Claim for your inconvenience too?

[notlam]

I made a point for discussion yesterday here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/47327-why-not-claim-maximum.html

 

In hindsight I agree I made it very clumsily and I apologised at the time.

 

I still believe the underlying point though is a valid one in that there is a justification in claiming more than just the amount unlawfully taken by the bank, the interest and an amount for inconvenience and that by doing so this could add more pressure on the banks.

 

In my view this point is backed up by the Chief of the Financial Ombudsman Service, Walter Merricks remarked publicly that "banks should accept that their charges are unfair and refund them when customers first complain, rather than resorting to delaying tactics and bargaining over how much they should refund."

 

In addition the FOS announced in a briefing note in November 2001, "we consider it important that financial service providers who cause distress or inconvenience, on top of any financial loss, should compensate them for it." And it goes on to say "Inconvenience can include any expenditure of time and/or effort by the customer that has resulted from the firm's conduct." And, "it can include severe disruption and a great deal of wasted time."

 

If banks insist on continuing choosing to use the legal process to delay and deter claimants it seems only right to me that they should have to pay a higher price for doing so and that such a price could be justified in terms of claiming for the many hours spent by you, the customer, in writing letters and dealing with the long drawn-out process of getting your money back. If the bank then decides to challenge this part of the claim then it will, I assume (please correct me on this if I am wrong), ultimately force them to turn up at court one day. Once in court, surely they can be asked to explain their charges. I agree it is a risky strategy that not all are willing to take but to some including me, it might be. I would like to know what others think.

 

 

I feel this point is worth debating seriously. I hope it can be this time without accusing me of being a fraudster and a criminal.

[Glenn UK]

Sadly i think you don't have a legal leg to stand on.

 

To claim for something you haver to have some evidence of loss or damage as i understand it.

 

Whilst you can argue all you like about how inconvenient they have made the repayment of the unlawful charges, it doesn't matter unless you can show some loss with evidence to support it.

 

Even when you consider those who have suffered losses in fact, e.g. a self employed person having to attend court maybe, there are provision in law for the reclamation of those costs, or at least a portion of them.

 

Inconvenient it may be, but can you prove and quantify the inconvenience sufficient you show a financial loss outside of what the courts already cater for?

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[notlam]

Inconvenient it may be, but can you prove and quantify the inconvenience sufficient you show a financial loss outside of what the courts already cater for?

 

Here's a log of my manual intervention. I am not a bank. I don't have an automated system to generate automatic responses. I even have to walk to the post office to buy a stamp and walk back again:

 

12/02/06 - Letter written & posted to bank to complain about unfair charges made over a six year period. (30 minutes)

17/02/06 - Reply received from bank - removing my overdraft facility and increasing the rate of interest charged. (15 minutes)

18/02/06 - Research web. Enter comment on CAG web site (logged) for advice on this issue (60 minutes)

27/02/06 - Reply received from bank - refund refused. (15 minutes)

06/06/06 - Letter written & posted to bank to request refund, in light of OFT statement. (30 minutes)

08/06/06 - Reply received from bank - refund refused. Final response.(15 minutes)

10/06/06 - Letter written & posted to bank requesting list of all charges. (30 minutes)

10/06/06 - Research web. Enter comment on CAG web site (logged) for advice on this issue (45 minutes)

21/06/06 - Letter written & posted to bank - requesting refund. (30 minutes)

28/06/06 - Reply received from bank - agreeing to provide details of charges. (15 minutes)

10/06/06 - Research web. Enter comment on CAG web site (logged) for advice on this issue (45 minutes)

15/07/06 - Letter written & posted to bank - claiming charges. (15 minutes)

21/07/06 - Reply received from bank - refusing refund and declining to add any further comment. (15 minutes)

21/07/06 - Research web. Enter comment on CAG web site (logged) for advice on this issue (60 minutes)

22/07/06 - Letter written & posted to bank - Letter before action requesting refund and interest. (45 minutes)

27/07/06 - Reply received from bank - enclosing copies of six years statements. (15 minutes)

27/07/06 - Studied six years statements and identified and listed penalty charges (180 minutes).

