Any Answers?

[Unholy Alliance]

I have sent my LBA re current account, reply due 30/4/06. However, the fact I have had to go thru all this nonsense with the bank means Im wondering whether I should settle, or force the matter into court. Can I subpoena(is that the right term?) key individuals into court? My thinking on this is that if the court then rules in my favor, it leaves the way open for harrassment and defamation charges to be brought...or am I being a little harsh, and should I settle with them if they agree to my demands as stipulated in the LBA? Equally, I am mindful of the time I have had to spend(all accounted for). Should I bill them separately and bring a separate action for this? I do feel very strongly about this, since the bank obviously knows that what its done is illegal, so why should I have to spend my time doing their job? I'd just appreciate readers opinions and guidance on this. Thanks as ever, in advance!

[jonni2bad]

Always remember that if they offer you exactly what you have requested, then you have an obligation to settle out of court.

 

If they offer some part of the charges back, accept it only on the condition you will proceed with your claim for the remainder.

 

Accepting anything is always down to what suits your own circumstances - some people might just be so 'skint' that the extra wait is too much, whilst others may consider nothing but the lot is acceptable.

 

This is YOUR claim - so you have to happy with it.

 

I would caution against working out any time costs etc until you are faced with court action, and at that point you may be able to claim very limited expenses.

 

There you go - a starter for ten!!

[Unholy Alliance]

I received this reply in response to my LBA. I havent replied or accepted anything yet, because I was particularly curious about the line referring to their position.

 

 

"Our records show that (you have) been charged £xxx in default fees. I will apply a credit of this amount to (the) account to settle this matter if you are in agreement. You are aware of our position in that whilst we are aware that penalty fees are illegal, we do not believe that our fees constitute a penalty.

 

Please bear in mind when considering this offer that, if we were to apply the OFT's guidance on this matter, we would only be refunding £xxx. However, to bring an end to this matter we are offering a full refund. We will not be making any further offers."

 

 

Are they finally owning up? In conversations they have admitted that their charges ARE penalties, and I have confirmed their comments in email replies. They have never previously denied that their charges WERE penalties.

 

As we are getting very near to the point of no return, I would very much appreciate any comments or guidance from anyone out there, and especially the moderators, who all seem to know their stuff! (the brackets indicate my own editing to preserve anonimity)-however, the rest is verbatim.

[jonni2bad]

I presume from the letter that they have actually offered the full amount in refund?

 

If so, then that's a great result for you.

 

Another new post tonight, I believe from Abbey, stated that they were not prepared to pay the full amount back, since they could be expected to charge something!

 

A similar position to the above, but no mention of the OFT in that one.

 

I think these sort of statements are as close as we will ever get to acceptance of the problem.

 

Finally, just checking here, you are aware that if the offer is for all charges you should accept, right? Sorry if that sounds a little basic, I have no idea what points you do and don't know....

 

Well done again

John

[Unholy Alliance]

Thanks for your reply. I am still waiting for all the statements as requested under DPA guidelines, to verify that the figure they provided as an offer is correct. However, there seems to be no mention of interest, or default removal! In addition, it was confirmed some 3 years ago that since the card was cancelled(at that time) that all that would have to be repaid was the principal, and that as a result of the cancellation that there would be no further interest charges.However, the card has of course been since taken over by MBNA, who have previously told me they allegedly have no records prior to aquisition. So I also want the last 3 years interest refunded too. As far as the main account is concerned, I'm afraid A+L are stonewalling, having refused to acknowledge or comply with anything at all. However, a summons is due to be sent in a week when all other deadlines have been exhausted.Ill keep you and other viewers posted!

[alanfromderby]

You are aware of our position in that whilst we are aware that penalty fees are illegal, we do not believe that our fees constitute a penalty.

 

Wow...that is quite a piece of evidence you have - if you don't mind, please could you send a scan to [email protected].

 

Cheeers.

[dave]

Another new post tonight, I believe from Abbey, stated that they were not prepared to pay the full amount back, since they could be expected to charge something!

 

Abbey have been sending this letter long before the OFT announcement - they're just chancing their arm - if you accept 50% then great for them - if not, then they just have to pay back what they took.

[anarchist]

Great!

 

I think what we could possibly be seeing is the beginning of a turning point. The banks are possibly taking notice that people AREN'T just going to roll over and have their bellies tickled again, like we've done in the past. That we are educating ourselves, and we will take things as far as they need to be took. That and they're only increasing their costs by 8% + summons + costs by out and out refusing.

 

All sounds very exciting!

