Jump to content



Abbey abuse orders - keeping the pressure on.


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4849 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

In view of the recent 'abuse' strike outs involving Abbey, it might be a good idea to keep the heat on and request a strike out on your AQ. You could use something like the following - which primarily requests that the defence is struck out as an abuse of process or alternatively that a disclosure order is made as per the draft directions.

 

This may be especially effective to use on a second AQ in the situation where they have requested a stay for settlement (as Abbey do as far as I'm aware), got it ordered, then ignored it, because the judge would have clear evidence in front of him of an abuse of process in your own particular case.

 

If you want to give it a go, set out section G as below, then attach it to the AQ along with the attachments as indicated. The attachments are linked below.

 

 

You -v- Abbey Plc

In the ****** County Court

Claim No: *******

 

 

 

N149 ALLOCATION QUESTIONNAIRE

 

 

Section G – Other Information

 

The Claimant respectfully requests that an order may be made as follows;

 

1. That the Defence is struck out as an abuse of process, pursuant to rule 3.4(2)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

On the basis that the Defendant has filed a template defence then subsequently settled each and every other claim of this nature.

 

Since May 2006, I am aware of over 100 claims of this nature in which the Defendant has filed an acknowledgement of service, then a Defence, then an allocation questionnaire, then has breached the order for pre-hearing directions, then has finally settled without liability shortly in advance of the hearing or trial. A sample list of these claims, including their claim numbers, is attached (attachment 1B).

 

It is submitted that the defendant’s litigation strategy is flagrantly abusive of the public resource, and further, contrary to almost all of the Overriding Objective’s of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is respectfully submitted that the Defendant will continue to conduct litigation in this manner for as long as it is allowed to do so with impunity.

 

Please find attached a copy of an order made by Lincoln County court (attachment 1C) in at least 10 cases similar to my own involving various high street banks, including Abbey Plc. The court considered the authority of Mullen-v-Hackney London Borough Council (1997)2 A11ER 906 to be relevant. If this honourable court also considers this authority relevant, I would respectfully request that the court applies its special knowledge of the defendant’s notorious and well established conduct in similar cases when considering order in the present case. Please find attached the case to which I refer (attachment 1D)

 

2. In the alternative, should the court not be minded to strike out the defence, and if the claim is to proceed to allocation, the Claimant respectfully suggests that special directions may be made as per the attached draft order (attachment 2A).

 

I believe the proposed directions will further the Overriding Objectives in that they identify the most fundamental issues in dispute and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously.

 

I would aver that if the Defendant has the serious intention of defending this claim at trial, as is indicated by its defence, that it is incumbent upon it to disclose such information. Further, the proposed directions are now routinely ordered in claims of this nature in the Mercantile Court in London, as well as small claims track cases in Leicester, Derby, Chesterfield, and Mansfield County Courts.

 

As the law relating to contractual penalties is long established, I believe that the outstanding issues are are of fact. Accordingly, I respectfully request that this claim is allocated to the small claims track, and would estimate that the hearing of the claim should last no longer than one hour.

 

Attachment 1B;

Settled claims

Attachment 1C;

Lincoln 'abuse' order

Attachment 1D;

Hackney -v- Mullen - See PDF attachment below

Attachment 2A;

Draft order for directions

 

In the actual section G box, you should put this;

 

Please find the following documents attached to this allocation questionnaire;

 

1A) Section G - other information

1B) List of settled cases

1C) Text of order made by Lincoln County Court

1D) Mullen -v- Hackney BC (1997)2 A11ER 906

2A) Draft Order for directions

 

This allocation questionnaire and its attachments were sent to the defendant on **/**/**

 

*** If you use this, PLEASE post the response - if you get a strike out we want to know about it!!! PM me or post on this thread.

:) ***

 

Be aware that if the draft directions as per point 2 (attach. 2A) are ordered by the court, you will need to provide - a) schedule of charges, b) your statements, c) a statement of evidence and d) cases and statutes. Everything you need can be found in or linked from this thread -

 

 

Then, when they settle your claim, be sure to submit a request for wasted costs!!! -

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/85726-wasted-costs-order.html

 

.

Hackney -v- Mullen (PDF).pdf

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

An excellent idea.

Would it be possible to try the same order with ALL claims ?

We all know that the banks have no intention to defend any of these claims in court.

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, absolutely. I would think that it is likely to be most effective against banks like Abbey, Lloyds and Barclays, as they are the worst culprits.

