Jump to content


Wilkins vs Halifax ***WON***


WILKINSS208
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5214 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

thank you

i will write to the halifax and inform them they have 7 days to respond with the rest of money and then i will close case

 

how can i word this letter??? any ideas?

HALIFAX: PRE 6 year claim 1991-2006 WON 21/3/07 £2616

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £800.22

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £325.75

AQUA - MCOL 2/3/07 £172.79

ABBEY - MCOL 2/3/07 £261.37

HALIFAX VISA - WON default removal 19/3/07

PARAGON - LBA 11/3/07

CABOT -SAR 26/2/07

ROCKWELL -OFFER 20/2/07

GMAC -MCOL 7/2/07 £189.85

WESTCOT - SAR 25/2/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 425
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Wilkins, I wouldn't want to give them back too much ammunition. I would keep it very short and to the point - but polite of course.

 

JMHO, but I think, without going into detail, just say that you have had time to reconsider matters, and that you are now prepared to cancel your claim for the further years of charges in return for the settlement offered previously.

 

HTH, matey

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have had a number of messages from people to not give up! they have encouraged me to press on with claim. I have emailed people locally who use site to see if they are help me when i attend court. i have typed up the below to put in my questionnaire, have i missed anything??

 

I am respectfully requesting that my claim be allocated to the small claims track. 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 court in this case, not withstanding allocation to the small claims track, order standard disclosure. I understand that it is in the courts discretion to do so. I believe this would bring a rapid end to this litigation.

 

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 2000. I decided not to accept this offer for three reasons:

 

· The Defendant had not complied 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 Halifax 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 whilst offering to refund charges levied more than six years ago.

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

 

If the charges are time barred by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitation Act (1980) then I contend that he 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. 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.

HALIFAX: PRE 6 year claim 1991-2006 WON 21/3/07 £2616

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £800.22

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £325.75

AQUA - MCOL 2/3/07 £172.79

ABBEY - MCOL 2/3/07 £261.37

HALIFAX VISA - WON default removal 19/3/07

PARAGON - LBA 11/3/07

CABOT -SAR 26/2/07

ROCKWELL -OFFER 20/2/07

GMAC -MCOL 7/2/07 £189.85

WESTCOT - SAR 25/2/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

No Probs - Thanks For Your Help And Support Paul

HALIFAX: PRE 6 year claim 1991-2006 WON 21/3/07 £2616

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £800.22

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £325.75

AQUA - MCOL 2/3/07 £172.79

ABBEY - MCOL 2/3/07 £261.37

HALIFAX VISA - WON default removal 19/3/07

PARAGON - LBA 11/3/07

CABOT -SAR 26/2/07

ROCKWELL -OFFER 20/2/07

GMAC -MCOL 7/2/07 £189.85

WESTCOT - SAR 25/2/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you bill

HALIFAX: PRE 6 year claim 1991-2006 WON 21/3/07 £2616

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £800.22

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £325.75

AQUA - MCOL 2/3/07 £172.79

ABBEY - MCOL 2/3/07 £261.37

HALIFAX VISA - WON default removal 19/3/07

PARAGON - LBA 11/3/07

CABOT -SAR 26/2/07

ROCKWELL -OFFER 20/2/07

GMAC -MCOL 7/2/07 £189.85

WESTCOT - SAR 25/2/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 [court in this case, not withstanding allocation to the small claims track, order standard disclosure. I understand that it is in the courts discretion to do so. I believe this would bring a rapid end to this litigation.] - delete this bit in brackets and replace with [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 [Halifax - should this be defendant for consistency?] 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 [more than six years ago] - should this read [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 (no brackets required around date) 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.

 

wilkins see my suggested amendments in red. also see this draft order here to be amended with your case name and details and attached to the AQ - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/53570-new-strategy-allocation-questionaires.html#post441556

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you

so do you think the below is ok to issue with questionnaire aswell?

 

In the xxxxxx County Court

Claim number xxxxxxx

 

 

Between

xxxxxxx Wilkins - Claimant

and

 

Halifax plc - Defendant

 

Draft Order for Directions

The Claimant shall within 14 days of service of this order send to the Defendant and to the Court:

a) A schedule setting out each charge repayment of which is sought, showing the date, amount, and reason given (if any) for that charge being made;

b) Copies of any statement or other document relied upon as showing that each and every charge has been made;

c) A statement of evidence of all matters relied upon as tending to show that the charges are irrecoverable as penalties or otherwise;

d) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon.

If the Claimant fails to comply with this order, the claim will be struck out without further order.