[Unholy Alliance]

The reccommendations of the OFT in terms of setting a tarriff are imminent(the banks have until 31May to reply). The suggestions seem to suggest that letter charges of £12-£15 will be "fairer".MBNA(A+L Credit Card) seem to think that they will be able to therefore reduce the amount of refund accordingly. (In one example, they suggest that the current refund proposed(but not accepted yet) of £975 would, under OFT guidelines, be £564. They have also stated that this refund is not an admittance of anything, and that moreover, they will not be correcting any errors. My question therefore is, can they revise those charges retrospectively? Or will the proposals only come into effect from the date they are announced, leaving existing claims as they are(full refunds)?

 

Also, how does the above affect actions already underway, but not concluded?

 

Finally, despite the OFT ruling, and despite the laws that support us consumers, my bank is STILL applying charges, despite the fact that a summons has been sent, and AOS received. Since there can now be no excuse as to whether or not the banks are aware of both the laws and the OFT ruling, can this ongoing charging be regarded as theft, harrassment or both?

 

All answers will be very much appreciated.

[Guest Lueeze]

Its very unlikely ANY bank will be refunding anyone backdadte for 6 years, imagine the Man hours and costs! it would be billions to the customers.

 

It is very likely they will start using the new charges going forward, not back, even then the Banks have to prove that it cots them £12 or £15 to actually send a letter, if they cant then they a really pushing their luck!

 

Lou x

[Spiceskull]

A lot of banks (all of them) seem to be helpfully interpreting the OFT ruling for their customers...wrongly. The following is from a letter that went to a bank last week, and whilst it is not specific to your own question, it indicates the bank's misrepresentation...

When the charge is issued as a penalty, the position of customers and the OFT is that the charge is unlawful under contract law, and is therefore unenforceable. To quote the OFT statement, 'We consider that a contract term is likely to be unfair if it requires consumers to pay more as a result of a default than the court would order them to pay if they were sued for breach of contract. This means that a default charge should not exceed a reasonable pre-estimate of the administrative costs that the consumer ought to have realised would be likely to be incurred by his or her card issuer in dealing with defaults.'

 

Additionally, the OFT did NOT state that it 'believes a default fee of £12 is fair.' What they actually said, and I quote, 'We are not suggesting that default fees should be set at £12, and a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold.'

[Unholy Alliance]

Thanks for that. So if I take proceedings against a bank AFTER the 31st(assuming of course that the banks have actually responded to the OFT by then) my claim against it would not be weakened retrospectively by the outcome of the banks "negotiations" with the OFT, right? In other words, my claim based on the law as it stands cant be reduced because the banks may have agreed a new tarriff/and or wording for these charges/penalties. I need to be clear on this, so sorry if Im sounding pedantic.

[Unholy Alliance]

I recently got judgement in default, and at the point the bailiffs were about to attend they managed to file an application to set aside the judgement...so Im going in on Aug10 to finish off the job. Their "defence" is as follows....

 

1)they cant work out what they owe me( I had previously advised them that if they could substantiate their figures, I would accept that)-they havent.

 

2)they claimthey have agreed to repay part of my claim - they havent paid me

3)they go on to say that "the claimant has no valid claim and shows no reasonable prospect of successfully persuing the balance of the claim(the cheque they sent out was made outincorrectly, and the amount (based on their admitted figures, not mine is wrong)and there is no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at a trial in accordance with CPR 24.2

 

I guess CPR15.4 doesnt mean a thing then...

 

 

Any advice at this stage would be much appreciated...thanks in advance.

[MARTIN3030]

Bloody hell what a shambles..............looks like you dont need any help

 

How can they defend ?

 

The bottom line too is that if they cant disclose their true costs then they cant prove you have no case.

 

If the big boys cant beat the claimants then what chance have these got ???

 

 

[Unholy Alliance]

oh,btw, I forgot to mention that Im also going after them for damages(time spent dealing with this, defamation of character, at least 3 breaches of the DPA, harassment, and stress(all provable in Court)..and thats before I start on two other claims against them. And when I prove that they have blatantly lied in the application to set aside........ah well, c'est la vie!

 

But seriously, do you (or anyone else know if CPR15.5 can take precedence over CPR 24.2?

 

I'd love to know. ITM thanks for your words of encouragement.

 

Moderated : 6 threads merged . please keep to your original thread when updating or asking questions .

[MARTIN3030]

personally I am not sure but I can try and find out for you today.

[Unholy Alliance]

To the moderator - sorry, I thought I had started my own thread- not being an expert in how the technology behind these boards work- so I know nu-theeng about merging 6 threads!

 

 

But, to "Saints" ta for that, I look forwaed to hearing from you.

[Unholy Alliance]

This topic was closed on 03/07/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group