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary, i am due an AQ for my third claim sometime in the next few weeks, could i use this now? can you also use the new strategy in the alternative? seems a good way to quicken the process still further, well done

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks:)

 

What you mean before you get the AQ? No, I would'nt personally. Its unlikely to be looked at until the file goes up for allocation anyway, which will be after the AQ return date.

 

Attach it to the AQ when you get it, and yes, it does incorpoate the new strategy - in point 2, so attach the draft directions as well.

 

Obviously there is no guarentee the judge will take any notice, but there are some definate signs that the tide is starting to turn, so I should imagine it just might bring success to some at least. Certainly worth a try anyway, if only to put Abbey even further on the back foot!:D

  • Haha 1

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gary - this is absoloutely brilliant, and answers in one hit all the queries I've raised in various other posts. It also makes the job of preparing an AQ for submission to the Court totally straightforward. Must be worth its weight in gold!

 

A million thanks for your work with this

 

Adam.

I do my best to be helpful, but at the end of the day I'm not a professional - please seek further advice if you're not sure. On the other hand, if I have helped, please click my scales - thanks ;)

 

Current Claims (all for friends!) -

 

Abbey - over £4k - Court claim issued & AQ filed ('Tish vs Abbey'). Alloc'n Hearing 21 Sept - Claim stayed 29/8/07.

Cap One - just under £2k - WON (just over 2k!)('Tish vs Cap One')

Cap One - just under £1000 - WON (just over £1k) Nov 07 (JimmyBoy vs Cap One)

Lloyds TSB - £3.5k - Court claim issued, defence rec'd and AQ filed; Alloc'n hearing 7th Sept Claim stayed 29/8/07! (JimmyBoy vs Lloyds')

MBNA - over £1k for mis-sold PPI - WON - approx £1500(IpswichWitch vs MBNA . . .)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks:)

 

What you mean before you get the AQ? No, I would'nt personally. Its unlikely to be looked at until the file goes up for allocation anyway, which will be after the AQ return date.

 

Attach it to the AQ when you get it, and yes, it does incorpoate the new strategy - in point 2, so attach the draft directions as well.

 

Obviously there is no guarentee the judge will take any notice, but there are some definate signs that the tide is starting to turn, so I should imagine it just might bring success to some at least. Certainly worth a try anyway, if only to put Abbey even further on the back foot!:D

 

Hi Gary, no I meant when I get to the AQ filling stage, as long as the court hasnt dispensed with it of course, but you have answered me anyway, so many thanks :-)

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Lula, I'm about to receive in the next week-ish my AQ for my third claim against shAbbey.... and it's my biggest one.

 

THis looks fabulous, and well worth the try, after all, absolutely nothing to lose.

 

My respect to GaryH in compiling it, it truly is a work to be admired and the time spent composing it, thank you on behalf of the el Thickos like me! ;)

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem - in actual fact I first compiled it for a friends claim against Lloyds TSB, and it was subsequently completely ignored!:rolleyes:

 

Seemed to do the trick for Mariejader though, and there has been another seperate Abbey strike out recently so I thought I may as well pop it over here.

 

Thanks for the kind comments.:)

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one question, in the case of the court not issuing an AQ, can this be sent with a letter to the court? I suspect it can, just fancied another opinion. ;)

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the idea of using this against Abbey in my AQ this week. My only difficulty is the Lincoln Abuse Order...the link just takes me to a forum post; surely I can't use this can I? If not, should I just miss out that section & take it off my list? Any help greatly appreciated. Pursuing Abbey for £2800

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Emily x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Copy and paste it into word, check for typo's then print it off.

 

Its the text thats important really. In fact, I will try to get a copy of the actual order, but for now the text is fine.

  • Haha 1

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hI garyh

Don't know what I can do, bank has sent 6 years statements but I had asked for statements relating to two accounts although other one became redundant last year. The bank has told me that there is no hope of getting these statements as they have changed their system..any ideas on this would be extremely helpful

Hephalump

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys we've just done the AQ (nasty mean version) it's all ready to go when we've got money for the court fee, but to whom do I send my Abbey copy. Does it go to Trinton Sq, & if so is there anyone in particular to whom I should address it.

 

Spent all this time & printing ink, may as well upset the right person:)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Emily x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shoe Em, LOL yes, please upset the right person, in your copy of their defence there will be some letter headed paper, there should be an address started Location XXXXXX Abbey house or somethng, you can get the name of the person dealing with your claim from their signed acknowledgement and probably the defence itself.

