Just to add that it is the 1995 Act rather than the 2005 Act and that s.21 works in conjunction with s.19(1)(b) See link below: Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50)

Hi Jailbird, Not spoken for a while. Hope you had a good Xmas despite your ill health. I think S.21 (1) Disability Discrimination Act should cover it: I would imagine that accepting paper tokens would not be considered unreasonable steps and should be quite manageable for a company the size of Next to be expected to take. Good to see that you're still fighting the consumer corner. Happy New Year Zoot

Part 36 offers are more relevant to cases where the damages are at large eg personal injury or defamation claims, rather than where you are claiming a fixed sum. They replace the old system of 'payment into court' and can operate extremely harshly as William Roache (Corrie's Ken Barlow) found out in his libel action against The Sun. The Sun made a payment into court of £50,000 which was not accepted. The jury found that the comments by The Sun were defamatory and awarded him damages of £50,000. As the sum awarded by the jury was equal to the payment into courtunder the old rules he was automatically liable to pay his own and the Sun's legal costs. He ended up having to pay a six figure sum for winning his case! The new rules under part 36 are less harsh. Now the court has a discretion over the awarding of costs and it is open to both parties to make an offer, previously it was only the defendant that could. It can still be quite unfair if a party is pressured into accepting less than they are entitled to.

Hi Boston, You need the T & Cs to cover the charges you are claiming so if you are claiming 6yrs worth of charges you need to have the T & Cs going back until 2002. All the best Zoot

12 years only applies to the prinipal sum for other payments related to mortgages the normal 6yrs applies unless you can establish that the payment was made under a mistake under s.32(1) © of the Limitation Act.

Thread moved to employment forum

Thread moved to employment forum

Hi Dmag, I've moved your post to the Abbey forum so that you can get more help from fellow Abbey claimers. The test case is being brought by the OFT on behalf of all consumers and if they win then it will affect all consumers and banks will not be able to apply their current charging regimes. You can make a start on your claim now by sending off your SAR. Have a read through the step by step instructions in the FAQs All the best Zoot

Hi Pete, Was this a current account or a credit card? Have you made a claim for your charges yet?

Good going Red! Time to get your prelim letter off

It would be best to give the court a ring on Monday and check. Its not at all clear as to whether its a stay hearing or full hearing.

If its the full hearing you will find the bundle and witness statement here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/103771-abbey-court-bundle-witness.html Although I would be most surprised if it was a full hearing as all claims so far seem to be subject to a stay. What exactly did the notice state? Were there any Directions attached?

When doing an income and expenditure your expenditure is the monthly bills that you are facing eg food, rent, utlity bills, loans etc. It is to work out how much you can afford to pay back each month. Have you made a claim for your charges or are you using the charges in your defence? All the best Zoot

Was your claim stayed?

Thrfead moved to Debt Collectors forum

Thread moved to employment section

Some links on the test case: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/107550-oft-test-claim-what.html http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/111117-stays-info-guidance.html http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/113391-oft-banks-documentation.html You will be able to add new charges to your claim once the stay is lifted. You can open a new account to safeguard your income. This will not prevent them applying charges to your old account. They will not allow you to close the account whilst you have an overdraft. If they chase you for the charges you can put the account in dispute and raise the penalty charge issue in defence and then request a stay. All the best Zoot

Is this a full hearing or a hearing to lift a stay?

Threads merged

Good luck Hell You'll find most of what you need in the stickies in this forum: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cases-stayed-pending-oft/

Good luck Billy

The idea of deposits in a bank account being loans is nothing new. It was set out in case law in 1848 in the case of Folley v Hill. I don't think calling the author's credential into question is very helpful, he is clearly an established legal professional and was writing articles on reclaiming bank charges back in 1994. Having said that I'm not entirely convinced with his latest article on the need for the bank to issue default notices before charging a fee. It's an interesting approach but I’m not convinced by his arguments. It is ambiguous in places in that he uses the term penalty charge in its non technical legal sense which causes confusion. It ignores the fact that the banks have for the most part distanced themselves from the penalty issue and moved the focus to fee for a service denying that any breach occurs. His assertion that s.87- 89 CCA 1974 apply to any breach irrespective of whether the bank chooses to serve a default notice is a somewhat strained construction of the Act. S.87 (1) does specify that a default notice is necessary before the creditor can take any action listed in (a)-(e) ie it must be given in these circumstances and there is nothing to exclude a default notice being given in other circumstances should the creditor choose to do so eg where there is a breach and the creditor is not wishing to terminate the agreement any of the ways prescribed in (a) –(e).However in those circumstances where the creditor chooses not to issue a default notice on breach there seems to be no compulsion to comply with s.88-89. S.88 relates to the prescribed contents of a default notice and the effect of a default notice. If a creditor has chosen not to issue a default notice how can it be said that they are still bound to comply with the requirements as to contents of a default notice. If Steve Whiting ‘s suggestion is that it is only the effect of a default notice that is binding this is also mystifying as how can a creditor be bound by something that it has chosen not issue? Also if the creditor was bound by the contents of s88 as oppose to the contents of a default notice (which it had chosen not to issue) I am not convinced by SW’s suggestion that there is a clear implication that a creditor is only entitled to require the customer to either remedy the breach (under s. 88(1)(b) or pay compensation (under s.88(1)© but not both. The difficulty with this is that the normal remedy for breach of contract is an award of damages for compensation. There is nothing in the definition section of the CCA 1974 to suggest that anything other than the normal or natural meaning of the word remedy should not be used. So this would suggest that compensation could be claimed under s.88(1)(b) and I don’t see anything to suggest that s.88(1)© would exclude this possibility. AS to SW’s second clear implication relating to s.89. He states, “the customer’s position under the agreement must not be altered (by the imposition of a penalty charge, for example) unless and until the customer fails to remedy his breach of the agreement by the expiration of the 14 day period specified in the Default Notice, as to do so would be contrary to the requirement in s.89 that the breach is to be treated as not having occurred if the Default Notice has in fact been complied with.” - The difficulty here is that he fails to recognise that the ‘penalty charge’ (assuming for the moment the charge is lawful) is part of the remedy.

I agree Rory. The 2006 Act simply provides that the creditor must give notice of default sums. It does not in any way legitimise the imposition of penalty charges. There is nothing in the Act to regulate the level of default sums and nothing to exclude the operation of the common law and UTCCRs to regulate the level of default fees.

S.12 definately applies to private sales. It is only s.14 which applies to goods sold in the course of a business. Also s.12 is a condition as opposed to a warranty in all sales of goods not just consumer sales. Best of luck and keep us updated

Hi Druf, It may well be worth making an application to lift the stay on the grounds that they are seeking to enforce a disputed debt and seeking to defame your credit record by putting a default marker on it. It would be interesting to see if a judge would be willing to grant an injunction to prevent action in this situation. All the best Zoot