This topic was closed on 03/05/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 03/05/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 03/05/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

Nice one Make sure you post back with their letter! Of course if you actually use the electron card in the meantime it might mean you've accepted their terms. Still, I'm looking forward to reading their response!

Lucky we've got a damn strong case on the legal issues then

Cheers There are actually people called process servers who spend their lives finding people and serving papers on them, then charging lawyers £250 for the service! Literally, they see the person coming out of a building, go up to them, and catch their attention by saying "Mr. Bloggs?" Obviously Mr. Bloggs is taken off guard by this, so he turns round, confirming to the process server that he's got the right man. Process server thrusts an envelope into his hand, says "This is for you," and promptly walks off before Mr. Bloggs has realised what's happening. As far as recorded delivery goes - although you don't legally need to use it, the main advantage is that if the bank ever says it needs more time to do something because it hasn't received your letter, it strengthens your position slightly if you can turn round and point out that you know they received it at 10:24 AM on Monday 3 weeks ago. Sometimes it might work to your advantage tactically, but legally there's no reason to spend the extra 60p or whatever.

Cheers There are actually people called process servers who spend their lives finding people and serving papers on them, then charging lawyers £250 for the service! Literally, they see the person coming out of a building, go up to them, and catch their attention by saying "Mr. Bloggs?" Obviously Mr. Bloggs is taken off guard by this, so he turns round, confirming to the process server that he's got the right man. Process server thrusts an envelope into his hand, says "This is for you," and promptly walks off before Mr. Bloggs has realised what's happening. As far as recorded delivery goes - although you don't legally need to use it, the main advantage is that if the bank ever says it needs more time to do something because it hasn't received your letter, it strengthens your position slightly if you can turn round and point out that you know they received it at 10:24 AM on Monday 3 weeks ago. Sometimes it might work to your advantage tactically, but legally there's no reason to spend the extra 60p or whatever.

You might be legally better off posting the letter or just physically leaving it at the branch than you are trying to prove it's been received. Civil Procedure Rules, Part 6 [paraphrased]: A document may be served on a company by first class post (6.5(4)(a)) at its principal office (meaning its head office) or any place of business of the company which has a real connection with the claim (e.g. the account at which you hold your branch. Technically, you can't just leave it at any old branch). If you do this, the document is deemed to be served on the second day after you posted it (CPR 6.7(1)). All you need is a certificate of posting (free if you post it over the count at a Post Office) - there isn't even any need to prove it's actually got there! Easy, eh? BUT - if you serve it personally (i.e. drop it into the branch), you can either 'serve it personally' - which means you have to personally serve it on a "senior person" such as the branch manager, which could be hard - or just leave it at the place of business. That's it. No need to prove it was actually received; just that you left it there. It's deemed to be received the day after it was left at the address (CPR 6.7(1)). Need evidence? Make a fun home video. Wear a silly costume if you like. Get a friend to come along and be camera-man. Take a close-up of the envelope, and then in one uninterrupted shot (make sure you don't pause the camera in between the close up and delivery), walk in to the bank, up to the counter, and plonk the envelope on the desk. Say to the person behind the desk that you're leaving the document for service on Halifax PLC (or whatever company you're suing), then walk straight back out before s/he can say anything or give you the letter back. The document's validly served and you have the video to prove it! Bear in mind that strictly, there's no reason you'd ever need to prove to the court that your pre-action letters were received. As long as you can prove you sent them, you can prove you acted 'reasonably' before issuing court proceedings so you've covered yourself. The guidelines in the CPR only apply to court documents, so they aren't strictly relevant - but if you've complied with them for your pre-action documents, the Court will see that as being reasonable.

You might be legally better off posting the letter or just physically leaving it at the branch than you are trying to prove it's been received. Civil Procedure Rules, Part 6 [paraphrased]: A document may be served on a company by first class post (6.5(4)(a)) at its principal office (meaning its head office) or any place of business of the company which has a real connection with the claim (e.g. the account at which you hold your branch. Technically, you can't just leave it at any old branch). If you do this, the document is deemed to be served on the second day after you posted it (CPR 6.7(1)). All you need is a certificate of posting (free if you post it over the count at a Post Office) - there isn't even any need to prove it's actually got there! Easy, eh? BUT - if you serve it personally (i.e. drop it into the branch), you can either 'serve it personally' - which means you have to personally serve it on a "senior person" such as the branch manager, which could be hard - or just leave it at the place of business. That's it. No need to prove it was actually received; just that you left it there. It's deemed to be received the day after it was left at the address (CPR 6.7(1)). Need evidence? Make a fun home video. Wear a silly costume if you like. Get a friend to come along and be camera-man. Take a close-up of the envelope, and then in one uninterrupted shot (make sure you don't pause the camera in between the close up and delivery), walk in to the bank, up to the counter, and plonk the envelope on the desk. Say to the person behind the desk that you're leaving the document for service on Halifax PLC (or whatever company you're suing), then walk straight back out before s/he can say anything or give you the letter back. The document's validly served and you have the video to prove it! Bear in mind that strictly, there's no reason you'd ever need to prove to the court that your pre-action letters were received. As long as you can prove you sent them, you can prove you acted 'reasonably' before issuing court proceedings so you've covered yourself. The guidelines in the CPR only apply to court documents, so they aren't strictly relevant - but if you've complied with them for your pre-action documents, the Court will see that as being reasonable.

