over 6 years

[WILKINSS208]

any news

[Jaynekul]

Yes really interested to hear anything as ~I am now waiting for the date for the setaside. What happened with your claim Maybelline?

[moses]

Hi guys sorry have been away for a while but this is the state of affairs!

 

the court date (28 feb) came & I couldn't attend so phoned the court & asked to re-schedule.I was told that the judge would probably pass judgement anyway but they would put a note on my file.

 

Last Friday I received this letter from the court:

 

Upon hearing the defendant in person & the claimant not attending it is ordered that:

1) the judgement be set aside

2) the defendant do file & serve a defence by 4pm on 14 March 2007

 

You now know as much as me!!

[moses]

Does anyone know what happens next?

[Jaynekul]

They will file a Defence and the Court will then issue you with an Allocation Questionnaire. One this has been returned you will get an order for directions with a Hearing date

[moses]

spot on jaynekul the AQ arrived on the mat this morning! thanks:)

[crashbandicoot]

Excellent Moses, just proceed as normal now. You file yours, Halifax file theirs, and eventually you'll be issued with the final hearing date. Once you have this, closer to the date, Halifax will be calling you to settle. They waffle a lot initially to try and get you to concede for less. Make sure you stick to your guns in the conversation as it'll soon turn into a full settlement

[moses]

Many thanks, got lots more reading to do now!

 

I would just like to say I would have caved ages ago if it hadn't been for the patience advise & encouragement from the people on this site i love ya'll:D

[WILKINSS208]

this hasnt happened for me as yet. i have hearing next week and halifax have never rang me and also have defended claim and now requesting claim to be struck out.

i issued court bundle and they havent, just waited from jan to now to ask to be struck out. awaiting judges decision

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/44416-wilkins-halifax-6.html

[WILKINSS208]

halifax havent rang as yet and they have thrown something else in - click on link above

[moses]

Hi guys would anyone be able to help me with my AQ. I have read up on the limitations act arguement and have read the points put together in Wilkins's letter re the "goodwill gestures" and also Dads thread re the contract angle & now am very confused as to what to put in section "G" on the AQ.

 

The Halifax have paid the 6 years of charges into my account so are only defending the 2 years prior to 2000 their defence says:-

 

6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Defendant has, without admission of liability refunded £1275.82 to the Current Account. This sum represents all the bank charges that the Claimant has incurred in the 6 years prior to the issue of proceedings, being £846.00, together with interest of £309.82, and £120.00 in respect of the Court fee.

 

7. The Particulars of Claim state that the Claimant's claim is based on contrac and as such section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 applies. Section 5 states that an action founded on simple contract cannot be brought after the expiration of 6 years from the date on which the cause of action accrued, and accordingly, the Defendant submits that the balance of the Claimant's claim in the sum of £1629.37 (relating to charges applied to the account between 30 April 1998 and 31 December 1999) is statute barred.

 

8. It is therefore denied that the Defendant is liable to the Claimant for the sum of £1629.37 or for any other sum.

 

9. On the basis of matters pleaded above, the Defendant contends that the Claimant has no reasonable grounds for proceeding with his claim .. The Defendant respectfully requests that the court gives due consideration to whether the remainder of the Claim in the sum of £1629.37 should be "struck out" pursuant to CPR Part 3.4(2)(a) and the Practice Direction which supplements CPR Part 3.4.

DATED this 6th day of March 2007

 

I'm not very good at putting this stuff together & don't quite know where to start & how much detail I need to go into. The advise in the template section is for within 6 years ie the actual lawfulness of the charges & not limitations

 

Would really appreciate some assistance

Cheers x

[moses]

Well I've had a bash & wondered if someone could look at this & see if it has enough info in it or if it can be improved upon

 

pretty please:o

 

I am respectfully requesting that my claim be allocated to the small claims track.

 

I believe the case will last no longer than one hour.

 

This issue is not a complicated one; it is an issue of fact and not of law. The issue is only whether the money levied by the Defendant in respect of its customer’s contractual breaches exceed their actual costs incurred. I am happy to pay their actual costs and I am surprised the Defendant did not counterclaim for these, because I would have paid them without argument.

 

However, the continuing problem is (in common with the 100s of other cases currently being brought by other bank customers) that the banks refuse to reveal the details of their penalty-charging regime. As the banks have a fiduciary duty towards their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly and in utmost good faith.

 

Accordingly, I would respectfully ask that the attached draft direction be made into an order.

 

The Defendant has entered a defence on 12 March 2007 which I received on 14 March 2007. The Defendant asserted its rights under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (1980) but offered to refund charges levied on the Account between January 2000 and June 2003.

The letter is internally inconsistent in asserting the Defendant’s rights under the Limitation Act 1980 whilst offering to refund charges levied within the last six years.

 

I do not consider that Section 5 of the Limitation Act places a restriction on this claim.

 

If the claim is time barred by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 then I contend that the Defendant has concealed, and continues to conceal that the charges debited are unlawful. If this is not the case, and the Defendant truly believes that these charges are lawful, then I contend that the Defendant is mistaken and/or I paid them in the mistaken belief that they were lawful. As I only became aware during July 2006 that the charges debited were unlawful, then section 32(1)(b), or section 32(1)©, of the Limitation Act 1980 should apply, and the charges debited are therefore within the primary limitation period.

