Can I change the Prelim template by ... ?

[asdf54321]

Can I change the prelim template slightly by putting 10 days instead of 14? This is the second bank I'm going to persue and I'd like things speeded up a bit this time round as I'd like the money back quicker.

 

I'm pretty sure that you can but correct me if I'm wrong, this time limit isn't written in stone and it's supposed to be the time that you think it should take for a company to deal with the query and get back to you (I've read.) I just want to double check though.

 

Cheers,

Ray

[Parkvale]

14 days is a reasonable period. Good luck.

[asdf54321]

Thanks Parkvale, anyone else want to just quickly double confirm?

[barracad]

The 14 days is quoted because it is a reasonable length of time - the number wasn't just plucked out of thin air.

 

There are no shortcuts.

 

This is not a get-rich-quick scheme.

[joneshousehold]

Hi Ray, I have a vague recollection that early in the campaign the template letters gave 7 days and it was lengthened to 14 days when there was some criticism of the periopd being too short. I can't remember why or who the criticism was from. The 14 days is not written in tablets of stone but as Barracad says, it is accepted as being a reasonable time for the bank's response without being too short to reply within or too long which just prolongs the whole claim unnecessarily.

 

Is there any particular reason why you want to use 10 days?

[livelylad]

Cpr states the 1 month is a reasonable timescale to attempt to resolve any dispute, before starting legal action.

[joneshousehold]

Lively, I wonder if this is why we use 14 days for each of the letters as this adds up to about 1 month

[livelylad]

4.2 Parties to a potential dispute should follow a reasonable procedure, suitable to their particular circumstances, which is intended to avoid litigation. The procedure should not be regarded as a prelude to inevitable litigation. It should normally include –

(a)the claimant writing to give details of the claim;

(b)the defendant acknowledging the claim letter promptly;

©the defendant giving within a reasonable time a detailed written response; and

(d)the parties conducting genuine and reasonable negotiations with a view to settling the claim economically and without court proceedings.

4.3 The claimant's letter should –

(a)give sufficient concise details to enable the recipient to understand and investigate the claim without extensive further information;

(b)enclose copies of the essential documents which the claimant relies on;

©ask for a prompt acknowledgement of the letter, followed by a full written response within a reasonable stated period;

 

(For many claims, a normal reasonable period for a full response may be one month.)

(d)state whether court proceedings will be issued if the full response is not received within the stated period;

[asdf54321]

Hi, thanks for the answers, and to those that have understood I was interested in having a discussion / kindly receiving help and not some fired off tired clichés.

 

Answering a question: the reason I’d like the money back slightly quicker is that I have a big payment to make in about 5 weeks and I’m just trying to plan.

 

The reason I’m confused is: as well as a few geezers down the pub telling me that they’ve won successfully using 10 days as the time limit, I vaguely remember Martin from MSE saying that most people use 14 days, but it’s the time that you see reasonable and some people use 10 days. I’ve just re checked though and it says 14 days, as with the BBC’s guidelines.

 

What I was actually thinking of doing is using 10 days after the prelim and 14 days after the LBA as that’s when the real negotiating and offers normally takes place but only if it didn’t greatly jeopardize my chances.

 

Now, I completely appreciate and have a lot of respect for the huge time and effort the site’s moderators, helpers and contributors put in and I’m quite sure that everything that is done is there in the best interest of getting peoples money back. The last thing I want is to damage any important moderators egos. It was interesting to see the real wording that livleylad has kindly provided. I think it says in various parts of this site that this is purely advice and opinions that are given anyway (to cover their backs just in case) and it’s always a good idea to double check things, I don’t think I’m wrong in doing so.

 

I’m going to try now avoiding plugging or linking to other charges claiming websites as there are various, the CAG in my opinion is by far the best and most complete. There is one particular well known one north of the border that has successfully claimed back £500 000 with the Scots and with one claim for £13 000. Same stories all round obviously, none defended properly in court. I’ve just re-checked their website today and they are still using 7 days as the limit. This could possibly be of course because of the slight differences between the Scottish small claims guidelines and England’s, just as with that 5 year / 6 year business, but I’m not too sussed up on the finer parts of Scottish law. I’ve just re checked another penalty charge website that used 10 days before and now has 14…

 

If someone was to make a claim against me, yes, in all honesty I’d obviously prefer as long as possible to avoid any errors but I’d settle it as soon as possible anyway without sending out a dodgy fob off letter. Banks though, aren’t particularly my friends and I couldn’t give a toss what they think is a reasonable time. ALL I’m concerned about is what a judge would think that follows the law, say if per-chance the banks decided to properly defend all of a sudden. The way I see it, for a large corporation like themselves who made £4.5 billion just last year off unlawful charges, 10 days should be plenty of time to send me a fob off after a prelim even if they have a back log of 5 days. If they can’t, it’s their fine mess of their making and they could always contribute to the economy more positively by employing more back office staff to do so.

