Thread moved to new forum for business claims

Thread moved to the new forum for business claims

Excellent news Well done!

We now have a new forum for business claims: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/business-claims-bank-charges/ If you have a business claim please pm a mod to have your thread moved. Thanks

Its quite normal for them to file a defence. Just be patient!

That POC is now out dated. In particular you can not rely on UCTA or SGSA.

Congratulations!!!!!!! :D:D

Great news! Well done

Thats fine providing you are not relying on it for a claim under the Data Protection Act as the Court of Appeal precedent in Johnson v MDU would apply.

You can not bring an action for any offence committed under the Act in the Civil courts. You can at most report them to the ICO and hope that they will prosecute. In so far as proving damage you will need to show that you have been refused credit at a certain rate and demonstrate the difference of interest rate that you had to accept in consequence of the refusal. Also add any other additional charges eg if there was a higher arrangement fees etc.

You shouldn't need to demonstrate your actual loss at the set aside hearing. That would be at the final hearing. The Kphoraror case is not relevant to your claim as it stands as it is a claim for breach of contract. If you can demonstrate a breach of contract then yes you could use Kpohraror to make a claim for general damages in addition to any loss you could actually demonstrate as flowing from the breach. You would need to base your claim on breach of contract rather than under the DPA. So you may need to amend your POC.

Thats good because if you hadn't stated the amount claimed it would automatically be multi tracked. This is not so. You will need to specifically plead and prove damage for a claim under the Data Protection Act. The Kpohraror v Woolwich claim was a claim for wrongful dishonour of a cheque (a claim for breach of contract) where general damages for loss of reputation are allowed. Claims under DPA only special damages are recoverable. See: Johnson v Medical Defence Union [2007] EWCA Civ 262 (28 March 2007) This won't be an issue at the set aside hearing unless they have applied for summary judgment. They only have to show that they have an arguable case to put to the court. They do not have to produce the evidence at this stage. That will be for the full hearing.

Penfold, in your claim form did you specify the amount of damages you are claiming under the Data Protection Act?

As your claim has not yet been allocated, then the no costs rule of the small claims track does not apply. So you could be liable to pay their legal costs of the set aside hearing should you lose. Also it is very likely that the judge will allow the set aside. As it is almost a foregone conclusion in claims where the defendant claims not to have received the claim form in time. Judges would prefer the claim went to trial rather than award judgment in default where the defendant demonstrates that it wishes to defend.

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT statement on Case Management Conference

There is a high court precedent against such claims. See also: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/62003-important-mortgage-claimants-please.html

The bank specific POCs are no longer applicable as they relate more to the penalty argument. The general POC has been updated to place greater emphasis on the UTCCRs

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!! :grin::grin::grin::grin:

Try pming Jonni2bad he may e-mail them to you direct. I have some from 1998 & 2001. If you pm me your e-mail address I'll send them to you.

Excellent Can you tell us which court this was from?

It is aimed at making it easier for authorities to intervene if we get another Northern Rock scenario and protecting customers' interests in the event of the collapse of a bank: Why we need a banking bill | Business | guardian.co.uk

Hi Ferrety, it is likely that the mortgage you saw in the paper relates to new mortgages, what you had to pay would have to be set out in the terms and conditions in your mortgage at the time you took it out. There is probably not alot you can do in relation to the arrangement fee or the Early Repayment charge but do check your mortgage agreement to make sure that the sums are correct. The Final redemption Charge sounds like the mortgage exit admin fee which were reviewed by the FSA last year. Many of these were found to be above that stated in the original contract agreement and companies had to provide a refund of the difference where customers complained. Take a look through the mortgage forum here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/ and specificaly to the exit admin fee see here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/71299-mortgage-exit-admin-fees.html All the best Zoot

You may have more success going via the Ombudsman as they are still processing claims involving hardship. They can refuse to hear your claim if you have started court proceedings but in some instances have been willing to intervene where claims have been stayed. There may be further guidance from the courts in relation to stays on the 22nd May when the judge decides whether or not any appeals will be granted. If no appeals then it may be that more courts will be willing to lift stays. Best wishes Zoot

Reg 5: A term is unfair if: 1. It has not been individually negotiated and (ie a standard form contract) 2. It is contrary to the requirement of good faith and (eg if the terms are misleading or hidden or if the defendant takes advantage of the claimants weak bargaining position) 3. It causes a significant imbalance between the parties rights & obligations to the detriment of the consumer ( eg where the terms are onerous on the consumer without the consumer receiving a benefit) Reg 6 The assessment of unfairness will take into account all the circumstances at the time the contract was made, but will not relate to price or subject matter. Reg 8: A term which is found to be unfair will not be binding on a consumer. Sch 2 (1) (e) a term which requires a consumer to pay a disproportionate amount for breaching their contract is indicative of an unfair term.