Lula v Abbey ***WON***

[Lula]

Just rang him. there is a counter offer on its way to me.

 

Just how old is he??

 

Poor bloke, I rang him and Monkey started screaming cos he had hurt himself so I had to call him back, he is very reticent on the phone

[lknox]

He sounds very young, doesn't he? But I have to say, I found him to be very pleasant, and even helpful!

I found I had to phone him to chase the money after Abbey agreed to settle. As we all know now, they do leave it as long as they can - and then it's a cheque.

[Janeyh]

He sounds very young, doesn't he? But I have to say, I found him to be very pleasant, and even helpful!

I found I had to phone him to chase the money after Abbey agreed to settle. As we all know now, they do leave it as long as they can - and then it's a cheque.

 

They didn't send me a cheque even though I asked them to. I wanted to pay it into a different bank. They paid it direct into my Abbey account and they (DLA) said the only time they send a cheque is when the account is actually closed (fibbers !).

 

I had to wait for the funds to clear twice, once from Abbey (5 days - don't understand this anyway when funds are deposited directly into the account:rolleyes: ) and then again when I moved the money to my other account.

 

They like to make it awkward for you right till the very end:rolleyes:

[Lula]

He does seem a pleasant chap, and even a spark of humour there

 

He is still arguing about my charges from 1999 saying that they are covered, and I reminded him that people have been paid out on it and also of the UTCCR 1999, he promptly replied "Not from me they havnt" which we both had a little laugh at

[Lula]

Well, this morning saw a counter counter offer of 2.5k and stating that

 

"

limitation Act 1980 Section 32 does indeed, as you state, deal with postponement of a limitation act in cases of fraud, concealment or mistake. Your position seems to be based upon an argument that a fact relevant to your right of action has bean deliberately concealed from you by abbey National plc. We would content that this is not the case. Upon each occasion you were charged, you were informed of both the amount and the reason for the application of the charge.

 

Well yes, precisly, concealment or at the very least a mistake because they are not allowed to make a profit from these, it is meant to be liquidated damages and not a penalty charge.

 

So I am of the mind to post him a copy of my AQ before submitting it, does anyone have any thoughts on the matter? I was going to include alanfromderby's excellent paragraph in the any other infor section of the AQ

 

It is contended by the Defendant that the fees levied "are proportionate to the Defendant's administrative expenses incurred due to the Claimant's breach of contract, and are a genuine pre-estimate of the damage suffered by the Defendant".

In order for the Defendant to substantiate this argument, it will be necessary for evidence to be produced showing how these fees have been calculated, presumably this will mean that the Defendant will by relying on detailed accounting information. If this is the case then it would be reasonable to ask that this evidence be made available prior to any court hearing, in order that I may be able to properly analyse it

 

Can anyone advise me?

 

Many thanks

[callumsgran]

Sorry only just comein on this, how much are you claiming lula?

[Lula]

OMFG Heelo Clitbang where have you been?

 

I am claiming 3.7k

[callumsgran]

Ive been here! where you been? i would send them a copy of your aq and stand firm for all of it girl, its your money after all!!

good luck hun!

[Lula]

Right, in the any other info section of the AQ, I am putting these few paragraphs

 

I am claiming back charges unlawfully levied against me by Abbey Bank between December 1999 and July 2006. Abbey are stating that some of my claim is statue barred but I would ask the court to consider the Limitation Act 1980 Section 32 dealing with the postponement of a limitation act in cases of fraud, concealment or mistake.

I would argue that the bank have deliberately concealed their true charges and have turned what should be liquidated damages into an unlawful penalty charge.

It is contended by the Defendant that the fees levied "are proportionate to the Defendant's administrative expenses incurred due to the Claimant's breach of contract, and are a genuine pre-estimate of the damage suffered by the Defendant".

In order for the Defendant to substantiate this argument, it will be necessary for evidence to be produced showing how these fees have been calculated, presumably this will mean that the Defendant will by relying on detailed accounting information. If this is the case then it would be reasonable to ask that this evidence be made available prior to any court hearing, in order that I may be able to properly analyse it

 

Is this ok? is there anything else I should add?

[callumsgran]

Thats brill lula, dont think you've missed anything

Good luck mate!

[Lula]

Well many thanks to alan from derby and to Paul denham himself for supplying the wording to my defence

 

when this is all over i am going to email him and offer to help him regain any bank charges, what do you think he will say ?

[ellemmjay]

Lula, You're obviously in fine form today - that's brilliant - saving me boat loads of time doing the wording -if you don't mind I'll just paraphrase....

 

Don't forget to find out if he's blonde and 6ft odd.......LOL

[Lula]

Its the drugs LOL (prescribed by the quack for my trapped nerve, Ihasten to add) LOL

 

Leigh you dont need the bit about the statute of limitations but the bit starting "It is contending"

[Zannie]

go for it Lula - keeping a close eye on yours - I spoke to Paul Denham today and felt like asking to speak to his dad!!! sounds really young. He advised they are sending me another offer today. Got made redundant today so I need all the pennies I can get till I find another job. When does your AQ have to be back?

[Lula]

Oh Zannie, thats a real bummer, Well my AQ is due back at court on Wednesday, so I will post it recorded on Monday.

 

I have also just emailed the love god in Leeds asking him to confirm reciept of my copy of the AQ and asking his to send me his LOL

 

I am finding that you get no communication from them at all unless you talk to them first

[Odd Fellow]

This is an open question that's not related to any case in particular, but as this thread is discussing TALKING with DLA, can I ask what is the legal position on conversations between claimant and defendant?

 

Are these automatically Without Prejudice?

 

 

Odd

[Lula]

LOL Odds, your mind works in mysterious ways, its wonders to perform

 

I really dont know, I think that unless recorded, a conversation can be interpreted two ways and its just one persons word against another.

 

JMHO

[Glenn UK]

Or the conversation, unless recorded, may never have happened at all!

 

Oh, and you need to look in the limitation act thread re Sec 32, theres some interesting posts and cases beng posted about mistakes of fact or law.

 

If i understand the cases correctly, the fact you have paid the charges mistakeny believing them to be lawful allows Sec 32.1.c to come into play.

 

The difference between mistakes of fact or law was removed by one of the cases quoted, agian if my understanding is correct. (Dont ask me to exlpain the difference, apparently it was quite tricky for lawyers i think it said in one of the cases posted.)

 

So in effect they concealed the true nature of their charges, 32.1.b (i think) and you made a mistake 32.1.c.

 

Better check ive got it right but it adds another string to your bow.

 

Glenn

[Lula]

thanks for that Glen, I will copy that out and use it should I need it

[grumpy guts]

Just read your thread, Lula. Nearly there!

[Lula]

LOL Grumpy, I hope so AQ will be posted on Monday

[pugsley]

just got into this thread and can't wait to see what happens!

[Lula]

Neither can I, I am at the end of my patience, as I said AQ will be handed in in person.

[kia]

good luck lula will watch this space with baited breathe lolxxKia whats an aq by the way!!

[Lula]

an AQ is the court allocation questionnaire