27/07/06 - Reply received from bank - Refused to discuss any further. (15 minutes)

28/07/06 - Research web. Enter comment on CAG web site (logged) for advice on this issue (90 minutes)

22/08/06 - Claim issued in County Court. (45 minutes).

22/08/06 - Research web. Enter comment on CAG web site (logged) for advice on this issue (60 minutes)

25/08/06 - Letter received from court giving Notice that Acknowledgement of Service Has Been Filed and informing me that bank intends to defend all of the claim. (15 minutes).

25/08/06 - Research web. Enter comment on CAG web site (logged) for advice on this issue (15 minutes)

26/08/06 - Research web. Enter comment on CAG web site (logged) for advice on this issue (90 minutes)

30/08/06 - Letter sent to Court requesting amendment to claim. (15 minutes)

01/09/06 - Letter received from Court enclosing form N244 to request changes. (15 minutes)

05/09/06 - Application Notice sent to Court to amend changes. (30 minutes)

28/09/06 - Letter sent to Court with Certificate of Service and amended Claim form. (30 minutes)

22/10/06 - N157 from court requesting copies of all documents be sent to all parties. (30 minutes)

22/10/06 - Research web. Enter comment on CAG web site (logged) for advice on this issue (90 minutes)

28/10/06 - 180 pages of documents prepared (120 minutes)

30/10/06 - 360 pages of documents copied at 10p each (30 minutes)

18/10/06 - Request for Judgement sent to Court. (no charge!)

 

Total time = 1,350 minutes

22.5 hours @ £9.25 = £208.12

Printing & Copier fees: 540 pages @ £0.10 = £54.00

Postage = £18.50

 

Total amount claimed: £280.62

[Guest Battleaxe]

If only we could claim for the time we have put into recovering our charges. The cost of the phone calls ringing the 0845 numbers at national rate should be added. After all a solicitor charges for every letter written, time taken in consultation, and phone calls, so why can't we, if it is logged correctly? may be we should add this to our letter of demand and remind them that this will be added to the court claim? You never know.

[Wheresmewallet]

By all means have a go at claiming back for inconvenience. But I wouldn't try to be too greedy in the amount you are trying to claim

I put down £50 for the inconvenience during my Natwest claim for -

- Document preperation (around 6 letters)

- Ink usage

- Paper

- Advice

- Stamps

etc

I got the £50 I asked for and no questions were asked

[notlam]

The cost of the phone calls ringing the 0845 numbers at national rate should be added.

 

Oh yes. I forgot about all the phone calls. But then these are logged on my phone bill too. So that's not difficult either.

[notlam]

But I wouldn't try to be too greedy in the amount you are trying to claim

 

I dont believe it is a question of being too greedy. The log is factual. The time you've spent is real. So are the expenses.

 

Trouble is, where the banks are concerned, for years we've felt guilty about our dealings with them and that we're in the wrong.

 

Well I dont any more and it feels good.

[Wheresmewallet]

That's fair enough Notlam

Just as long as you have all the evidence at the ready of what the Inconvenience Costs you are claiming are in case they ask for a breakdown of these costs to support your claim.

[notlam]

Just as long as you have all the evidence at the ready of what the Inconvenience Costs you are claiming are in case they ask for a breakdown of these costs to support your claim.

 

I have all the evidence at the ready; letters, phone bills, postage receipts, thread print-outs, my court documents, etc.

 

I dont expect I'll ever be called to present it though because, from what I can tell from reading the experience of others here, the banks dont seem to like actually showing up at court to discuss this whole issue of charges.

[PhantomReclaimer]

Inconvenient it may be, but can you prove and quantify the inconvenience sufficient you show a financial loss outside of what the courts already cater for?

