New strategy for Allocation Questionnaires

[BC312]

Found All the case studies But still can't find the T&C for Clydesdale, that's all i need. What happens if i can't get hold of them. Do i need them or can i find a way to say no matter what the terms of the contract are the charges are excessive and seen as making a profit???

[Chi Chi Bee]

Hi

 

Just wandered if you could tell me what a CPR1.1(2) IS?

[Destinyofsouls]

Hi

 

Just wandered if you could tell me what a CPR1.1(2) IS?

 

 

CPR 1.1

(1)These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly.

(2)Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable –

(a)ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;

(b)saving expense;

©dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –

(i)to the amount of money involved;

(ii)to the importance of the case;

(iii)to the complexity of the issues; and

(iv)to the financial position of each party;

(d)ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and

(e)allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.

[TUTTSI]

See post #1197.

 

I think you've mistakenly been given the directions for a completely different claim. Incidentally, I received a defence to my NatWest claim the other day - which bizarrely went into great details about the mechanics and various safety divices fitted to a Travis Perkins cement mixer. Nothing to do with bank charges, obviously!

 

 

Gary, can you please help me with this one, I feel I am getting in out of my depth! my thread is DSvABBEY

 

The courts have returned my letter which was hand delivered on Monday with a compliment slip stating that:-

 

"they are standard directions for all Bank Charge Claims. If they do not apply to your claim then you canot file them."

 

This seems unfair that my letter does not seem to be seen by a judge.

 

Is there any forms/application which I can send in with a fee to embody or use to highlight this so that the Judge will review it and if so under what rule!

 

Thanks

DS

[GaryH]

Hi DS,

 

I don't think there is a lot you can do then - just treat them as the standard small claims track directions.

 

You could apply formally on an N244 for the draft to be ordered I suppose, but it'll cost you £35.

[Destinyofsouls]

6,19,23,25,38,41 B.b. - 8

 

 

Youd be as sick as the proverbial parrot if they came up!

[GaryH]

They didn't, thank god - I was actually sad enough to check!

[Peterbard]

Hi

Watcing the news last night about the OFT court case it seems that all claims will be put on hold untill the end of this year at least.

Is this correct the oft publication seems to confirm this.

Are we better waiting until the judjement is in before wie continue to litigate. what would be the implications in waiting if a letter before action has been issued and contractual interest applied.

 

Best regards

Peter

[GuidoT]

No business as usual:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/107584-oft-test-case-what.html

[Peterbard]

Hi Yes thanks Fromthe OFT link on here

The Financial Services Authority has issued a 'waiver' from its complaints handling rules. This action means that until the test case is resolved any bank or building society that applies for the waiver will not be required to handle complaints relating to unauthorised overdraft charges.

 

Which i think pretty much means all.

 

Peter

[GaryH]

Hi Yes thanks Fromthe OFT link on here

The Financial Services Authority has issued a 'waiver' from its complaints handling rules. This action means that until the test case is resolved any bank or building society that applies for the waiver will not be required to handle complaints relating to unauthorised overdraft charges.

 

Which i think pretty much means all.

 

Peter

Not correct.

 

The FSA has "waivered" the banks' internal complaints procedures in respect of bank charges complaints - this also means that any claims going through the FOS will be on hold.

 

Whether County Court claims are stayed or not is entirely a matter for each court - not the banks, the OFT, the FSA, or anyone else for that matter. Those organisations have no bearing or influance on court process. Having said that I suspect that most, if not all, courts will choose to stay claims en-masse - but the claimant is at liberty to challenge any stay.

[Peterbard]

Sorry i coppied this direct from the link

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

As per above

 

From the OFT information on the court action

 

11. What happens to those wanting to, or in the process of reclaiming charges while the case is going on?

It will be for the courts to decide in relation to claims made to them.

The Financial Services Authority has issued a 'waiver' from its complaints handling rules. This action means that until the test case is resolved any bank or building society that applies for the waiver will not be required to handle complaints relating to unauthorised overdraft charges.

The UTCCRs law is one factor that the Financial Ombudsman Service must take account of when making its decisions. As this action is expected to provide certainty about the law, the Financial Ombudsman Service has decided not to progress complaints about current account charges until the outcome of the legal action is known.

 

Is this information incorrect?

 

Back to my question if i have a claim where i am claiming contractual interest would i not be better waiting rather than have the court register the claim and loose a substantial ammount in what could be an inteim of twelve months

 

Regards

Peter

[GaryH]

Is this information incorrect?

No, it correctly states that its up to the courts what they do with claims.