 

I am thus of the opinion that my claim indeed has substance and request the the claim be allowed to proceed to trail

[moses]

bump:(

[un1boy]

Well I've had a bash & wondered if someone could look at this & see if it has enough info in it or if it can be improved upon

 

pretty please:o

 

I am respectfully requesting that my claim be allocated to the small claims track.

 

I believe the case will last no longer than one hour.

 

This issue is not a complicated one; it is an issue of fact and not of law. The issue is only whether the money levied by the Defendant in respect of its customer’s contractual breaches exceed their actual costs incurred. I am happy to pay their actual costs and I am surprised the Defendant did not counterclaim for these, because I would have paid them without argument.

 

However, the continuing problem is (in common with the 100s of other cases currently being brought by other bank customers) that the banks refuse to reveal the details of their penalty-charging regime. As the banks have a fiduciary duty towards their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly and in utmost good faith.

 

Accordingly, I would respectfully ask that the attached draft direction be made into an order.

 

The Defendant has entered a defence on 12 March 2007 which I received on 14 March 2007. The Defendant asserted its rights under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (1980) but offered to refund charges levied on the Account between January 2000 and June 2003.

The letter is internally inconsistent in asserting the Defendant’s rights under the Limitation Act 1980 whilst offering to refund charges levied within the last six years.

 

I do not consider that Section 5 of the Limitation Act places a restriction on this claim.

 

If the claim is time barred by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 then I contend that the Defendant has concealed, and continues to conceal that the charges debited are unlawful. If this is not the case, and the Defendant truly believes that these charges are lawful, then I contend that the Defendant is mistaken and/or I paid them in the mistaken belief that they were lawful. As I only became aware during July 2006 that the charges debited were unlawful, then section 32(1)(b), or section 32(1)©, of the Limitation Act 1980 should apply, and the charges debited are therefore within the primary limitation period.

 

I am thus of the opinion that my claim indeed has substance and request the the claim be allowed to proceed to trail

 

Moses, I am no expert at all but that is exactly what I would have written.

 

Are you able to send me a copy of/link to the Limitation Act if I PM you my email address?

[moses]

I'll do my best:D

[un1boy]

I'll do my best:D

 

Cheers.

[moses]

Anybody there?

[un1boy]

Anybody there?

 

Yes! How can I help?

[moses]

Oh Hi

 

did you get my email?

 

Just waiting for someone to improve on the above cos as soon as I fill in the form someone's bound to come up with a great suggestion!

[moses]

I usually get an e mail when someone has posted onto a thread I've subscribed to but I'm not getting them today is there a problem?

[cascade]

Like wise moses. Think there is.

[cascade]

Today has been very busy due to the whistleblower programme last night. Could be something due to high traffic.

[moses]

Oh of course - I'm in Spain & hope my hubby has recorded it for me. Was it good?

[WILKINSS208]

HI

THIS IS ALL I PUT IN SECTION G AS YOU DONT NEED THAT MUCH AT THE MOMENT, DONT GIVE TOO MUCH AWAY AT THIS STAGE. PUT MORE IN COURT BUNDLE!

 

 

SECTION G:

 

I am respectfully requesting that my claim be allocated to the small claims track.

 

I believe the case will last no longer than one hour.

 

This issue is not a complicated one; it is an issue of fact and not of law. The issue is only whether the money levied by the Defendant in respect of its customer’s contractual breaches exceed their actual costs incurred. I am happy to pay their actual costs and I am surprised the Defendant did not counterclaim for these, because I would have paid them without argument.

 

However, the continuing problem is (in common with the 100s of other cases currently being brought by other bank customers) that the banks refuse to reveal the details of their penalty-charging regime. As the banks have a fiduciary duty towards their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly and in utmost good faith.

 

Accordingly, I would respectfully ask that the attached draft direction be made into an order.

 

The Defendant has entered a defence on 21 December 2006 which I received on 27 December 2006. The Defendant asserted its rights under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (1980) but offered to refund charges levied on the Account between November 2000 and November 2006. I decided not to accept this offer for three reasons:

The Defendant did not comply with my S.A.R dated 11 August 2006- (Subject Access Request) and I had no means of validating the charges applied to the account. I had to report the defendant to the The Information Commissioner's Office on 30 September 2006. Within a week I received all the requested information.

The letter is internally inconsistent in asserting the Defendant’s rights under the Limitation Act 1980 whilst offering to refund charges levied within within the last six years

I do not consider that Section 5 of the Limitation Act places a restriction on this claim.

 

If the claim is time barred by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 then I contend that the Defendant has concealed, and continues to conceal that the charges debited are unlawful. If this is not the case, and the Defendant truly believes that these charges are lawful, then I contend that the Defendant is mistaken and/or I paid them in the mistaken belief that they were lawful. As I only became aware during July 2006 that the charges debited were unlawful, then section 32(1)(b), or section 32(1)©, of the Limitation Act 1980 should apply, and the charges debited are therefore within the primary limitation period.

 

 

 

NOTE: DELETE DATES AND ENTER YOURS ETC

[mcuth]

Yup, I think that section G is fine (can't see much difference to Wilkins' one ) - go for it

 

Cheers

 

Michael