 

sorry for the appalling spelling, it is very late

  • Haha 1

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...... go to bed then lol :rolleyes:

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Shoe Em, LOL yes, please upset the right person, in your copy of their defence there will be some letter headed paper, there should be an address started Location XXXXXX Abbey house or somethng, you can get the name of the person dealing with your claim from their signed acknowledgement and probably the defence itself.

 

sorry for the appalling spelling, it is very late

 

Perfect...I have made out an envelope addressed to her in case there was no reply on here. Thanks Lula! Hope yours is going well x

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/88172-shoe-em-abbey.html?highlight=shoe+em+vs+Abbey

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Emily x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks GaryH, Mariejader gave me a copy after she was successful with it and I used it on my AQ, which was filed on the 2nd May to Leeds.

 

Been told case was transferred to Leeds County Court so rang to ask what was happening & we've been put into Mercantile on 28th June.

 

I'll keep you updated if anything happens, and you'll hear the celebrations all over the country if HH strikes Abbey's defence on your wording.

 

From the little people on this site, thank you for your time and effort and your unfailing willigness to hep. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be really useful for me too actually. I've already printed everything up & it's all ready to go on tuesday (last day to hand in, first day we can afford fee!) but I would feel better if I could list case refs.

 

Of course I'd feel even better if Abbey begged our forgiveness & settled:)

 

Em x

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/88172-shoe-em-abbey.html?highlight=shoe+em+vs+Abbey

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Emily x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gary, will you please take a look at my thread what happens now? alice25vabbey and tell me would this letter etc that you have done be good to send in my case. I have 2 claims running, 1 single & 1 joint, we have had identical letters etc from court re both and Abbey's defence is word for word in both cases. cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it would be fine. Change the top bit though to reflect the fact that its not an AQ attachment. Such as;

Claim No: *******

Between:

You

(Claimant)

and

 

 

Bank Plc

(Defendant)

________________

 

CASE MANAGEMENT

REPRESENTATIONS

_________________

 

It is noted that in my case referenced above that the Allocation Questionnaire has been dispensed with. I am aware that this is likely due to the large volume of claims that consumers are bring against the high street banks. I am also aware that to date the banks have failed to defend a case in the courts and that they often use the court process to extend and delay the period of time within which they deal with these matters satisfactorily.

 

Accordingly, I hope the court will be minded to consider the following case management proposals, and respectfully request that an order may be made as follows;

 

1. That the Defence is struck out as an abuse of process, pursuant to rule 3.4(2)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

On the basis that the Defendant has filed a template defence then subsequently settled each and every other claim of this nature.

 

Since May 2006, I am aware of over 100 claims of this nature in which the Defendant has filed an acknowledgement of service, then a Defence, then an allocation questionnaire, then has breached the order for pre-hearing directions, then has finally settled without liability shortly in advance of the hearing or trial. A sample list of these claims, including their claim numbers, is attached (attachment 1B).

 

It is submitted that the defendant’s litigation strategy is flagrantly abusive of the public resource, and further, contrary to almost all of the Overriding Objective’s of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is respectfully submitted that the Defendant will continue to conduct litigation in this manner for as long as it is allowed to do so with impunity.

 

Please find attached a copy of an order made by Lincoln County court (attachment 1C) in at least 6 cases similar to my own, in which Abbey Plc were also the Defendant's. The court considered the authority of Mullen-v-Hackney London Borough Council (1997)2 A11ER 906 to be relevant. If this honourable court also considers this authority relevant, I would respectfully request that the court applies its special knowledge of the defendant’s notorious and well established conduct in similar cases when considering order in the present case. Please find attached the case to which I refer (attachment 1D)

 

2. In the alternative, should the court not be minded to strike out the defence, and if the claim is to proceed to allocation, the Claimant respectfully suggests that special directions may be made as per the attached draft order (attachment 2A).

 

I believe the proposed directions will further the Overriding Objectives in that they identify the most fundamental issues in dispute and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously.

 

I would aver that if the Defendant has the serious intention of defending this claim at trial, as is indicated by its defence, that it is incumbent upon it to disclose such information. Further, the proposed directions are now routinely ordered in claims of this nature in the Mercantile Court in London, as well as small claims track cases in Leicester, Derby, Chesterfield, and Mansfield County Courts.

 

As the law relating to contractual penalties is long established, I believe that the outstanding issues are are of fact. Accordingly, I respectfully request that this claim is allocated to the small claims track, and would estimate that the hearing of the claim should last no longer than one hour.

Remember to attach everything linked from post #1

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...