We seem to be getting all hung up on part 18 requests recently and there havd been lots of threads about it over recent weeks. Just answer their request and serve one of your own together with an amended particulars of claim if you think it is sensible to do so. Then when you send the response to them ask them to withdraw their application and tell them that if it goes ahead you will ask the court to order that they pay the costs of the hearing. Have a read of my old thread on defence and part 18 requests and I hope it helps. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions. The thread is here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/15172-reply-stock-defence-18-a.html

Isn't it amazing reading that link that those that have never had a financial problem have no idea and no sympathy for those that have? Its such a good reflection of our society - thanks Mrs Thatcher for making us all such selfish so and sos

10 minutes sounds like a directions hearing, not the trial of your claim.

there are loads of threads about this. Look in the nat west forum and i think there's even a sticky about it.

I think the mutuality and reciprocity is an attempt to say that either its fair for the term to apply for the benefit of both parties or that the contract either says this or should be interpreted in this way. None of those arguments on their own hold water in my opinion and indeed the terms of these bank account terms and conditions appear to expressly state the opposite. It is not unusual for a contract to contain terms that allow one party to charge a sum and interest for breach and to exclude the the other from the benefit of the term or indeed to apply a different charge and/or interest in case of breach by the other party. A simpler and more successful argument must be that if the penalty charge is unenforceable and should not have been made then the interest would and should not have been charged either. It seems to me that if you strike out charges as having been applied unlawfully then it would be unjust enrichment for the bank to keep hold of the interest it charged on those amounts.

14 days not working days and no it wont matter about the names as long as she uses her married name in any proceedings - You can enter it on the claim form as Mrs..... Smith (Nee [insert maiden name here]) and that will be fine. Best of luck

Joint debt means joint and several liability. Im afraid that does mean that the bank can chase you both for the full amount at the same time. They will have to give credit for any money recovered in the bankruptcy to you or vice versa. But, they are probably going on the basis that they will finish their court proceedings against you before the bankruptcy is concluded so in fact they may well expect to recover as much as they can from you and then see what might be left to seek to recover from the bankruptcy. As far as the bank are concerned you are solvent and your husband is not. It is natural, i'm afraid, that they will pursue you.

For all work that your solicitor does he MUST send you a client care letter. Further all solicitors must give an estimate of their charges for work (if the fee is not fixed - eg conveyancing) at the outset of your instructions and give regular updates of costs estimates. If you have not had a letter from your solicitor setting out the terms of your instructions and informing you of the likely charges the solicitor will not be able to sue you on any bill he has rendered. The judge will kick it straight out in the absence of proper compliance with the requirements set out above and probably send the solicitor away with a flea in his ear. Write a polite letter to the solicitor telling him that you were not under the impression that he would make any additional charge for this work, nor that you were to be his client, that you have not received any client care letter or terms of business and that you will not be paying his bill. Tell him that if he continues to pursue you for the bill you will comlain to the Consumer Complaints Department of the Law Society. This department has the power to call for the solicitor's file and where he has not followed correct procedures to disallow his bill and even to order that he pays you compensation for inadequate professional service. The solicitor will almost certainly drop it. Hope this helps.

If the judge flagged up the limitation issue you can probably rest assured that it will be an issue that he feels has merit in this case. There will have to be another court hearing before the charging order is made absolute so you do have time to get the advice that you need. I would recommend that you do so as soon as you can. If you cant get a local solicitor to take it on go to the CAB as soon as you can after Christmas.

best of luck with your claim

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/15172-reply-stock-defence-18-a.html some stuff here might help you

Of course - your accountant is in breach of contract if he has failed to get the accounts in on time - so I perhaps should have been clearer and said that you should require him to indemnify you against your liability to pay the fine. As to the fines there is of course the old Bill of Rights argument that has apparently succeeded in having Customs & Excise (as was) VAT penalties reversed.

You can set off your claim against the landlord's claim for rent unless your tenancy agreement states that you will pay rent without any right of set off. Again take advice on this straightaway. The interaction with this right and any section 8 notice served by your landlord is complicated and you will need to get things on a formal footing straightaway.

Report the situation to the local authority and ask them to get involved. Speak to the housing department - they can insopect the premises and serve a notice on the landlord requiring him to put the propertyy into a habitable condition. Defend any proceedings on the basis that tyou are claiming compensation for the living conditions you have put up with for 17 months. Go straight to the CAB about this. As soon as you can.

Nope - 40 days is 40 days

We are falling in to that trap again. Stating that the charges are unquestionably this or that. No-one has won a claim against the banks in court on this and it cannot be said (regrettably) that the issue is as clear as we might like. The fact that the bank settles the cases is not an admission that the charges are unlawful/illegal and/or that the banks know this or always knew this. This isn't really splitting hairs - there is no demonstrably clear ruling or admission in our favour. As to the service argument the banks say that they provide a service that arises from the act of default - they "consider" the position, review the account, make a decision - (I know we don't think that they do) - and this is a "service" - most terms and conditions refer to "additional services" or some such phrase when lisiting the penalty charges tht can be imposed, so again, this area remains untested effectively.

There are many threads about this - shamelessly plugging my own you could read this one: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/15172-reply-stock-defence-18-a.html

I wouldnt worry too much about the law on penalties where the Revenue is concerned in this case. Clearly if your accountant was late with the accounts (through no fault of yours) then your accountant should pay the penalty anyway. Let him/her argue with the Revenue that its unenforceable

You're right NatWest. It is true that they could settle the claims as a way to avoid the costs of the litigation. But I guess for them its a rock and a hard place. They want to pay off the small claims on a commercial basis (and it almost certainly is true that it would cost the banks more to fight almost all of the charges claims individually than they cost to settle), BUT they don't want to be seen to settle all of them on day1 - sends the wrong message I suppose. Of course there might also be a little bit of beligerence in there- if the b*ggers want their money then they can go through the hoops - after all we can afford it. I'm just glad that they are settling them. I have a feeloing they are waiting to lay into the OFT's next investigation into charges, let the OFT have their "costings" for dealing with defaults on the accounts and see if they can get a decent result from that - maybe a £12 charge and then hope that this will stem the tide at least to a significant extent. Even that would be better than the two professors and the ex Nat West Excxecutive who recently stated that the maximum charge should be a couple of quid!!!

File your AQ now.

any judgment shows for six years from the date of the judgment

yes it sounds like they have complied with the application which as you suggest has nothing to do with your actual claim for repayment. Issue N1 now, tell Halifax this is what you are doing and write to the court to confirm that you have now received the documents which formed the subject matter of your application and ask them to vacate the hearing.

usually the court file would be sent to the judge if the time limt for filing was missed. The judge would then usually make an order (an "unless order") giving the bank further time to file it, failing which the order would provide for the automatic striking out of the defence and judgment for the claimant. In some courts they take a while to do this so you might want to help them along with a polite letter to the court manager asking that the file be placed before the judge with a view to the making of an unless order.

If you know how much theyve taken off you then just do a letter before action.

Nice idea but no chance I am afraid.