 

2. The Defendant shall within 14 days thereafter file and serve a response to the Claimant's schedule, stating in respect of each item claimed;

a) Pursuant to what contractual provision such charge was made, producing a copy of the contractual document relied upon;

b) Whether such charge is accepted to be a penalty, and if not why not;

c) If such charge is alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions (whether or not such action is treated as a breach of contract between the parties), all facts and matters intended to be relied upon as showing that such was a proper estimate of such loss, and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to what the true cost of dealing with the matter was;

d) If such charge is not alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions then facts and matters intended to be relied upon showing the basis upon which the charge was calculated and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to show that the charge was fair and reasonable.

e) Any witness statements.

f) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon.

If the Defendant fails to comply with this order, the Defence will be struck out without further order.

 

 

SO QUESTIONNAIRE GOES, THIS DRAFT ORDER AND MY SUPPORT INFORMATION WHICH WE WROTE ABOVE? PLUS MY FEE OF COURSE

HALIFAX: PRE 6 year claim 1991-2006 WON 21/3/07 £2616

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £800.22

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £325.75

AQUA - MCOL 2/3/07 £172.79

ABBEY - MCOL 2/3/07 £261.37

HALIFAX VISA - WON default removal 19/3/07

PARAGON - LBA 11/3/07

CABOT -SAR 26/2/07

ROCKWELL -OFFER 20/2/07

GMAC -MCOL 7/2/07 £189.85

WESTCOT - SAR 25/2/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

THIS IS MY AMENDED QUESTIONNAIRE SUPPORT:

 

APPENDIX 1

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.

 

 

Also, they are defending the whole claim and they have paid me the last 6 years? Is there somewhere I can put this in or will I leave for court

HALIFAX: PRE 6 year claim 1991-2006 WON 21/3/07 £2616

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £800.22

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £325.75

AQUA - MCOL 2/3/07 £172.79

ABBEY - MCOL 2/3/07 £261.37

HALIFAX VISA - WON default removal 19/3/07

PARAGON - LBA 11/3/07

CABOT -SAR 26/2/07

ROCKWELL -OFFER 20/2/07

GMAC -MCOL 7/2/07 £189.85

WESTCOT - SAR 25/2/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

that all looks fine. If you have received part payment you need to inform the court. I don't think you need say what it relates to just that you have received £x on xdate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did inform court in a letter 7 days after the payment went into my account. also, the halifax have wrote this in their defence.

What I find strange is they are defending the WHOLE claim and they have already paid me for the last 6 years????!!!

HALIFAX: PRE 6 year claim 1991-2006 WON 21/3/07 £2616

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £800.22

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £325.75

AQUA - MCOL 2/3/07 £172.79

ABBEY - MCOL 2/3/07 £261.37

HALIFAX VISA - WON default removal 19/3/07

PARAGON - LBA 11/3/07

CABOT -SAR 26/2/07

ROCKWELL -OFFER 20/2/07

GMAC -MCOL 7/2/07 £189.85

WESTCOT - SAR 25/2/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

well.......im at court stage and halifax have defended the WHOLE claim even though they have refunded me the full costs for last 6 years. They are defending my claim under section 5

I am sending questionnaire off with above supporting evidence in the hope the halifax will back down

HALIFAX: PRE 6 year claim 1991-2006 WON 21/3/07 £2616

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £800.22

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £325.75

AQUA - MCOL 2/3/07 £172.79

ABBEY - MCOL 2/3/07 £261.37

HALIFAX VISA - WON default removal 19/3/07

PARAGON - LBA 11/3/07

CABOT -SAR 26/2/07

ROCKWELL -OFFER 20/2/07

GMAC -MCOL 7/2/07 £189.85

WESTCOT - SAR 25/2/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes very! lets hope its a good new year for us

HALIFAX: PRE 6 year claim 1991-2006 WON 21/3/07 £2616

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £800.22

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £325.75

AQUA - MCOL 2/3/07 £172.79

ABBEY - MCOL 2/3/07 £261.37

HALIFAX VISA - WON default removal 19/3/07

PARAGON - LBA 11/3/07

CABOT -SAR 26/2/07

ROCKWELL -OFFER 20/2/07

GMAC -MCOL 7/2/07 £189.85

WESTCOT - SAR 25/2/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, all documents sent and still nothing in post from court. i really think i will have to attend court as halifax defending claim.

They have defended, however, they are defending the whole claim. Can they do this after paying me half (past 6 years)?