 

I'm going to use 14 days for both letters now anyway, thanks for the help.

[asdf54321]

To avoid confusion: Parkvale, edited his post.

 

Now it says "14 days is a reasonable period. Good luck".

 

Before it said that "you could try with 10 days, banks are so much snowed under with claims that it shouldn't make a difference, good luck", or something very simular.

 

The reason I am mentioning this is for just incase anyone is confused with my answer, asking someone to double confirm but for the other way.

 

That's why I answered with what I did or I wouldn't have asked again.

[Parkvale]

Quite right. That is why i changed the post to stop any confusion. I apologise if it my comment lead you up the wrong avenue. One of the biggest strengths of this site is the amount of support and help you receive with your claims. Thus what at the time

at the time seemed reasonable to us was quite obvious after some debating was indeed unreasonable. Good luck with your claim.

[joneshousehold]

Thanks for the lengthy post. What you say is interesting and I suspect it is something that was debated very early in the CAG existence. I can't remember that far back to be honest.

 

I suspect that whatever time limit you use, the bank will not reply. They are too busy and my experience even back a year ago is that they do not take any real notice until you put your claim into court. The problem then is that they will be allowed 14 days to acknowledge and if they do there is another 14 days allowed to provide a defence. Many (but not all) of the banks will go at least that far. In my own cases with Abbey, they only paid out just before the court hearing which was several months after the first letter. I have little confidence that you will get any money in 5 weeks based on my own experiences. However others may be able to show you differently for specific claims or banks.

 

Please don't be too hard on us staff. We are often hard pressed and sometimes when you ask a questions we try to understand the reason for it when replying. Also if we look back and think the answer we gave was misleading it may be better to alter the reply so that no-one else gets the wrong impression for their own claims.

 

Anyway I hope we have given you some food for thought and that you can perhaps make an informed decision. It is after all your claim so in the end you decide how to proceed. All you need to be comfortable with is that you can answer any possible criticism by the judge if the claim got to court.

 

If you are happy to post on the public form then let us know how you get on. We all get pleasure from the success of others.

 

Good luck

[ireatianu]

2 Site helpers, 2 Moderators....you sure pull the right crowd!! lol

 

Ireatianu:)

[Parkvale]

[asdf54321]

LOL, no worries, thanks again for your help guys.

[meagain]

10 days should be fine. I have heard mention on this site somewhere that courts have happily considered 7 days to be "reasonable" before now. The bank may have difficulty in turning around their post within even the 14 days, but that is their problem, not yours (remember, CPR suggests that their response should be prompt).

 

This said, if you are going to shave down the timescales to anything less than 10 days, you would do well to make contact well before sending the prelim.

 

In summary, 10 days is fine. Remember to allow 2 days for receipt of each letter.

[Bookworm]

In summary, 10 days is NOT fine.

 

What LivelyLad quoted is from the CPR, which is what a judge will refer to when deciding on anything. You would do well to respect that.

 

And I still have the original templates on my hard drive, I can assure you we have NEVER advocated a shorter period of time, it has always been 14 + 14 days, precisely to comply with CPR. On this site, we do what the law says.

 

Nothing to do with egos, all to do with the law.

 

Yes, in the long run, it probably won't matter. But then, Berwick v LTSB shows us that probably can be a dangerous thing in our cases.

[meagain]

What LivelyLad quoted is from the CPR [...]

 

I believe the text is "a normal reasonable period for a full response may be one month." Note it says "may be" and not "is". A reasonable period may also be 21 days, 6 weeks, or any other value someone may care to pluck out of thin air. I have enough faith in the ability of a judge to recognize the difference between allowing the defendant an opportunity to make good and pulling the wool over the eyes of all concerned. A response of "Only 27 days, eh? Claim struck out." is something I might expect to see from someone in a McJob, not from a district judge. I would expect people to at the very least lose their costs if they jump straight in with a 7-day LBA, but see no reason why the substance of a claim might fail - then it's down to people getting their claim right in the first place, the foundations of which should have been done before any letters get sent anywhere.

 

On this site, we do what the law says.

 

Indeed, and the law says "within a reasonable stated period", with an example, and nothing more. "Going on the B of 'bang'" (as Linford once put it) is not going to do anyone much harm, especially considering the defendant will in general be waiting short of the tape, perfectly content to stand there all day.

 

Yes, in the long run, it probably won't matter. But then, Berwick v LTSB shows us that probably can be a dangerous thing in our cases.

 

Berwick v LTSB shows us no such thing whatsoever. There is an ever-so-subtle difference between shaving a day or so off your deadlines and cocking up your entire argument. One will jeopardise your claim, the other will not.