oppressed but steadfast vs ipswich B.S.

[caro]

Your shout into the dark was heard, and for what it's worth I'll try to help.

 

1. It was unreasonable of them to ask for the case to be held in Northampton. Looks like you got that sorted, but I would suggest might be worth you remembering for future reference. While not exactly a major player in the mortgage business I imagine, they are in a better position that a litigant in person to have to travel etc.

 

2. Late bundle, I would suggest puts you at a significant disadvantage, especially given that you are a litigant in person, and they are giving you information that you need time to digest, and possibly get advice on. I can understand you preferring not to delay the case any longer. Having said that, if you do feel you need the time to understand everything you have an excellent reason for adjournment.

 

3. Liquidated losses. Trickier, so here are some thoughts, bearing in mind I'm not an expert.

 

A definition:

 

Liquidated Damages

Present in certain legal contracts, this provision allows for the payment of a specified sum should one of the parties be in breach of contract.

 

Notes:

This is meant as a fair representation of losses in situations where actual damages are difficult to ascertain. These liquidated damages are meant to be fair rather than punitive

 

I understand why many if not all of these items are there, but have a problem getting my head round what is actually being said here. I think I probably have more questions than answers, but here goes.

 

Are they saying that 3% of the total time of their staff is taken up by defaults, or just certain people?

 

The charge should relate to the actual instances where they have had to charge you as I understand it, so do they specify for each occasion exactly how long each member of staff worked on your specific breach.

 

Was the matter dealt with manually?

 

Did a manager look at your specific breach each time, or do they have some systems in place which meant that the member of staff (if there was one) knew how to deal with it so could do it unaided. If so how long did they actually spend on it?

 

How have they arrived at a figure of 3%? Is this 3% of their total business or just the mortgage section?

 

Take a look at the accounts here http://www.ibs.co.uk/downloads/Annual_Review_inc_SFS.pdf

 

Page 4 shows that their admin costs fell by 5,000 in 2005 compared to 2004, yet "Other Income and Charges" increased by 51,000. How much of this was charges, and is the reduction in admin costs reflected in the costs of your breaches in that financial year. Are 2006 accounts available yet, and how does that compare?

 

How many charges were there?

 

Which staff have bonuses? I notice the Sales and Marketing Director, and the Finance Director each had 2,000 in 2005. Did any of the staff dealing with your charges have bonuses. If the staff didn't have bonuses, what part did the Directors mentioned play in the collection of your charges?

 

How much of the profit relates to charges?

 

Have they provided back up documentation to prove the figures quoted?

 

When looking at depreciation, are they taking into account all depreciation, or just the depreciation of the items used for raising charges?

 

Have they provided copies of their accounts for the last 6 years to help you understand their calculations?

 

Without seeing what they have sent you, I think your best bet is just to question every item, how they have calculated, how that relates to your particular charges.

 

Keep making the point that you are a litigant in person and not used to dealing with such matters. The judge should make sure that you understand everything, so ask for lots of explanations. They have tried to blind you with accountancy jargon so let them explain it for you. Try and follow what is being said, and if you don't understand, ask. The more they have to explain, in my opinion, the more likely they are to make a mistake for the judge to pick up on. Play on the fact that you got the bundle late, so haven't really had time to fully get to grips with it, but didn't want to delay matters any longer and waste more of the courts time. Say you are surprised they have mentioned staff names and salary due to Data Protection.

 

 

I hope this is of some help.

[caro]

That rather implies then that he is familiar with this site. I wonder if he has obtained permission from Admin as stated in the forum rules. I'll investigate the legal position of him doing this. I know if that is the case he is breaking the law.

 

And as for limited means. How dare he comment on this! Of course are means are limited compared to financial institutions, and often as a result, at least in part of their actions. What right has he to judge?

[caro]

This is one angle, but check out every angle of the defence and bundle carefully. The bundle should show what they will be relying on in court. It sounds lacking, and they have messed up in my opinion on this part at least.

[caro]

It strikes me as very odd that a building society that I have never heard of feels able to show how their charges are made up, when huge multi-nationals have so far taken an enormous amount of care to avoid doing so.

 

As for encouraging litigation, we urge people to give 28 days to resolve the issues before resorting to court action. Also by keeping claims within the small claims track you are only asking for the money back that was taken unlawfully, plus interest at the courts discretion, and so you are also not asking the bank (or building society) for your own costs or damages for distress, difficulties, compensation etc.

 

How arrogant is this man? No-one is above the law. Read up your own bundle too, as that will confirm to you why your claim is fair. It'll be much easier if you understand your own claim thoroughly and can be confident in your arguments.

 

Remember, he is having to defend himself, not you.

[caro]

I thought you were in Bodmin? The silly part is the chances of you going to court at all are minimal, but at least it gives you more preparation time just in case.

 

I wonder if you could use this time to good effect, and try and sort it sooner rather than later, which would show the judge your willingness to avoid wasting court time.

 

Maybe you could write to the Building Society, thank them very much for the bundle, and ask for the information to back up their list and how they've calculated it, just so that you can understand it better. For information, perhaps you could send them a list of your questions so far to save time if you do need to go to court. You might suggest that you would be willing to amend your claim, or even drop it all together if you were confident that the charges truly reflected their actual costs. Send a copy to the court for information to show that even at this late stage you are more than willing to settle if you are confident that the charges truly reflect the costs and that court really is a last resort for you. Of course if they can't show this to your satisfaction you don't have to accept any offers that are not to your satisfaction, or amend your claim, and you have your court date to fall back on.

 

Just a thought that you may or may not want to consider.

[caro]

Just look on their website or ask them. The ones above aren't actually full accounts, but I think they should all have annual accounts which are available for anyone to see. If not try Companies House, or you can get some from the FT online service linked below, although not Building Societies I think because they are owned by the members and not listed on the stock exchange. For all searches I tend to just use Google.

 

FT.com / Annual report services

[caro]

I think if you give consent a fee isn't needed. You would have thought he would have known the date of the AGM and it won't hurt to check it. We can all make appointments, but often they can be changed for something important, like a court appearance.

 

You could point out that you have been waiting a very long time to get this settled, both before taking court action, and since starting it, and that you would really like it settled as soon as possible now. If you are finding the delay stressful, or feel your health is being affected, include that in the letter. Perhaps if it can't be settled the day of the AGM, could the judge suggest an earlier date, when, for example he may have a cancellation? You want to be as reasonable as you can, but your attempts to settle are being scuppered at every turn it seems. I think BankFodder might say the delay is a human rights issue.

[caro]

Of course they seem confident. They want you to think that, but they are still unlikely to go to court. I think of it as a game of chicken. Who will jump out of the way first.

 

Sounds like you've done your homework, you're prepared. Why give them the benefit of knowing what you have found out and giving them the opportunity of looking for more obstacles and arguments to deter you.

 

Is it vital that this person attends the AGM or is he just a staff member who might be useful? He can make it back in time. You know what you have to do. Keep us posted.

[caro]

'other income and charges'

 

I'm just a little dubious that this may be possible for them to explain away, and how much is actually penalty charges, if any.

 

Is there a little number next to this figure, which refers to a note which might explain what this consists of?

[caro]

I wish I could be more helpful, but take a look at this link which may help. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/guidance-notes/641-case-guidance-notes-going.html

[caro]

Well, you haven't lost, and looks like costs won't be an issue so that is good news.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in a few days. Everything crossed for you.