Next week is the 21 day point, at which Lloyds, on whom you served the statutory demand need to act as any application to set aside the demand must be made before 21 days from the date of service. However, even if Lloyds do try to have the demand set aside, the court can dismiss an application to set a statutory demand set aside if there are no reasonable ground to do so. In your case I do not see any reasonable grounds. Had Lloyds applied to stay execution on the judgement debt that led to the original cheque being issued then they may have been in with a chance, but presumably, they have not and even if they had, issuing the cheque and subsequently dishonouring it was a bad move for them due to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 and would render any attempt to set aside the judgment futile. Neither can they declare that the amount stated on the statutory demand is disputed nor can they state that you owe them any money and issue a counterclaim as the reason for the demand was the dishonouring of a cheque, which, under the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 precludes the use of a counterclaim to avoid payment of the original amount. The demand was not issued in error and nor is the amount owing less than £750. SC&M and Lloyds are on extremely thin ice and your treatment by them today would appear to indicate that they know this. I am going to PM you regarding your next steps.

Well done, congratulations!

Are you ready to do some serious reading? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/25043-proving-banks-knew-charges.html Ignore the title, the bulk of that thread is about payments made in full and final settlement but for some reason it was merged with another thread of that title. Read that and you will see why Capital One are doing this and you may get an insight into what you can do about it.

There is no need to seek any permission. This is considered to be payment made under a mistake of fact and the bank are entitled to recover the sum in full. There is caselaw going back over 160 years, one of the earliest is Kelly v. Solari (1841) 152 E.R. 24 at 26 where Baron Parke stated, "I think that where money is paid to another under the influence of a mistake, that is, upon the supposition that a specific fact is true, which would entitle the other to the money, but which fact is untrue, and the money would not have been paid if it had been known to the payer that it was untrue, an action will lie to recover it back, and it is against conscience to retain it." The law on the recovery of money paid by a banker under a mistake of fact was reviewed by Robert Goff J in the case of Barclays Bank Ltd v. WJ Simms & Cooke (Southern) Ltd & Anor [1980] 1 QB 677. Goff J after a detailed analysis of the law deduced (among others) the following principle that: (1) If a person pays money to another under a mistake of fact which causes him to make the payment, he is prima facie entitled to recover it as money paid under a mistake of fact.

So post #69 is invisible to all but me then?

Hi Julie and welcome I think you would be best served by reading here, which explains very thoroughly the process that you should follow, what happens and what to expect the banks to do. If anything is still unclear, then do come back and ask. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/ http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/31460-example-step-step-instructions.html

Acted how? Take a look here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/104765-please-help-claim-struck.html The simple fact is that you should make one claim for anything arising out of one cause of action. Severing claims is not without risk, as demonstrated in the link above. If one cannot afford court fees, for any reason, then they may apply for exemption or remission. Very little is understood about the system of exemption and remission and I have come across a great many people on the forum who are delaying the filing of their claims for lack of funds to meet the fees. In order to qualify for remission you need only demonstrate that if you paid the whole fee you would suffer financial hardship. The OP has demonstrated that above. Even though they may not be exempt from paying a fee but think they would suffer financial hardship if they did pay it, they are entitled to apply for a remission. At all times Court staff must ensure that they meet the statutory obligation contained in s.92(3) of the Courts Act 2003 of protecting access to justice. "(3) When including any provision in an order under this section, the Lord Chancellor must have regard to the principle that access to the courts must not be denied." However, one cannot use MCOL and also apply for a remission or exemption, this must be done at a court using an EX160 form. The exemption and remission applies to all fees, not just the fees for the N1, but also the AQ, N244 etc. The test for remission is based on both income and expenditure—it takes full account of all of a person's commitments and liabilities not just how much money they have or receive. This is not means tested, it does not matter what you earn. What matters is whether or not the fee for filing your claim will cause you financial hardship. That means right now, when you need to file it. If you do not have the money to file your claim then that qualifies you for remission. By law you are entitled to access to justice as and when you need it - not just when you have some spare cash.

If you have a claim against a bank arising from the unlawful levy of penalty charges that have occured in the course of business, they should all be claimed at once, as they arise from the same facts. The advice from this site is not to split the claim. If you do so - and in particular to save fees - then this may be viewed by the court as an abuse of process. If you are having difficulty with court fees then you should complete and file an EX160, look here for details. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/25457-guide-reclaiming-bank-charges.html?garpg=9 In any case, you do not pay the AQ fee now and you will probably not need to pay it for some time.

You must refile your claim using an N1 form and the Particulars of Claim from the library. There is no reason to be downbeat about this. Simply file an N1 at the court where you got that order with new Particulars on it.

Yes, that will work. I would make sure that all communication is, if not conducted in writing, at least backed up with letters confirming what was said and what was agreed by both parties.

Excellent news. Now you need to get paid. In the absence of a defence then you will be granted judgment. You will then need to contact Nationwide in order to have them pay you, or you will enforce that judgment with a Warrant of Execution. None of this will happen on it's own, this is your claim and you must manage it. Are you clear on what needs to be done next?

What have you agreed and how are they going to pay you? Unless you have been paid, I would be inclinded to file the AQ in any case - how much is your claim for?

