Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


jotty

JP Morgan/Rooftop Arrears fees- The saga continues.

Recommended Posts

pers I think that's a win

and the visit fees to cone I bet...!! good work.

 

dx

 


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks DX, yes seems like a lot of hard work to get to roughly where I wanted to be 12 months ago. 

 

Did learn a hell of a lot though from the way the Judge directed his questions and need to up my game when it comes to the type and amount of evidence in my application. He didn't criticise but did make suggestions which I found very helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much indeed for this update. I'm terribly sorry that you didn't have an outright win. I can't imagine they will come back for the £500 – but if they do then let us know and in principle don't pay it. At the very least I think we could plead that there is an estoppel.

Well done on the costs. I'm sure that these contractual terms by which they seek to have a potential claimant or defendant indemnify them for legal costs is unenforceable because what they are effectively doing is getting you to contract out of the court procedure rules in respect of costs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, if they referred to their contractual term in respect of costs in any future hearing, I think that your proper response is to point out to the judge that this contractual term seeks to undermine or usurp the authority or discretion of the court to award or not award costs and in that respect it is completely unenforceable. Tell the judge that effectively they are trying to force the judge to make an award of costs


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BF, that was basically what the Judge said to the Solicitor who was caught unawares that I would be on to it, so yes its very good advice.

 

Its not unlike the bank charges fiasco, we know we are all right but the Judges will always fall back on the law rather than try and change it in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also it's a shame about the judge's reliance upon the ombudsman's decision.

The ombudsman's remit is apparently to arrive at a solution which is "fair to both sides". However if you look at all the FCA regulations, they talk about – treating the customers fairly – communicating with the customers fairly – having the customers interests in mind when making a decision. In other words, in my view, the ombudsman remit is at odds with the statutory duties of banks and financial firms generally.

If we had thought about this, we could have briefed you on it and you could have raised this is an objection to the judge. The judge really had no business following the ombudsman's decision. The judge was bound by the regulations set up by the FCA under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 – but who knew?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking back, the judge did concede that the ombudsman’s decision was not binding on the court but he certainly used it as the basis for his decision. I doubt if he would have ignored the ombudsman.He did make comment that any issue of this kind should be resolved by a court which I took to mean in other words dont bother with the Ombudsman.

 

He made no mention as the level of charges and if they are justifiable, but again this was because the Ombudsman had already said they where.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it is most unlikely that he knew about the FCA fairness regulations. If his attention had been brought to them then he would have been obliged to read them and then to take them into consideration. Unfortunately we didn't anticipate this and didn't brief you in.

I'm sorry


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem we live and learn.

 

Now that my claim is has been struck out, does it stop me in the future trying again with a better argument ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I think so. At the very least you would be at risk of costs if it was considered to be frivolous. I suppose you could appeal on the basis of the FCA regulations – but best to leave it alone rather than risk some humiliation in the face of a smirking opponent

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...