Why bother with prelim and LBA

[podgydad]

Yes, but just because something isn't tried and tested, it doesn't mean it won't work. CAG is not a corporate body, it is an internet community and as such is going to have differences of opinion and debate stuff from time to time.

 

When the 2 letter approach was developed, it was on the basis of being reasonable and expecting the bank to reasonable and enter in to a meaningful dialogue. Who has had some meaningful dialogue with Barclays, Natwest or Nationwide that prevented court action?

 

Now, at no point have I advocated that people do this, I'm asking the question, stimulating debate. The current course of action is tried and tested, its safe but thats not to say that a different approach might work. The FAQ's are clear and that's what the majority of people will follow.

[Guest NATTIE]

NatWest have started paying out on the LBA which usually comes after the Prelim, so NatWest, i would say has changed the way they have handled cases directly as a result of this site and other associated ones.

Podgydad, please claim YOUR way because talk is cheap. You are free to claim your way and we will advise the CAG way which has helped to reclaim more than 7 million punds worth of charges. It is good to debate but just do it your way and update us how you get on. Then we can comment more on your way and the sites way.

[Spiceskull]

The small claims courts has an overriding objective - and that is effectively that claims are settled at court as a LAST resort.

 

If you don't give the bank an opportunity to do this (two letters) then the overriding objective is thrown out of the window...something that a court would not look lightly on

 

Additionally, whilst you are right that the "sue immediately" approach has not been tested thoroughly, 99% of people on this forum would agree that it is doomed to failure.

 

Those 99% of people are here precisely because the advice and support given here is sound, they are not "risk-takers," and because they like to feel that once their claim has succeeded they will then be able to give something back by helping others.

[senanbyrne]

to offer informed advice yes , not to offer advice that if someone followed it they could risk their claim .

 

Janet, with respect, all I was offering was informed advice based on two people close to me that had success without any initial letters.

 

Having seeked legal advice myself from my solicitor, he said that in the case of bank charges, the court would not strike out a case for only offering 14 days notice. This is because the courts are very aware of the banks tactics.

 

This is why I went down the 14 day route.

[Advoc8]

IMHO the procedures recommended in the FAQ's are simple and straightforward and follow the spirit of the CPR. It might be possible to shortcut them but to do so does entail a degree of risk.

 

The majority of claimants do not have any legal training, do not wish to delve into the CPR and/or the associated PDs and simply wish to reclaim what they state is owed to them. I therefore submit that the most practical advice is to stick with the tried-and-tested approach, even though it might add a couple of weeks to the process.

[senanbyrne]

So if you don't have proof of postage for your letters, you have no chance?

[podgydad]

NatWest have started paying out on the LBA which usually comes after the Prelim, so NatWest, i would say has changed the way they have handled cases directly as a result of this site and other associated ones.

Podgydad, please claim YOUR way because talk is cheap. You are free to claim your way and we will advise the CAG way which has helped to reclaim more than 7 million punds worth of charges. It is good to debate but just do it your way and update us how you get on. Then we can comment more on your way and the sites way.

 

Now, thats interesting, I've found Natwest to be very slow and unhelpful.

 

Bring up an interesting issue with unjust enrichment though doesn't it? If they pay up at LBA and you're not claiming contractual then they have been unjustly enriched by the profit on our charges. You almost don't want them to pay up at LBA unless you somehow add interest at the LBA phase. Perhaps this needs to be thought about with regards to adding interest at 8% at LBA on the basis of unjust enrichment.

[JonCris]

The prelim claim letter, with schedule attached, should include the interest you intend to claim contractual or otherwise.

[rbrears]

For sure there's nothing at all wrong with the CAG method and I agree that it should be followed, even though it also does not comply with the protocol. But we are sure that no-one's been struck out after following it so we know it's ok.

 

Interesting that the point appears in this thread that if you don't follow the CPR requirments for trying to settle before proceedings you can get struck out. We know from our own CAG experience that this doesn't happen to litigants in person in the real world otherwise many CAGGERS would have had this experience bearing in mind that our method is not CPR compliant.

[Guest The Terminator]

I've been following this thread and in my opinion we have two differing opinions here which I tend to disagree with and agree with and I make my opinion as follow's:

 

1) The correct protocol is as Gleen's and Janet's that yes you have to give the banks time to resolve the issue as stated in the CPR but:

 

2) You also have to realize that the banks are pedantic and will use any trick in the book to either bypass the law or take up unneccessary court time to prevent any settlement.This is where I can see podgydad's point of view.

