Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


GettingThingsDone

GTD v LTSB

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4846 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

 

I'm now at the Court AQ stage...

 

This appears to be quite a simple and common question, but I haven't really seen a clear answer (yes, I've read the FAQ a few times now) -

 

Section G on the N149; do you actually need to put anything in here? Mine is a 'standard' claim for £1500 of charges over the last 6 years.

So far I have:

 

I believe the case will last no longer than 1 hour

 

Thank you for this wonderful site by the way!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, forgot to add that I've followed the steps provided, but as I did an MCOL I haven't provided the court with my claim figures yet. Is nowa good time to do so, or wait until the 'bundle' stage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got this from kaz's thread...

 

SECTION G OTHER INFORMATION

The defendant in its defence contends that this claim is not suitably particularised and the statement of claim shows no reasonable grounds for the claim to be brought. The Claimant disagrees with this contention entirely. The claims particulars clearly state the statutory and common law provisions on which this claim relies, and the claimant will of course elaborate upon the claim particulars at such time as is required upon the direction of the court. Further, contrary to the contention of the defendant, the relevant numbers of the account in question were clearly identified in the claimant’s particulars of claim, and a full schedule of the charges which form the sum claimed from the defendant was sent to Northampton bulk court on the day of issue for inclusion alongside the claims particulars. Additionally, the defendant was served with this information on two occasions previously within a 28 day period allowed by the claimant to attempt to resolve the issue prior to the commencement of this litigation. For the sake of expediency, I have attached another copy of the schedule to this allocation questionnaire.

As is known to the defendant, I am a litigant in person in this case. It is respectfully submitted that the contentions of the defendant are highly likely to be an attempt to distress and intimidate, rather than presenting any valid or reasonable objections to the clarity of the Particulars of claim.

 

And also you can request Standard Disclosure:

 

 

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. This would bring a rapid end, not only to this litigation, but would also likely bring an end to much of the litigation in progress against other high-street banks.

 

I'll now start checking the wording from SCM, and make sure the response is appropriate. I think I have the 'standard' 9 point response i.e. there is nothing in there about 'vague-ness'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...