Joint Names - Striking Out Claims - Update March 07

[caro]

I am trying to get together better information on the issue of joint claims. I know that a number of Yorkshire Bank an Clydesdale Bank claimants are being threatened with their cases being struck out, but do not have specific details of why they say this.

 

If you have been affected by this issue could you please post in this thread exactly what the bank have said about your claim and if they have stated any CPR or legislation to back it up. If we have this information we can give better guidance on how to tackle it.

 

It may be wise if you are about to start a claim in joint names to issue the claim at the court using the N1 form, instead of using MCOL where people have found that there is only room for one name.

[katesage]

Hi Caro

 

Are you after info on current joint account holders (who are still together) claiming or separated persons claiming on a former joint account.

 

I am starting a claim tomorrow for a former joint mortgage account with Portman, that I held with an ex partner.

 

Portman have said that (in theory) I can deal with them on my own, but I am expecting problems.

 

My case is for 9k so would be fast tracked also.

[caro]

I was specifically thinking of Yorkshire Bank accounts to be honest, as they are threatening this, but I haven't heard of other institutions being a problem. Take a look at this and form your own opinion.

PART 19 - PARTIES AND GROUP LITIGATION

 

I think I will post in the legalities section too to see if others have had problems.

[katesage]

Thank you Caro....

 

From what I've heard about Yorkshire Bank, I'm really relieved not to be dealing with them.

 

Good luck to everyone up against them.

[Isiris]

This came to me today

We note that the account you have raised the action in realtion to is in joint names with your other half. However, the action has been raised in your sole name. You have therefore failed to comply with CPR 19.3 and your claim is liable to be struck out under CPR 3.4(2). Please advise within 7 days of the date of this letter whether you intend to apply to ammend the Particulars of Claim to include your other half as a party to the action. Should we not hear from you, we will apply to have the claim struck out, and will provide a copy of this letter yo the court.

[Isiris]

Am thinking of reply

 

1. You only ever chased me as I was the first named on the account AND I was the wage earner.

 

2. You dealt solely with me in all correspondance.

 

3. All letters from your solicitors were addressed to me and me alone.

 

4. You sent me a cheque in my name alone as an offer of partial settlement.

[caro]

Hm that's very interesting. All excellent points in my opinion, but would they hold up in court with an attempt to strike out. The thing is do you fight it and risk delays or do you amend the claim, and then I think (not sure) that there may be a need for a hearing to agree the amendment. I suppose if they suggest the amendment this may not be needed.

 

If I was you Isiris I thing I would phone the court and ask what, if any, action you need to take.

[Isiris]

Will phone now, and then report.

 

They also sent me a letter saying that they had not received a schedule of charges. I have phoned the courts and they say that they sent it.

[Isiris]

Right,I just spoken to my solicitors, AMS Law in Sheffield.

 

He went off and phoned me back following research and said that yes, there is possibly a point that my wife should have been applied as a claimant but he doubted very much whether any Judge would strike the claim out on the basis that the other half was not on the claim. He said also that he doubted whether CPR3.4(2) was the relevant part but possibly would come under CPR 3.4(3)

 

He said he could not see what the benefit would be off them insisting that I added my wife onto the claim and he advised me to contact them to point this out.

 

he also had a bit off a laugh saying it seemed very picky and if this was all they could rely on then i shouldnt have anyhting to worry about. I told him I hadnt anyway LOL

[caro]

Wow that is very comforting. Thanks Isiris.

[zultar69]

i sent a covering letter saying that as a joint account is joint and several that i believed that i was able to claim alone and that i would add my wife onto the claim if the court thought it necesary and also that there was only room for 1 claimant on MCOL and ave today received a letter telling me that my claim as been allocated to the small claims track ....great stuff

[caro]

Pleased to hear it Zultar. It seems that YB are just getting desperate.

[tonyice]

Hi guys, check out my posts tony ice v yorks bank on this subject, they tried the same with me but i looked into it and found CPR19.6 (1) will most likely nullify their objection as it states any one of the involved parties can begin a claim. Ive faxed/wrote to Clydesdale legal services and informed them of this and so far had no reaction

[Isiris]

19.6 (1) Where more than one person has the same interest in a claim –

(a) the claim may be begun; or

(b) the court may order that the claim be continued,

 

 

by or against one or more of the persons who have the same interest as representatives of any other persons who have that interest.

 

 

 

Pretty conclusive that Tony

 

Well done

[Simon439]

excellent work on this issue you guys. I'm dealing with Barclays and I'm not aware that they have tried this particular tack as yet but I've made a note of all the relevant info just in case. More power to yer elbows and the best of luck.

 

Simon

[caro]

It will be interesting to see if YB/CB try this stunt again. Seems unlikely, but at least we have some good information here if anyone encounters the problem again.

 

Thanks everyone for your input.

[rascal3103]

Hi Caro,

 

My experience is the same as everybody above. I wrote to the court explaining the Joint and Several Liability issue. I have heard today that I have an allocation hearing on the 19th Jan, so it looks like it has not been struck off.

 

Rascal

[caro]

Well it seems this trick isn't working for YB. My only concern is, what will they dream up next.

[judi24]

My OH and I claimed through MCOL. I put both names on it - don't think I was supposed to. YB have not comented on this so far. They have until 5th Nov to defend. They have already tried to stall by saying I had not included specifics of the claim (which I had sent with all correspondence prior to the MCOL) But no mention yet of the joint names - so heres hoping!

[caro]

If it has both names you will have no problem.

[JulesTools]

Hi Caro,

Don`t know if this is of any helpto you but.....

As you know I am claiming against Yorkshire Bank for two accounts .One is my own account and the other is joint (me and the missus).

To avoid any confusion/delay I included both our names on the N1 and also put the wording at the bottom

 

"Mr Julian Roy Siddle (also acting in the interests of Mrs Lisa Dawn Siddle)"

 

So far there has been no query by either YB or the court as to the technicalities of a joint account claim.

 

Hope this is of some help

 

Jules

[caro]

Thanks Jules. I think it is probably safest to have both names, but at least no-one appears to have had a claim struck out if this has not happened.

[trundlecat]

I responded to YB thus:

 

"We did not respond to your recent letter regarding your change of defence as we do not want to be involved in your wasting the courts time because:

a. We cannot see the relevance of CPR 19.3 to this matter.

b. Yorkshire Bank are very aware the account was in joint names & would no doubt exercise the right to pursue either of us as individuals for collections should the situation have ever arisen. Due to this we do not see the logic or justice in insisting any claim against yourselves be in joint names.

c. Should you persist in this futile attempt to stall proceedings form N244 will be submitted to include Mr Trudlecat."

 

Also sent similar to the judge (but more polite) & he ignored their request for the case to be struck off.

[caro]

Thanks Trunny. I was quite surprised that YB resurrected this ploy given that it had been futile in your case.

[trundlecat]

They're just trying it on Caro & hoping people will have enough & stop persuing them. If you present a stubborn, quite aggresive front & refuse to go along with things they cave in (take my current default saga, the woman I spoke to was v unhelpfull & quite arrgesive but if you match them & appear not to be flustered or scared they roll straight over). They truly are just bullies, stand up to them & they back down.