You seem pretty dismissive of all my points, and your post comes across as very negative. Sorry if that wasn't your intention. To answer the points you raised: Library fines - these are less than liqudated damages (50p or whatever against them not getting a book back that costs £20 ?) They aren't losing the book, which costs £20, for ever. If they were, obviously they could charge you £20 as damages. Most library fines are for them losing the book for, say, 2 days because you've brought it back late. As libraries are non-profit making organisations, they can't claim to have lost any profit from this late return, so a genuine pre-estimate of they loss they would suffer (i.e. the level of liquidated damages) is zero. Late fees, rather than book-loss fees, would seem to be unenforceable unless the library has a statutory power to charge the fees. - Video shop late fees (although if they simply charge you the same price for another night's rental, it wouldn't be caught). please tell me case where the rental shop has taken a customer to court to recover such fees, does not need much common sense to apply here I'd appreciate it if you could try and keep your criticism constructive without taking side-swipes at my intelligence and common sense. I'm not saying any video shop has ever sued anyone. My point was that if you had paid the money to the video shop when they asked for the fine, it would, in theory, have been under a null penalty clause and would, in theory, be recoverable. - University fines (e.g. £25 for taking food into the library) wtf 25 for taking food into a library, what do they have ? a place to leave food items before you go in the amongst the books. The fine is a deterrent, has any one ever paid up ? any one with 2 brain sells would contest Has anyone with 2 brain 'sells' ever paid up? Quite a few of them. Quite simply, because if you refuse to pay any money the University thinks you owe it, it won't let you graduate. If a company says you owe it money, they have to sue you. If a University says you owe it money, you'd have to take *it* to court to be allowed to graduate. In that case, it's much easier just to pay the charge. Given the cost and risk involved in going to court for an order for specific performance, and the risk to you if you don't graduate in time, it's just not worth it over £25. , if there is a contract and they cannot prove that this covers liqudated damages they they would be wrong in applying this to your account you hold on campus. No contract though and they are correct. If there was no contract, what would be their cause of action against you? How would they be able to argue you had agreed at some point to pay the fine? How, given that, could they be correct? It's an interesting line of reasoning. Maybe you'd like to expand on it, because at the moment I'm not clear on where you're going with it. The question about the statutory authority was whether, in fact, the fine wouldn't be handed down under a simple contract, but under the University Regulations which, somehow, through the University's Royal Charter or the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 have statutory authority. In this case, the whole penalty clause argument goes out of the window in the same way as it does with parking fines. I'm not sure whether library and university fines are charged under an Act of Parliament rather than under a contract, but I'd be interested to find out. no otherwise they would be standard across all libraries. The question isn't whether the levels are set by statute, but whether the power to charge them in the first place is. If the power to charge them comes from statute rather than the contract itself, each individual library could decide how much it wanted to charge, and be exempt from the penalty clause rules, because they only apply to contracts. London congestion charging defaults, can't take government to county court ? I think you're referring to Crown immunity, but you're so vague that I can't be sure. First, in most circumstances, you can sue the Government (i.e. the Crown) in the County Court. Second, if you were suing for london congestion charging, you'd sue the Greater London Authority, which is a statutory corporation. This means that it wouldn't be covered by Crown immunity even if it was relevant here. parking fines and clamping, the parking fines (where is the contract ?), Exactly my point - which is why the fines would be unenforceable unless they have a statutory authority that lets them do it. What's possibly more interesting is the 'civil penalty notices' that people like NCP will issue for, say, parking outside a marked bay, or parking in a disabled space. I think there's a good case for saying these are unenforceable. weirdly, fines for smoking no contract Well, not exactly - you have a contract because you've got on the train/bus and paid for a ticket. My point was that they don't suffer any financial loss as a result of you smoking, so they've got no right to damages. Normally, that means anything they charged you would be unlawful because of the penalty charge rules, but the statute law is interesting because it allows them to charge you even though they've suffered no loss. and pulling alarm cords on (privatised) trains and buses. again no contract ? but if you think a 250 pound is not liquidated damages, then I inform you that if you where to delay a train(stop them running) they the operators are in contracts that mean to the effect that you are talking £0,000s per min. Again.... contract! Offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations are all there, so a contract must be there. Unless you're fare-dodging, of course, in which case it gets slightly trickier but a contract could still exist. I take your point ("I inform you..." why do you have to sound so antagonistic all the time? Life isn't a letter of claim!) that the train companies might be able to recover more damages in this case if there wasn't a liquidated damages clause, although I think 5-figure sums per minute could be an exaggeration. It's just interesting that because of statute, even if they didn't have those contracts to honour, they are a private company which can impose fines where they've suffered no loss, which is unusual.

