SCM and claims beyond 6 years / limitations act 1980

[Glenn UK]

I presumed they would, im surprised they held a hearing, bet they were annoyed, my claim against abbey includes issues relating to mistakes in their defence and they have never even acknowledged the problems, perhpas thats a good sing, illl find out on the 7th feb if/when they turn up for the hearing to strike their defence and the AQ hearing.

 

Glenn

 

PS keep us posted with any developments eh?

[quincy]

i was suprised that that was all today was - i have been told as mentioned earlier in this thread that it was already an approved change, deemed so in my absence!

 

the offer to settle pre 6 years charges did arise again which i politley declined. both parties weren't at all suprised by this!

[bill-k]

Hi Quincy, I've just heard about this from Bong, and I have a friend and a rellie, as well as myself, interested in the LA issue. Will subscribe here, now, so there's another three of us behind you !!

 

As Glenn has asked - was it a Yay or a Nay? Sounds like a Yay to me.

 

Sometimes, it seems like it's just a war of attrition, with the banks' continually (ab)using court procedures to intimidate us. Just don't let go - they don't know the sheer size and capacity of YOUR legal team, do they ?

 

It looks encouraging, that the Judge remarked on the "previous form" of these cases, apparently without being prompted by you.

 

So, stick at it, matey. You don't need telling, I'm sure, but you've got an excellent supporter in our Bong. She literally has snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, recently.

 

Well done so far - I'll be watching,

 

Bill.

[Guest bong]

how did they wrangle that then? presumably the order for the hearing back in November or so said it was a hearing of the claim? How strange after you said they had already been given permission to amend. Hope you don't have to wait too long for the next one then.

 

Its all good experience anyway

[quincy]

once it was made clear that i was only being asked if the amendment was allowed i then noticed that their defence had about a fifth of the amount of paper i had!

i did i must add take the chance to amend my claim - LLTSB denied a charge as it was one digit (wrong month on excel) out - this change was allowed and i had copies of the new schedule and ac opy of the statement for all parties at the ready.

 

the offer to settle was immediately adjusted to reflect this!

 

(oh and it was yay)

[quincy]

the order i got last year didnt say that today wasn't a hearing of the claim so i was expecting it to be the hearing proper..

[Guest bong]

wonder how much it cost them to send counsel to court? would've thought it would have been cheaper to settle your claim - no admission etc.

[paulwlton]

Just subscribing.

[sarahpp]

Just thought I would add my best wishes Quincy. I don't know how much I can add to the excellent help you are already getting but, I am subscribing in the hope that I may be able to offer support in some small way.

[chezt]

Hi there ...another one of bong's disciples dropping by ...

 

Sorry I couldn't make it earlier but I've subscribed now too ... watching with interest ...well done for today & good on you for getting the claim amended!

[quincy]

i should have taken more care with the excel doc i was using!

[JonCris]

wonder how much it cost them to send counsel to court? would've thought it would have been cheaper to settle your claim - no admission etc.

 

If it was a junior barrister............about £80

[Guest bong]

if that figure is correct joncris then I'm surprised barclays told me that it wasn't cost effective for them to send counsel to my hearing for an unreasonable costs order against them of £300. it would have been cheaper for them to turn up and argue, or am I right in thinking the real reason they paid my costs was that they conceded that they had acted unreasonably by not settling until the day before the hearing?

[JonCris]

Yup!

 

If it isn't a barrister then it would have been a trainee or paralegal + there was no guarantee they would win

[newbody]

intresting to see how you go as intrested in how the LA situation pans out

just subscribed to this thread

[quincy]

Update - I have received notification from the court, the next hearing is set for June 19 - with a different judge, still small claims though.

The form I have says neither side is permitted to use experts.

[GaryH]

You'll now have to submit your documents pursuant to the directions on the notice of allocation. See here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/guidance-notes/64911-got-court-date-guide.html

[quincy]

Thanks for that.

[dar£n]

Hi, just came across this thread through research for my own, gulp.

 

is there any continuation of this? the last post was march

[quincy]

Nothing much going on - i sent off the documents as above, they were required 14days prior to the hearing....

[quincy]

.....even tho it's next week - i've not heard a squeak from SCM!

 

Not worried tho - it'll be fun to see them if they turn up

[TBeckett100]

i wish i found this thread before i started claiming 1998-2000 nut MCOl was issued yesterday and i have a bit in my claim about them trying to fob me off with no statements twice.

[TBeckett100]

just read somewhere about limitations act and that it is 6 years after concealment is revealed. is this relevant?

[anyoldnamewilldo]

Good luck Quincy, interested to hear the result I have a closed business account that goes back 15 years with Lloyds.lol

[GuidoT]

just read somewhere about limitations act and that it is 6 years after concealment is revealed. is this relevant?

 

Personally I would go back as many years as you can, see here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/81799-issues-raised-llloyds-bank.html