MacBoy Vs. Halifax and Hello To the Group!

[**Tilly**]

It seems I've stuffed up . I've had it in my head for weeks now that the case was today - and doing a final document check this morning have just noticed the date on the N24 form (Notice of Claimant's Application) - 22nd August - tomorrow!!!! DOH!

 

Doh thats what calender's are for mac

 

So...as you were - same time tomorrow? :grin:

 

 

lmao mac if you think you is getting another good lucky piccy mr think again

 

 

BTW what time you in court TOMORROW

[MacBoy]

 

2pm 8-)

[kennythecelt]

Best of luck Mac!!

 

Will keep an eye on thread and catch up later.

 

Go get em!

[photoman]

Good luck, go get 'em.

 

If you get the jitters, just picture in your minds eye the most daunting thing you have ever achieved at some point in the past, and use that to put the current events into perspective.

 

Will likewise look in later, do please post up a synopsis of events.

 

Pm

[kennythecelt]

If you get the jitters, just picture in your minds eye the most daunting thing you have ever achieved at some point in the past, and use that to put the current events into perspective.

 

Works for me as well. We know that you will however, be "charged" up, as most of us have been.

 

Excuse the pun.

[MacBoy]

Application Hearing, Today, 14:00 Lambeth CC

 

Bit of a Curate's Egg, really (good in parts!):

 

Judge started off by asking Defendant's Barrister whether they were sure they wished to proceed with the Defence they had submitted. The Barrister said they did.

 

Judge recognised immediately that they had played the Halliday card (see para. 5 in their defence).

 

He said that it is clear that the Claimant has put forward a much more sophisticated argument than the one they appeared to have responded to.

 

He said that in his opinion the matter of whether or not I was awarded at CI levels and not S69 levels was the only outstanding matter in the case, as they had already deposited a sum equivalent to the latter into my account. (I decided to reserve my response to this for the moment).

 

Barrister said that he had been instructed by his client that this matter should go to a High Court and be tried by a Chancery Judge, as it was a 'hugely complex' case, that had the potential for "massive implications...blah...blah....something about public policy...blah)".

 

Your ol' Mac smelt a rat.

 

Judge explained the implications of this to me and asked me what I thought of this suggestion. I replied that it was "clearly a cynical display of dissembly by the Defendant, designed for no other reason than to intimidate the Claimant".

 

Judge appeared to agree, but without making it too obvious. After taking another cursory glance through my PoC he declared: "Its a fairly complex argument, but certainly not too complex to fall outside the small claims track - so there it would remain. Barrister went a bit red, but conceded.

 

After a little more minor to-ing and fro-ing between me and the Barrister, the Judge ordered thus*:

 

1. That my move to strike out the Defence be dismissed

 

2. The Court is satisfied that the remaining issue was the CI vs. S69 level of interest on charges claimable.

 

3. That the Defendant be given the opportunity to amend its Defence should it wish to do so, provided that such amended Defence is filed and served to the Court not later than 16:00 on 19th September 2008. He also suggested that I consider writing up a small Skeletal, as the PoC was a little on the long side.

 

4. That the case shall remain on the Small Claims Track and that both parties shall file at Court and serve copies of all documents on which they intend to rely on all parties, including:

 

a) Witness Statements of Fact

 

b) Any originals, which should be brought to the hearing (not too sure what he meant by this - statements?)

 

5. The issue of costs be reserved.

 

And that was it, really.

 

There was a bit of a comedy moment on the way out, when neither me nor the Barrister could open the door out into the main Court Building for what seemed like several minutes. The Judge eventually heard the kerfuffle and walked through, saying "one of you had better get it open because I wish to leave soon!" As if on cue, the Usher turned up and saved the day!

 

I have to say I was impressed with the Judge, who was both pin-sharp and I think fair to both parties.

 

On the way out, the Barrister (who was actually an OK guy), apologised to me and insisted that he had not initially seen the bit about the High Court until he was leafing through his brief in Court. He seemed genuinely concerned not to appear as though he had sprung it on me after exchanging pleasantries with me before the hearing.

 

I replied: "well, I think I called it out for what it was". He replied "you did indeed...".

 

And on that we all went our merry ways.

 

So in summary, whilst not achieving my main aim of a strike-out and a shot at Summary Judgment, I did get a chance to sharpen up my argument and I think HFX got a bit of a shock about the standards of Draftsmanship that ensue when you get Trainee Solicitors to respond to complex cases.

 

That could work for or against me, I'm not sure which. But it does give me the focus of having my day in court to concentrate on just one main argument. I think there's also a small possibility that HFX will decide to throw in the towel and settle in full, rather than being forced to do some real work for a change.

 

I'm looking forward to bouncing ideas off you lot too

 

*My hasty transcript of the Judge's Order was scribbled as he was speaking. I'll reproduce the full order here when I receive it.