 

The banks not handling complaints does not extend to those that are already in the court system - by then its out of the banks, or the FSA's, hands

Back to my question if i have a claim where i am claiming contractual interest would i not be better waiting rather than have the court register the claim and loose a substantial ammount in what could be an inteim of twelve months

 

Regards

Peter

A contractual interest claim is no longer valid under mutuality, or fairness, etc - there is a precedent against it on the implied term basis.

 

Aside from that though, how would you lose interest? It will continue to accrue at exactly the same rate whether its in the court system or not. The only thing you could (potentially) lose is the court fee. The advice from CAG is to keep filing claims.

[Peterbard]

A contractual interest claim is no longer valid under mutuality, or fairness, etc - there is a precedent against it on the implied term basis.

 

 

Hi

I notice on other threads ther are still people applying for contracual interest are al these void.

Not being a regular followeer of this thread i didn't realise and i don't think a lot of other people do either.

When was this precident realised and do you have more details perhals you could link me to the relavant postings.

 

Peter

[kennyh]

where i am claiming contractual interest

I could wish that Martin b****y Lewis was somewhat more thoughtful with his on-screen pontifications. Last night on one of the news channels he quite chirpily told the interviewer that "Only when all of the banks give all of the charges back to their customers without being asked", would they (the press?) see a smile on his face; absolutely NO mention of the interest already taken!!

[Peterbard]

hI

Just had a quick google on the above and isn't it true that this ruling applied to bank accounts and not to Credit card agreements in which the terms are not implied but actual.

 

Regards

Peter

[GaryH]

hI

Just had a quick google on the above and isn't it true that this ruling applied to bank accounts and not to Credit card agreements in which the terms are not implied but actual.

 

Regards

Peter

Here's a link - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/97691-contractual-interest-precedent-lost.html

 

Yes its true that it won't apply to credit cards - is your claim a credit card one then? If so the test case does not affect it either! File your claim as normal.

[Peterbard]

Not correct.

 

The FSA has "waivered" the banks' internal complaints procedures in respect of bank charges complaints - this also means that any claims going through the FOS will be on hold.

 

Whether County Court claims are stayed or not is entirely a matter for each court - not the banks, the OFT, the FSA, or anyone else for that matter. Those organisations have no bearing or influance on court process. Having said that I suspect that most, if not all, courts will choose to stay claims en-masse - but the claimant is at liberty to challenge any stay.

 

Hi I think i was not clear in my query the points in conflict are the one hlighted above and the one highlighted below.

 

11. What happens to those wanting to, or in the process of reclaiming charges while the case is going on?

It will be for the courts to decide in relation to claims made to them.

The Financial Services Authority has issued a 'waiver' from its complaints handling rules. This action means that until the test case is resolved any bank or building society that applies for the waiver will not be required to handle complaints relating to unauthorised overdraft charges.

 

 

Regards

Peter

[Peterbard]

Here's a link - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/97691-contractual-interest-precedent-lost.html

 

Yes its true that it won't apply to credit cards - is your claim a credit card one then? If so the test case does not affect it either! File your claim as normal.

Hi

 

Thanks for that

Not a bad thread this

Not as good as the CCA thread but not bad at all;)

 

Regards

Peter

[mattyb13]

Just a quick question about the court bundle and the statement of evidence at the start of this thread.

 

In the SoE in the Murray v lesuireplay it has the date as 2005

 

16. The Claimant will further rely on numerous recorded authorities dating throughout the 20th century up to the most recent case of Murray v Leisureplay [2005] EWCA Civ 963, all of which have upheld and reinforced the principles set down by Lord Dunedin defining contractual penalty clauses and the unenforceability thereof.

 

But in the court bundle it says 2004 like this

 

In the case of Murray v. Leisureplay (2004), Mr Murray was sacked by Leisureplay and he claimed three years' salary as per his contract of employment. The courts decided that this clause was a penalty clause and he was not entitled to this level of damages. Even though the decision was reverted on appeal, the appeal itself drew on and further reinforced the principles of penalty charges.

 

Is this a mistake or should it be like this.

Thanks.

[mattyb13]

Bump

[GaryH]

Murray v Leisureplay was 2005.

[biff1974]

Hi just preparing court bundle for HSBC, do I need the first statement of evidence and at the bottom of the letter there documents in support of evidence (pardon me for being a bit dumb) but these bits of evidence are in the statement aren't they and do I have to list these pieces of evidence in support. Very sorry to be a bit dim!!

[JGJ]

Is the New Strategy for AQ ( Directions) the same for claims on Business Accounts . AQ N150 supplied by our local court.

 

Any help appreciated.:o :o