You seem pretty dismissive of all my points, and your post comes across as very negative. Sorry if that wasn't your intention. To answer the points you raised: Library fines - these are less than liqudated damages (50p or whatever against them not getting a book back that costs £20 ?) They aren't losing the book, which costs £20, for ever. If they were, obviously they could charge you £20 as damages. Most library fines are for them losing the book for, say, 2 days because you've brought it back late. As libraries are non-profit making organisations, they can't claim to have lost any profit from this late return, so a genuine pre-estimate of they loss they would suffer (i.e. the level of liquidated damages) is zero. Late fees, rather than book-loss fees, would seem to be unenforceable unless the library has a statutory power to charge the fees. - Video shop late fees (although if they simply charge you the same price for another night's rental, it wouldn't be caught). please tell me case where the rental shop has taken a customer to court to recover such fees, does not need much common sense to apply here I'd appreciate it if you could try and keep your criticism constructive without taking side-swipes at my intelligence and common sense. I'm not saying any video shop has ever sued anyone. My point was that if you had paid the money to the video shop when they asked for the fine, it would, in theory, have been under a null penalty clause and would, in theory, be recoverable. - University fines (e.g. £25 for taking food into the library) wtf 25 for taking food into a library, what do they have ? a place to leave food items before you go in the amongst the books. The fine is a deterrent, has any one ever paid up ? any one with 2 brain sells would contest Has anyone with 2 brain 'sells' ever paid up? Quite a few of them. Quite simply, because if you refuse to pay any money the University thinks you owe it, it won't let you graduate. If a company says you owe it money, they have to sue you. If a University says you owe it money, you'd have to take *it* to court to be allowed to graduate. In that case, it's much easier just to pay the charge. Given the cost and risk involved in going to court for an order for specific performance, and the risk to you if you don't graduate in time, it's just not worth it over £25. , if there is a contract and they cannot prove that this covers liqudated damages they they would be wrong in applying this to your account you hold on campus. No contract though and they are correct. If there was no contract, what would be their cause of action against you? How would they be able to argue you had agreed at some point to pay the fine? How, given that, could they be correct? It's an interesting line of reasoning. Maybe you'd like to expand on it, because at the moment I'm not clear on where you're going with it. The question about the statutory authority was whether, in fact, the fine wouldn't be handed down under a simple contract, but under the University Regulations which, somehow, through the University's Royal Charter or the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 have statutory authority. In this case, the whole penalty clause argument goes out of the window in the same way as it does with parking fines. I'm not sure whether library and university fines are charged under an Act of Parliament rather than under a contract, but I'd be interested to find out. no otherwise they would be standard across all libraries. The question isn't whether the levels are set by statute, but whether the power to charge them in the first place is. If the power to charge them comes from statute rather than the contract itself, each individual library could decide how much it wanted to charge, and be exempt from the penalty clause rules, because they only apply to contracts. London congestion charging defaults, can't take government to county court ? I think you're referring to Crown immunity, but you're so vague that I can't be sure. First, in most circumstances, you can sue the Government (i.e. the Crown) in the County Court. Second, if you were suing for london congestion charging, you'd sue the Greater London Authority, which is a statutory corporation. This means that it wouldn't be covered by Crown immunity even if it was relevant here. parking fines and clamping, the parking fines (where is the contract ?), Exactly my point - which is why the fines would be unenforceable unless they have a statutory authority that lets them do it. What's possibly more interesting is the 'civil penalty notices' that people like NCP will issue for, say, parking outside a marked bay, or parking in a disabled space. I think there's a good case for saying these are unenforceable. weirdly, fines for smoking no contract Well, not exactly - you have a contract because you've got on the train/bus and paid for a ticket. My point was that they don't suffer any financial loss as a result of you smoking, so they've got no right to damages. Normally, that means anything they charged you would be unlawful because of the penalty charge rules, but the statute law is interesting because it allows them to charge you even though they've suffered no loss. and pulling alarm cords on (privatised) trains and buses. again no contract ? but if you think a 250 pound is not liquidated damages, then I inform you that if you where to delay a train(stop them running) they the operators are in contracts that mean to the effect that you are talking £0,000s per min. Again.... contract! Offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations are all there, so a contract must be there. Unless you're fare-dodging, of course, in which case it gets slightly trickier but a contract could still exist. I take your point ("I inform you..." why do you have to sound so antagonistic all the time? Life isn't a letter of claim!) that the train companies might be able to recover more damages in this case if there wasn't a liquidated damages clause, although I think 5-figure sums per minute could be an exaggeration. It's just interesting that because of statute, even if they didn't have those contracts to honour, they are a private company which can impose fines where they've suffered no loss, which is unusual.