 

Here's a log of my manual intervention. I am not a bank. I don't have an automated system to generate automatic responses. I even have to walk to the post office to buy a stamp and walk back again:

 

12/02/06 - Letter written & posted to bank to complain about unfair charges made over a six year period. (30 minutes)

17/02/06 - Reply received from bank - removing my overdraft facility and increasing the rate of interest charged. (15 minutes)

18/02/06 - Research web. Enter comment on CAG web site (logged) for advice on this issue (60 minutes)

27/02/06 - Reply received from bank - refund refused. (15 minutes)

06/06/06 - Letter written & posted to bank to request refund, in light of OFT statement. (30 minutes)

08/06/06 - Reply received from bank - refund refused. Final response.(15 minutes)

10/06/06 - Letter written & posted to bank requesting list of all charges. (30 minutes)

10/06/06 - Research web. Enter comment on CAG web site (logged) for advice on this issue (45 minutes)

21/06/06 - Letter written & posted to bank - requesting refund. (30 minutes)

28/06/06 - Reply received from bank - agreeing to provide details of charges. (15 minutes)

10/06/06 - Research web. Enter comment on CAG web site (logged) for advice on this issue (45 minutes)

15/07/06 - Letter written & posted to bank - claiming charges. (15 minutes)

21/07/06 - Reply received from bank - refusing refund and declining to add any further comment. (15 minutes)

21/07/06 - Research web. Enter comment on CAG web site (logged) for advice on this issue (60 minutes)

22/07/06 - Letter written & posted to bank - Letter before action requesting refund and interest. (45 minutes)

27/07/06 - Reply received from bank - enclosing copies of six years statements. (15 minutes)

27/07/06 - Studied six years statements and identified and listed penalty charges (180 minutes).

27/07/06 - Reply received from bank - Refused to discuss any further. (15 minutes)

28/07/06 - Research web. Enter comment on CAG web site (logged) for advice on this issue (90 minutes)

22/08/06 - Claim issued in County Court. (45 minutes).

22/08/06 - Research web. Enter comment on CAG web site (logged) for advice on this issue (60 minutes)

25/08/06 - Letter received from court giving Notice that Acknowledgement of Service Has Been Filed and informing me that bank intends to defend all of the claim. (15 minutes).

25/08/06 - Research web. Enter comment on CAG web site (logged) for advice on this issue (15 minutes)

26/08/06 - Research web. Enter comment on CAG web site (logged) for advice on this issue (90 minutes)

30/08/06 - Letter sent to Court requesting amendment to claim. (15 minutes)

01/09/06 - Letter received from Court enclosing form N244 to request changes. (15 minutes)

05/09/06 - Application Notice sent to Court to amend changes. (30 minutes)

28/09/06 - Letter sent to Court with Certificate of Service and amended Claim form. (30 minutes)

22/10/06 - N157 from court requesting copies of all documents be sent to all parties. (30 minutes)

22/10/06 - Research web. Enter comment on CAG web site (logged) for advice on this issue (90 minutes)

28/10/06 - 180 pages of documents prepared (120 minutes)

30/10/06 - 360 pages of documents copied at 10p each (30 minutes)

18/10/06 - Request for Judgement sent to Court. (no charge!)

 

Total time = 1,350 minutes

22.5 hours @ £9.25 = £208.12

Printing & Copier fees: 540 pages @ £0.10 = £54.00

Postage = £18.50

 

Total amount claimed: £280.62

 

I would certainly give it a try. The log you have produced seems reasonable and you wouldn't be doing it if they hadn't charged you in the firstplace. As long as you can show the Court that all this is genuine loss on your part you should get it. You must be prepared to stand up at Court and convince the judge that it reasonable though.

 

I've just sent a prelim to a bank for over £8K of charges that go back 11 years. I've added at the end of the letter a line to the effect that I won't be pursuing any costs in relation to the large amount of time and effort I've been put to in working out the claim (working out the interst on each individual charge took several hours) and researching the law in return for their quick settlement, but that if it came to Court action I would be asking the Court to award a resonable amount to compensate me for this. I think someone mentioned a while ago that a reasonable charge for a ly person to apply would be half the rate for a newly qualified profesional to do the work.

 

P.

[Glenn UK]

The log you have produced doersnt show 'inconvenience', it shows your expenditure of time and money.

 

If you are going small claims you almost certainly wont get it (with the exception of court costs), if your going fast track your entitled to claim costs.