Edited August 22, 2008 by MARTIN3030
Removed name of DJ

[sallysas]

Shame their defence wasn't booted out but you have had one hell of a learning curve and my hat is duffed to you in admiration. I agree if halifax have any sense they will throw in the towel. Have a good weekend :)

Sally

[**Tilly**]

Way to go Mac hopefully you got HFX on the run if they had any sense they would. they have had one taster of you

 

lol had to laugh a the door saga, now i could have understood it if that had been me

 

 

 

 

Tilly

[kennythecelt]

You are on your way Mac. You have stuck in, punched away and concentrated on the job at hand.

 

An example to us all of what can be achieved- Well done.

 

I await the next posts with great anticipation.

 

Relax, you enjoy it. Kenny:)

[MARTIN3030]

Good work so far Mac-and allows another shot.

For obvious reasons have edited post that shows DJs identity.

[MacBoy]

Update

 

Mr. M. Boy vs Halifax Bank of Scotland Plc

 

Before DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE XXXXXXXXXX sitting at Lambeth County Court

 

Upon hearing the Claimant in person and counsel for the Defendant

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

 

• The Claimant's application to strike out the defence is dismissed, the court being satisfied that the sole remaining issue as to compound interest is sufficiently identified in the pleadings
  

 

• The Defendant may, if so advised, amend the defence in relation to compound interest provided that the Amended Defence is filed at court and served on the Claimant by 4pm, 19th September 2008
  

 

• The claim is allocated to the small claims track
  

 

• The hearing of the claim will take place at nn:00 on the nnth December 2008 at Lambeth County Court and should take no longer than 2 hours and 30 minutes. A hearing fee of £100 is payable by 18th September 2008 by the Claimant unless you make an application for a fee concession. failure to pay the fee will result in the hearing being removed from the list
  

 

• The court must be informed immediately if the case is settled by agreement before the hearing date
  

• The hearing fee will be refunded in full if the court receives notice in writing at least 7 days before the hearing date that the case is settled or discontinued
  

 

• Each party shall deliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents (including any experts' report) on which he intends to rely at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing.
  

Edited September 6, 2008 by MacBoy

[MacBoy]

The upshot of the above is that the Judge has recognised that I have correctly identified and argued the case for CI, but that the Defendant has not addressed it properly in their Defence.

 

In other words - they've been lazy, dismissive - and caught out

 

It will be interesting to see, having already sent counsel once to court to defend this matter, and now being effectively made to answer a much more complex and involved argument than they had anticipated; whether they will spend thousands of pounds more in Barristers and solicitors fees (to attend and facilitate a 2.5 hour court hearing), or crumble and settle.

 

Watch this space.

Edited September 6, 2008 by MacBoy

[photoman]

Watching with "interest" !!

 

PM

[**Tilly**]

Will watching for the next episode Mac

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tills

[MacBoy]

Current Account case duly filed this afternoon.

 

Also payed the Hearing Fee for the Credit Card case into the Court office.

Edited September 8, 2008 by MacBoy

[**Tilly**]

Current Account case duly filed this afternoon.

Also payed the Hearing Fee for the Credit Card case into the Court office.

 

 

Oooh someone been a busy bee

[sallysas]

Is this the 'end' game of chess then? After all your hard work I do hope so. I can't tell you what an inspiration you have been/continue to be to me and I'm sure hundreds of others on this site.

[MacBoy]

Is this the 'end' game of chess then? After all your hard work I do hope so. I can't tell you what an inspiration you have been/continue to be to me and I'm sure hundreds of others on this site.

 

Indeed it is, sallysas - for the Halifax anyway. I intend to get a parachute a/c opened up shortly and go after A&L, which is the home of my 'current' Current Account (if you see what I mean!).

 

Meanwhile the endgame for my Halifax Credit Card case (or more correctly the argument for CI therein) will take place in December.

[TUTTSI]

Hiya Mac,

 

Wishing you all the best with your claim - you have worked very hard on this.

 

Tuttsi xx

[MacBoy]

Thanks TUTTSI -I'm hoping that some of it at least will be useful to other CAG-gers

[TUTTSI]

Thanks TUTTSI -I'm hoping that some of it at least will be useful to other CAG-gers

 

Me too!

 

All the best

 

Tuttsi xx

[MacBoy]

Amended Defence from DLA Piper below

 

I've typed this, but the original as sent to me is a complete bloody mess, containing all the original defence written by HFX's in-house team; crossed out and the added stuff double underlined. See sample image below:

 

 

As well as as looking like a total dog's breakfast (which I'm sure will not impress the judge), I just can't see how what they've added (marked in bold below) strengthens their case one iota.

 

I'm not a lawyer - but this is certainly not what the Judge asked for.

 

IN THE LAMBETH COUNTY COURT

 

CLAIM NO. 8LBnnnn

 

Between:

 

MR XXXXXX XXXXX

 

Claimant

 

and

 

BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC (SUED AS HALIFAX (BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC) Defendant

 

DEFENCE

 

1. The Defendant is a Bank. The Claimant has a credit card account with the Defendant, having card number nnnn nnnn nnnn nnnn ("the Credit Card Account").