I've been thinking about this for a while. Obviously the Penalty Charges regime doesn't simply apply to bank charges. It applies to any service where the company providing the service charges you a higher fee when you break the contract that it would normally do when you were acting within the terms of the contract. Potential uses: - Library fines - Video shop late fees (although if they simply charge you the same price for another night's rental, it wouldn't be caught). - University fines (e.g. £25 for taking food into the library) I'm not sure whether library and university fines are charged under an Act of Parliament rather than under a contract, but I'd be interested to find out. Any other fines charged by a statutory body are potentially unenforceable, unless the legislation makes specific provision for fines - e.g. London congestion charging defaults, parking fines and, weirdly, fines for smoking and pulling alarm cords on (privatised) trains and buses. Can anyone think of any other (maybe more useful) examples where the penalty charge rules could help out?

I've been thinking about this for a while. Obviously the Penalty Charges regime doesn't simply apply to bank charges. It applies to any service where the company providing the service charges you a higher fee when you break the contract that it would normally do when you were acting within the terms of the contract. Potential uses: - Library fines - Video shop late fees (although if they simply charge you the same price for another night's rental, it wouldn't be caught). - University fines (e.g. £25 for taking food into the library) I'm not sure whether library and university fines are charged under an Act of Parliament rather than under a contract, but I'd be interested to find out. Any other fines charged by a statutory body are potentially unenforceable, unless the legislation makes specific provision for fines - e.g. London congestion charging defaults, parking fines and, weirdly, fines for smoking and pulling alarm cords on (privatised) trains and buses. Can anyone think of any other (maybe more useful) examples where the penalty charge rules could help out?

There are a few important differences: The Small Claims Track is fairly informal, and most of the Civil Procedure Rules don't apply. It's designed for people to be able to do themselves, without needing to pay a lawyer. If you have a claim of between £5,000 and £15,000, you will be allocated to the Fast Track. This means you have to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules, which can get pretty complex - the White Book, the copy of the Rules which lawyers use, is 2 inches thick and in small print. It's not the kind of thing that I'd fancy wading through without legal training. You really need to know what you're doing - and, for this reason, it might be worth paying for a solicitor to launch this claim for you. The second big difference is that on the Small Claims Track, if you lose and the Bank wins, the Court won't normally order you to pay the costs the Bank has had to pay out to defend your claim. On the Fast Track, the general rule is that if you lose, you'll have to pay the Bank's costs as well as your own. Essentially, if you lost, the Bank would be able to recover a 'fixed fee' (£500 on claims up to £10,000) to cover the costs of their advocate, plus VAT, plus 'disbursements,' which are certain types of expenses. The judge could reduce or increase this in certain circumstances if he thought it was just - see see Part 46 of the CPR ( http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part46.htm ) Essentially, once your claim's worth over £5,000, the risks if you lose increase massively. As I've said before, you probably need to instruct a lawyer rather than doing everything yourself, because the procedure gets much more formal, and works to a much stricter and more complex timetable. The upside - if you win, you get costs for your own legal representation, which you wouldn't get on the Small Claims track.

There are a few important differences: The Small Claims Track is fairly informal, and most of the Civil Procedure Rules don't apply. It's designed for people to be able to do themselves, without needing to pay a lawyer. If you have a claim of between £5,000 and £15,000, you will be allocated to the Fast Track. This means you have to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules, which can get pretty complex - the White Book, the copy of the Rules which lawyers use, is 2 inches thick and in small print. It's not the kind of thing that I'd fancy wading through without legal training. You really need to know what you're doing - and, for this reason, it might be worth paying for a solicitor to launch this claim for you. The second big difference is that on the Small Claims Track, if you lose and the Bank wins, the Court won't normally order you to pay the costs the Bank has had to pay out to defend your claim. On the Fast Track, the general rule is that if you lose, you'll have to pay the Bank's costs as well as your own. Essentially, if you lost, the Bank would be able to recover a 'fixed fee' (£500 on claims up to £10,000) to cover the costs of their advocate, plus VAT, plus 'disbursements,' which are certain types of expenses. The judge could reduce or increase this in certain circumstances if he thought it was just - see see Part 46 of the CPR ( http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part46.htm ) Essentially, once your claim's worth over £5,000, the risks if you lose increase massively. As I've said before, you probably need to instruct a lawyer rather than doing everything yourself, because the procedure gets much more formal, and works to a much stricter and more complex timetable. The upside - if you win, you get costs for your own legal representation, which you wouldn't get on the Small Claims track.