 

'inconveinece' is more to do with hassle and is subjective not objective or measureable.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[notlam]

The log you have produced doersnt show 'inconvenience', it shows your expenditure of time and money.

 

'inconveinece' is more to do with hassle and is subjective not objective or measureable.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

 

I am only going by the Financial Ombudsman Service's own public briefing statement in November 2001, which, as stated in my opening thread, was:

 

"Inconvenience can include any expenditure of time and/or effort by the customer that has resulted from the firm's conduct." And, "it can include severe disruption and a great deal of wasted time."

[Glenn UK]

As far as I can tell what you have listed is expenditure or in other words 'costs' and wont be allowed in the SCC.

 

If you find any case law that says different it would be good for all those claiming in SCC.

 

Seems to me your trying to increase the value of your claim, 1st it was the financial ombudsman and now its 'inconvenience' in the SCC.

 

If your claiming via the ombudsman, and i thought you had ruled that out, then go by their rules. If you are using the Courts then you have to use their rules and i think if you produce this list in court they will view it as costs because thats what it is and unless you're in fast track or higher you cant claim your costs.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

 

PS Id be glad to be proved wrong, but the whole basis of SCC is to provide a forum where the small bloke can fight against the big bloke without being out bidded by a big legal bill.

[POCA]

Don't forget, all you are legally entitled to under contract is actual damages and consequential loss. Mere inconvenience is not usually recoverable under contract. That is more of a tort action.

[PhantomReclaimer]

I think the argument is that the "costs" concerned are actually losses flowing directly from the unlawful actions of the banks in making the charge in the first place and so are a legitimate part of your whole claim. It is expenditure you cannot avoid if you want to claim your money back. The analogy would be if someone had taken your car and dumped it at the other end of the Country. You could not avoid having to spend money getting it back so would have a perfectly justifyable claim against the thief.

 

With our claims it is impossible to get our money back at zero expense to us so there must be some reasonable compensation allowed.

 

The prohibition on claiming costs in the SCC is so that one party to an action cannot hire exorbitantly expensive lawyers as a way of intimidating the other into submission. This is especially important in small claims where the figures in question are...well...small, and would be eaten up by legal fees.

 

If it's a genuine loss caused to you then I say claim it. However, you must be sure that you are quite happy to stand up in Court and justify it. The judge may not allow it but if you have been honest and genuine in your request it probably won't affect the rest of your claim. If the judge feels you are yanking his chain though he may well throw the lot out.

 

P.

[notlam]

If the judge feels you are yanking his chain though he may well throw the lot out.

 

P.

 

Thanks Phantom for a positive contribution, at last. I was beginning to wonder if I was being ambushed by double-agents.

 

Whether the judge would agree, or not, seems almost irrelevant any way because the bank wont turn up to face the music. They seem to like court rooms about as much as Lord Lucan.

 

I would actually like the bank to turn up.

 

With regard to the point about the judge throwing the whole thing out, why would he have grounds to do that? He would either allow, or disallow, that specific part of the claim. The rest of the claim would still stand.

[nevos]

I feel people should claim substantial amounts for not only costs in preparing actions but, for damage to health caused by stress related disorders. First get to the doctor and tell him/her your suffering stress caused by the shear worry of having to take a Bank to court for what is rightfully yours.

 

This is what "there is another way Bank did to us": They wanted to put a top class top priced accounting company in to access our business, remember we are utilising an over draft which was fully guaranteed by a property! The cost of their accountants had to be paid by us at a rate of around 450 to 600 per day. They refused to release our securities against money due to the company thus, preventing us re arranging finance with another Bank, finally we had to bring in a receiver and down a good business, one which was turning almost 1 million per year and was in profit. If this helps anyone: A receiver can only reverse actions up to 6 months pervious to liquidation, the first thing Nat West were looking for was our patents and trademarks which they didn't get.

 

The whole banking deal is wheels within wheels, our then manager said "he knew a company who might be interested in our business" Great! Now, I was so angry having worked for 12 years to build the business, I went to a solicitor, the cost of taking on the Bank was fantastic like 35K to get things started consequently, no point and we couldnt afford investigating accountants.