The next step is for them to file a defence to your claim. Eversheds will probably file late and the court will probably let them get away with it. When they do file their defence you will be sent a copy by the court. Once you have that, come back here and ask anything you are unsure of. Regarding what to do if they do not file a defence, take a look here. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/25457-guide-reclaiming-bank-charges.html?garpg=13 There is no point in telephoning Eversheds, they will not tell you anything anyway.

Make sure, at the very least, you obtain proof of posting. According to CPR 6.2 this will be sufficient to show the court that you did your bit to get it there on time. I would be tempted however, to send it via Special Delivery if you can, that way you can be sure it will arrive on time.

It's fine and none of it is wrong and while your enthusiasm is to be commended, you are wasting your time. None of what you write is read by anyone who cares but if you want a pen friend then go ahead and engage them in correspondence, they will write back for as long as you do but none of it will actually get you paid. There is a tried and tested method and you would be well to employ that rather than dig your own furrow.

Ok, from what I can gather here the Court made an order that suggested that your son served a CPR Part 18 request on the bank, whereas, what he did was respond to the CPR Part 18 request from the bank. The Court then issued a further order that set aside the first order. The first order was incorrect, it stated that the Defendants (the bank) must respond to the Claimant's (your son) request for a Part 18 order, which he did not make. Have you seen the letter of 5th July that Cobbetts sent to the Court? Perhaps Cobbetts wrote to the Court as they did not want to comply with the order that the Court issued on 22 June? Furthermore, did the first order really give them until 22 August to comply? Nothwithstanding this of course, the order is now set aside so none of what it says matters. If you want to object then you need to file an N244 by tomorrow, but quite what you want to object too I am not sure. It would appear that the claim is going to progress as it should, now that the order of 22 June is set aside. You should telephone the Court tomorrow, quote your son's claim number and ask the clerk for an update as to what is going to happen now. They should be able to tell you - then if anything is unclear, come back and ask.

Yes, they can. Creditors are not obliged to freeze interest. They can do as they wish as they do not consider the charges unfair do they? When you make your claim on this account, you need to ensure that you account for this interest in order that it is included in any amount you reclaim or that you reduce the outstanding balance by the same amount.

You are on the right track with this, they cannot impose conditions on you anymore than they could stop you issuing further claims against them. Be aware however that they do not consider these charges unfair or illegal and if you sue them over and over again they can and probably will close your account. On the question of whether or not you should issue a claim now, the letter you refer to in post #16 is a standard boilerplate reply. Nobody read your letter properly and as a result you received that. This is not a delaying tactic at all, it is merely shoddy customer service and ineptitude - the bank have manifestly failed to provide enough staff to deal with the volume of claims and you got a standard letter in reply to your "non-standard" one. Do as hedgey suggested and contact Customer Services and inform them that you will issue a claim within 7 days should you not receive payment in full. You should do this as you must always abide by the Overriding Objective of the CPR and use litigation as a final resort. The reason you have not been paid, although no fault of your own, is misunderstanding not malice.

Lloyds need to pay YOU, not the court - it would seem that they are messing about again for reasons of incompetence and ineptitude more than anything else I am sure. Call SC&M and ask if any of them actually know what a Statutory Demand is and what the implications are of their client failing to respond to one. In particular as they dishonoured a cheque sent as a result of a county court judgment. Ask if they are aware of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 and what failing to honour a cheque means. 01273 205381 Call them now, give them your claim number, the details of the judgment, the dishonoured cheque, the resulting statutory demand and then see what they say.

HMCS hold the payment for two weeks in case it is reversed, or the cheque is stopped, which you know all about... What happens when the payment is cleared is you will get a cheque from HMCS and that one won't bounce. Have Lloyds responded at all to the Statutory Demand?

Well, you pm'd me so if you want a reply, you had to let me become one...

Lateralus, can you enable your pm's please?

Sort codes are unique to bank branches and each bank has a range of codes that they employ. For example, Nat West use 01, 50 - 59 and 60 - 66 whereas Smile (Co-Operative Bank plc) sort codes begin with 08. Barclays are lying to your friend and he should recover this money without delay - clearly it did not get paid anywhere as any attempt to use an incorrect sort code would result in the payment being refused. The money will be sitting somewhere in a suspense account pending allocation - it will be no problem for Barclays to return it. Send Barclays an LBA, 14 days should be more than sufficient for them to trace and return the money.

Just to clarify this point. Even if the AQ is dispensed with by the Court, the fee of £100 pounds is still payable if your claim is over £1500. You can reclaim this however. The fee is payable within 14 days after the despatch of the notice of allocation to track (County Courts Fees Order 1999 Schedule 1)

Hi Linda and welcome back. The hearing will likely never take place and the statement regarding AQ's is just boilerplate stuff that they send everyone. Your claim has been allocated to the Small Claims Track, which is great. Your bundle should be filed 14 days before the court date and yes, a copy for the court and a copy for Barclays and one for yourself. However, I would not be in any hurry to compile and print this, you have some time and it may be that you do not need to bother as your claim will be settled. What court fees do you wish to go and pay?