 

2. The Claimant appears to be claiming £397.00 In respect of Credit Card charges, £43.78 in respect of statutory interest, £920.69 in respect of contractual interest (or, in the alternative, £132.72 in respect of simple statutory interest) and £75.00 Court fee.

 

3. The Claimant has provided particulars implying that £397.00 of his claim relates to Credit Card charges incurred on his Credit Card Account. These charges were debited to the Credit Card Account in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Credit Card Account ("the Account Conditions"), which the Claimant agreed to accept and by which he is bound. Under the Account Conditions, the Defendant is entitled to apply charges to the Credit Card Account, inter alia and so far as is relevant to this claim, for:

 

(a) Each time you do not make a minimum payment by the payment date;

 

and:

 

© Each time a direct debit, cheque or other item is not paid, including a cheque which you write;

 

4. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Defendant has, without admission of liability refunded £515.78 to the Claimant. This sum represents all the credit card charges that the Claimant has incurred in the period claimed, being £397.00, together with £43.78 in respect of interest and £75.00 in respect of Court fee.

 

5. The remainder of the claim, £920.69, appears to relate to compound interest on top of the charges and interest which haye already been refunded as described at paragraph 4 above, The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to compound interest on these sums.

 

(a) The Claimant alleges at paragraph 40 of the Particulars Of Claim that he suffered interest losses by having to take out loans to cover the charges applied. The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to recover any such sums and puts the Claimant to strict proof of these allegations.

 

b) The Claimant alleges at paragraph 32 of the Particulars Of Claim that the Defendaot has made "considerable profit" as a result of the charges and claims a compounded interest rate of 20.6%. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to such sums and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the rate alleged.

 

6. The correct basis for any such award of interest would be simple statutory interest at a rate of 8% under the County Courts Act 1984. The Defendant is currently making arrangements for a total of £136,01 in respect of simple statutory interest (in respect of £132.72 statutory interest claimed to the date at issue and a further sum of £3.29 in respect of statutory interest at a daily rate of 10.6p to the date of repayment as per the Claimant's claim form) to be refunded directly to the Claimant's Credit Card Account.

 

7. On the basis of matters pleaded above, the Defendant denies that it is liable to the Claimant for the sum of £920.69 in respect of the balance of his claim or for any other sum.

 

DATED this 18th day of September 2008

 

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

 

Signed XXXXX X XXXX

 

Solicitor

DLA Piper UK LLP

Edited September 19, 2008 by MacBoy

[sallysas]

You can't submit documents like the above and expect to be taken seriously by the judge. I'm terrible at understanding legal documents compared to some people but even I can see they have not put a single answeer to what was asked of them. A win is on the cards before christmas methinks.

[MacBoy]

Indeed, sallysas. Apart from a letter I'm drafting to the solicitors (insisting that they do not make the intended deposit into my account and that they reverse the one they already have made), I don't think I'm even going to bother with a Reply to Defence ahead of the hearing now - it is that crap.

 

Why should I give them another chance to get their act together?

 

I have every reason to believe that the Judge will roast them alive for this. They have completely ignored his direction.

[MacBoy]

Response letter to amended Defence

Will be posted in the morning. I'm currently considering a response to their Defence via the court, but may not bother, in the light of its sheer crapness

 

DLA PIPER UK LLP

Princes Exchange

Princes Square

Leeds

LS1 4BY

 

Original to: DLA Piper

 

Copies to: Halifax (Bank of Scotland) Plc, Lambeth County Court

 

Saturday, 20 September 2008

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Case No. nLB0nnnn | Your ref. xxxxnnnnnnn

 

Response to forced settlement offer made after Amended Defence Filed

 

It appears from reading your client’s amended defence in the above matter that they have once again disregarded all previous representations from myself, in respect of making forced settlements into my credit card account. I wish to make it clear that I accept neither the original nor any subsequent payments that may be made in this manner and presented as purported settlement, either in full or part, of the above matter.

 

I therefore request in the strongest terms that your client not proceed with the intended payment alluded to in your Amended Defence dated 18th September 2008. I further request that your client reverses forthwith all such payments already made.

 

Furthermore, I refer them to my previous letters to Angela McDade, Complaints & Consumer Guidance, HBOS PLC, sent 23 April 2008, 10 May 2008 and 15 June 2008. In all of the above letters, I also requested a copy of a properly executed agreement, signed by both parties, in respect of the instant account. I will now reiterate this request a fourth time.

 

If I do not receive this within fourteen days of the date of this letter, I shall consider applying to the court for a Pre-Action Disclosure order and will make further complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office, as this request was part of an official Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998, made on 30th March 2007; which has still not been fulfilled by your client.

 

Finally I refer you to para. 4 of your client’s Amended Defence, in which they state that they have refunded the court fee of £75 into my account. In fact this payment was not made through the account, but separately by cheque, which I subsequently returned. No further payment was made into my account in respect of court fees or anything else as far as I am aware.

 

With regard to the remainder of your client's amended defence, I am currently considering this and if necessary shall respond through the court. I look forward to hearing from you or your client in due course.

 

Yours faithfully etc.

Edited September 21, 2008 by MacBoy