 

You simply can't trust a Bank in this country, they are short term, short sited and mostly evil. So when I have finished preparing my claim for charges i will be adding at least 5k for the agro! and Nat West your next on my list.

 

Sorry for the ramble hehe:)

[Glenn UK]

Thanks Phantom for a positive contribution, at last. I was beginning to wonder if I was being ambushed by double-agents.

 

Just because someone takes a contrary, and i believe a valid viewpoint, doesn't mean they're batting for the other side.

 

Whether the judge would agree, or not, seems almost irrelevant any way because the bank wont turn up to face the music.

 

If you prepare on this basis you are acting under a false premise. You should look around at other cases where the controversial bits are being challenged without the banks needing to fight the important bits. J2B and LIPs are two who i think are finding this out with quite legitimate elements of their claims.

 

I would actually like the bank to turn up.

[/ quote]

 

Why?

 

Unless your a practising QC you should consider the best option to be one where they pay you without the possibility to loose in court.

 

If you are thinking your claim is so right that it cant loose, then your misunderstanding how the law and courts work.

 

I think PR is wrong about his assessment of the costs as losses. If thats the case then the other sides solicitors costs are losses and if they were to win you could be exposed to a counter claim for their losses based on the cost of defending the claim against them in the SCC.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[meagain]

I even have to walk to the post office to buy a stamp and walk back again

 

Oh, now that's a stretch.

[gizmo111]

Whether the judge would agree, or not, seems almost irrelevant any way because the bank wont turn up to face the music.

 

The banks have turned up to challenge parts of claim that do not relate to charges - they will pay out the charges element of your claim and challenge the rest - even contractual interest see here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mercantile-court-cases-stays/36034-case-management-conference-13th.html

[notlam]

 

I would actually like the bank to turn up.

[/ quote]

 

Why?

 

Glenn

 

Why?

 

Because I might learn something.

Because there is nothing to be scared of. I am telling the truth.

Because I am not willing to be intimidated and take any more cr@p from my bank.

 

Thanks for pointing out the potential down side though.

[notlam]

Oh, now that's a stretch.

 

good point. well done.

[notlam]

The banks have turned up to challenge parts of claim that do not relate to charges - they will pay out the charges element of your claim and challenge the rest - even contractual interest

 

Well if they do turn up at court and if they do successfully challenge the £280 part of my claim for inconvenience and expense then I will just have to content myself in the knowledge that it cost them far more than that to do so.

 

I suppose that means, on that bit, we'll just about be quits then.

[PhantomReclaimer]

Whether the judge would agree, or not, seems almost irrelevant any way because the bank wont turn up to face the music. They seem to like court rooms about as much as Lord Lucan.

 

You can't base your case on them not turning up. Everything you put in your claim you need to be able to defend at Court if necessary.

 

 

With regard to the point about the judge throwing the whole thing out, why would he have grounds to do that? He would either allow, or disallow, that specific part of the claim. The rest of the claim would still stand.

 

Ok, the judge probably wouldn't kick the whole thing out - it's still your money, however you may have acted as regards your claim. But, if you have added on a load of extra stuff that he feels is not representative of your losses and is purely there to stiff the bank for as much as possible I'm sure he will find some way to penalise you.

 

P.

[notlam]

You can't base your case on them not turning up. Everything you put in your claim you need to be able to defend at Court if necessary.

 

Ok, the judge probably wouldn't kick the whole thing out - it's still your money, however you may have acted as regards your claim. But, if you have added on a load of extra stuff that he feels is not representative of your losses and is purely there to stiff the bank for as much as possible I'm sure he will find some way to penalise you.

 

P.

 

Fair points Phantom.

 

I tend to be too flippant sometimes, which I know is not a good way to approach a potential day in court. It's also not helpful to others, who might be reading this thread and thinking of going down this route too. So, points taken.

 

I suppose the trouble is I won my first battle so easily against LTSB; they didn't even put up a fight. I know they wont all be like that.

 

I appreciate your comments and take on board your advice, and from others here, to plan for the worst, prepare thoroughly and to not take anything for granted. Thanks.

 

I'll let you know how it goes guys.