 

3) It also needs to be looked this way as well.The banks will wait until the very last minute before settling because they know to get them on the stand will eventually show that they have pilfered money which quite rightly is not theirs.

 

Looking at this from either side it should be only 1 letter but this should only be a 21 day LBA.The CPR were designed to reach agreement before proceedings were commenced but it seems to me that the banks are flouting this knowing that they will get away with it.It needs a strong judge to throw the book at them to move the process along.

[JonCris]

rbears The problem is that if we, even as litigants in person, all start going down the route suggested the courts will very soon get fed up (as some appear to be with the banks) & may begin punishing those who they consider have not acted reasonably

[Glenn UK]

A couple of points should be considered when considering our approach ti litigation.

 

The behaviour of the other side is irrelevant in that we should not take our ideals from them. Simply because the other side abuses the court process doesn't mean its a good reason for us to do the same. If they get on,e two or a score of defences struck out in the scheme of things its no problem to them.

 

For many of our members it wold be disastrous to have a claim struck out. Those of us arguing on this thread are the ones least likely to be affected by such things, most of the membership of this site are not as arrogant, argumentative or confident, choose whichever adjective fits, personally i could go with all three.

 

Secondly although i haven't heard of anyone having their claims struck out because of a failure to send two letters, but i have heard of solicitors asking for claims to be struck out for a variety of reasons which, considering the circumstances could be considered trivial and not sufficient to have a claim struck out. At least if we were litigating against other individuals rather than the banks its likely that those claims that had been struck out for insufficient particularisation would never have been struck out.

 

It makes not good sense to try to replace two letters with a single LBA when the difference is a matter of days and a few pence when the overall timescales are generally weeks and months.

 

Seems to me that there is little if any benefit in using a single letter, and on the other hand there is a chance that a defendant will use it against the claimants to our detriment.

 

I cant see the contest personally.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[senanbyrne]

It makes not good sense to try to replace two letters with a single LBA when the difference is a matter of days and a few pence when the overall timescales are generally weeks and months.

Glenn

 

Glenn, the difference would be two weeks with a 14 day approach. Some people may not have the time and want to resolve it quicker. Now what I am saying is that I have been told by my solicitor that with a bank charges case, the claimant would not be struck out for insufficient notice being 14 days.

[Glenn UK]

Glenn, the difference would be two weeks with a 14 day approach. Some people may not have the time and want to resolve it quicker. Now what I am saying is that I have been told by my solicitor that with a bank charges case, the claimant would not be struck out for insufficient notice being 14 days.

 

 

I think hes probably right, its unlikely to get struck out, and it may not matter to you if it does get struck out.

 

You say 14 days sooner, you do realise that there are no guarantees about how long each claim will take don't you?

 

The settlement times run from weeks to months, 7 months and still running with my abbey claim.

 

Its not really a question of not having time, its a question of whether you are prepared to take the risk of having your claim struck out and the issues that go along with it.

 

Is your solicitor giving you guarantees with that advice?

 

As others have said if thats the way you want to go then fine, do it.

 

I would hate to see this strategy be taken up as some new approach only for it to backfire on those who can least afford it.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[Rooster-UK]

With all due respect to everyone who has posted on this thread, I find it strange that people come to this site for help in reclaiming their bank charges, then ignore or argue against the advice given.

Advice based on experience of thousands of claims.

 

If I go to the doctor and he tells me I have 'flu, I don't turn round and tell him that his suggested treatment is not as effective as my old Aunt Maud's remedy. If I took that approach, I would have been dead some years ago from either of two medical conditions.

 

I have read every post on this thread and I still stand by what I posted on post #3.

 

You must make up your own minds if you don't want the advice that is offered here. I wish you luck.

 

Regards, Rooster.

[JonCris]

Spot on Rooster.........& I assume you mean you would have been dead from too many hot toddy's!!

[Rooster-UK]

Spot on Rooster.........& I assume you mean you would have been dead from too many hot toddy's!!

 

I may be spot on, but you are far off the mark.

 

I am diabetic and dependant on insulin, also I suffer from congestive heart failure. (Approximately 30% dead heart muscle.)

 

So when I ask for advice, I listen to it and then act on it.

 

Regards, Rooster.