon as I have the judges ruling I'll post it up so that you can see his argument regarding OFT v Abbey National.

[Womble68]

Hi Slick,

 

Yes I did present a Witness Statement prepared for me by a solicitor to put forward my objections to the Strike Out application & I was given chance argue that your case had merit. The other sides barrister quoted OFT v Abbey National & when it was my chance to argue I attempted to argue that this case law applied only bank current current account overdraft default charges as stated by Lord Wilson in his ruling at paragraph 3 of the case & that it did not address credit card penalty charges so had no merit in my case & that I beleived that these items are still fully reclaimable.

 

The judges stated I can't remember his exact words but it was along the lines of OFT v Abbey does address bank charges so therefore as a point of law it must by definition also apply to other areas of service where a charge is levied by a bank for a service such as loans or credit cards & therefore in his opinion credit the case does relate to and have implications on card penalty charges.

[Womble68]

Thanks mate.

[slick132]

Thanks for the further info.

 

I'm afraid the court will simply send you confirmation that the judge granted the Application to Strike Out.

 

I doubt it will go into any detail about the reasons but wait and see.

 

I haven't mentioned this before but I assume you are not thinking of appealing the decision.

 

[Womble68]

Thanks again Slick, your right I wasn't planning on appealing the decision Santander have really played hard ball with this one I hate to let them win but maybe it's best in this case. Although I'm not sure being £1,700 out of pocket for them to defend a £1,000 claim is quite what I would call a win

[Conniff]

Obviously the judge is a shareholder and his pension depends on the banks success.