HALIFAX: PRE 6 year claim 1991-2006 WON 21/3/07 £2616

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £800.22

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £325.75

AQUA - MCOL 2/3/07 £172.79

ABBEY - MCOL 2/3/07 £261.37

HALIFAX VISA - WON default removal 19/3/07

PARAGON - LBA 11/3/07

CABOT -SAR 26/2/07

ROCKWELL -OFFER 20/2/07

GMAC -MCOL 7/2/07 £189.85

WESTCOT - SAR 25/2/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, get your lips around this post!

 

KAZZAW v Lloyds Asset Card - EVERYONE READ POST 15 !!!!!!

 

General Form of Judgment or Order

 

To the Claimant

 

kazzaw

 

 

Before District Judge ................. sitting at Lincoln County Court.

 

EX PARTE

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

The Court of its own motion is considering striking the Defence out as an abuse of process on the basis that it has settled all previous claims of this nature. If the Defendant objects to this course of action it is to file at Court within 14 days, a Schedule setting out a list of all claims it has pursued to trial and all claims it has settled.

 

Dated 28 December 2006

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, get your lips around this post!

 

KAZZAW v Lloyds Asset Card - EVERYONE READ POST 15 !!!!!!

 

General Form of Judgment or Order

 

To the Claimant

 

kazzaw

 

 

Before District Judge ................. sitting at Lincoln County Court.

 

EX PARTE

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

The Court of its own motion is considering striking the Defence out as an abuse of process on the basis that it has settled all previous claims of this nature. If the Defendant objects to this course of action it is to file at Court within 14 days, a Schedule setting out a list of all claims it has pursued to trial and all claims it has settled.

 

Dated 28 December 2006

 

Nice One!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes interesting! hope that happens to me but doubt it. i bet i end up in court!

HALIFAX: PRE 6 year claim 1991-2006 WON 21/3/07 £2616

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £800.22

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £325.75

AQUA - MCOL 2/3/07 £172.79

ABBEY - MCOL 2/3/07 £261.37

HALIFAX VISA - WON default removal 19/3/07

PARAGON - LBA 11/3/07

CABOT -SAR 26/2/07

ROCKWELL -OFFER 20/2/07

GMAC -MCOL 7/2/07 £189.85

WESTCOT - SAR 25/2/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok

questionnaire is off and now just waiting! what will happen now and do i need to do anything on MCOL yet?

HALIFAX: PRE 6 year claim 1991-2006 WON 21/3/07 £2616

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £800.22

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £325.75

AQUA - MCOL 2/3/07 £172.79

ABBEY - MCOL 2/3/07 £261.37

HALIFAX VISA - WON default removal 19/3/07

PARAGON - LBA 11/3/07

CABOT -SAR 26/2/07

ROCKWELL -OFFER 20/2/07

GMAC -MCOL 7/2/07 £189.85

WESTCOT - SAR 25/2/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI

 

Im sorry im new to this and im fighting with Halifax also. Im confused as I have sent Halifax the letter requesting the statements (is the schedule of charges?) and they have sent this to me and i then took copies and highlighted all charges and interest debited. Then sent these back with request for payment letter. Im a bit confused as in premlink #21 there is a mention of a spreadsheet. Do i need this? All iv sent Halifax is the statements with highlighted charges and interest debited and letter template (amended with me account / charges details).

Im worried i may be doing something wrong.

I dont mean to be thick but dont understand some of the jargon on this website.

Whats the difference between Unlawful and Illegal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bex123 - Hi. I believe we use the term Unlawful here with regard to bank penalty charges, as they have not been found by a court to actually be illegal as yet. However, there is currently no law that has been found that supports them, either. So I think that is why we can call them unlawful, but not illegal. Someone else here will hopefully give you a better explanation, later !!

 

I have just started posting this standard message to members who are in the early stages and uncertain. I hope it will help. Any comments/corrections, etc. from other members on it would be welcomed, too :-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/56957-simple-steps-beginners.html

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

ok

questionnaire is off and now just waiting! what will happen now and do i need to do anything on MCOL yet?

 

 

bump!

HALIFAX: PRE 6 year claim 1991-2006 WON 21/3/07 £2616

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £800.22

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £325.75

AQUA - MCOL 2/3/07 £172.79

ABBEY - MCOL 2/3/07 £261.37

HALIFAX VISA - WON default removal 19/3/07

PARAGON - LBA 11/3/07

CABOT -SAR 26/2/07

ROCKWELL -OFFER 20/2/07

GMAC -MCOL 7/2/07 £189.85

WESTCOT - SAR 25/2/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

what will happen now is that the court will allocate a hearing date and give directions to both parties for court bundles. Unless defendant has requested a postponement so that settlement can be reached.

 

you have nothing further to do on MCOL because the case has been transferred to your local court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...