You forgot oa dd the 22p VAT on the phone call! But all the same a point very well made! Just a thought re "spending paterrns" and debit cards being automatically declined if not fitting the computer profile - how does this square with the old manual intervention nonsense?

Now I wonder who the solicitors acting in this case might be?

This may be worth a look - sets out what the judge needs to consider and the like. Makes comforting reading for all of us that have received court dates. Not that it will probably get that far - but probably worth a read anyway. http://www.jsboard.co.uk/civil_law/cbb/index.htm

You are (of course!) right. Everyone of us should be writing to the OFT not only with our opinions on the banks penalty regimes but also about the procrastination and abuse of the legal process that the banks are causing. You are also right that they (the OFT) will also not be keen to do anything about it. However, there are how many thousand mebers here? (sorry I should know). And if each and everyone were to write then the weight of numbers would HAVE to produce some reaction. Probably not a case for a standard template letter though, just get your facts right, express your disgust (in a not too colourful manner) and demand action. I'm off to draft something now - PLEASE ALL DO THE SAME. THIS CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

Why would legal aid be needed - it is a small claim in a county court!

Seeing as they are in the same building as LTSB collections department and have @ltsbasset.co.uk e-mail addressess you should not be the least bit surprised they are clearly part of the bank and only hide behind the mask of solicitors totry to frighten you off

First thoughts are that you appear to have got your interest rate wrong - looks like you might be claiming 80% rather than 8%!

Paragraph 2 - 1st sentence "What is the position, however, if one party to proceedings constantly issues applications in a claim or appeals every decision made against them? Surely this is exactly what the Treasury Solicitor is getting at - and as for 6 cases needing to be made against them - surely this would be easily achievable.

In no particular order. If, as they currently are, LTSB are cloaking this as a charge for services, but are, as I understand it not prepared to provide a breakdown of costs in compliance with Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15 are they not in fact allowing for further claims for consequential loss as I believe that there can be claims for this under this act. Vexatious Litigation. The time must be getting close for a a letter to the Treasury Solicitor as per the following policy document: THE TREASURY SOLICITOR AND VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS Introduction Litigation is rarely welcome to those who become involved with it, whether as a Claimant or Defendant. It can be lengthy, expensive and inconvenient. Some litigants may pursue a range of cases or pursue several different matters at once. This is not uncommon. What is the position, however, if one party to proceedings constantly issues applications in a claim or appeals every decision made against them? What if that person has commenced proceedings many times against the same person for substantially the same reasons, or has sued a wide range of individuals or institutions for matters which are identical or have no legal validity? The Court has its own powers to deal with unmeritorious claims in a variety of ways. They may strike out an action as an abuse of process of the Court. They may issue various orders restricting a litigant’s ability to bring further actions in a specified claim. Alternatively, as a last resort, it is possible to make a complaint to the Attorney General to have the litigant declared “vexatious” under a Section 42 Order of the Supreme Courts Act 1981. Role of the Treasury Solicitor’s Department: Once a complaint is made, it will be investigated by the Treasury Solicitor’s Department, who act for the Attorney General in these actions. Information on the litigant complained of will be gathered with the assistance of the complainants and/or their solicitors. Once a reasonable body of evidence is available, we are able to advise the Attorney on the merits of an application to the Court. The Attorney General or Solicitor General will then personally consider the case and decide whether an application is appropriate. In determining whether a litigant is likely to fall within this category and, therefore, be considered an appropriate candidate for an application, the Attorney will look at the number and type of proceedings, their conduct and character, the degree of hardship suffered by complainants and the likelihood of the litigation continuing if the application is not made. In practice, the Attorney is unlikely to intervene unless at least 6 separate claims have been commenced by a litigant which have been unsuccessful or stuck out. This figure is not cast in stone, however, and each case will be judged on its own particular merits. If the Attorney decides that the application is warranted, the Treasury Solicitor will make an application to the Divisional Court under Section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The application will be heard by at least two Judges of the High Court, one of whom will be a Lord Justice of Appeal. The Court will find that a litigant is a “vexatious litigant” according to Section 42 if they have “habitually, persistently and without reasonable ground” instituted civil or criminal or all types of proceedings. In particular, the Court will consider the entire history of the litigant’s activities of Court proceedings. In the past Courts have held that the hallmarks of vexatious proceedings are that they have little or no basis in law. Furthermore, the effect of the proceedings is to subject the defendant to inconvenience, harassment and expense out of all proportion to any gain likely to accrue to the claimant, as well as involving an abuse of process of the Court. Consequences of a Section 42 Order If the High Court grants the Order it has the effect of halting all existing claims by the “vexatious litigant”. This means that they cannot commence any new legal proceedings, nor can they continue with any current claims or pending applications whatsoever without the express permission of a High Court Judge. The Order is usually indefinite, although the Court has power to make the Orders last for a specified period of time, for example 10 or 15 years. The Order is then sent to all Courts in England and Wales and the litigant’s name is entered onto the Court records, which will prevent them from issuing further claims without permission. Human Rights The right of an individual to commence proceedings to enforce or defend his rights is one of the fundamental rights in a free society. The right to a fair trial is enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. To limit this right, therefore, represents a major restriction on the liberty of the individual for which there must be proper authority and justification and which must be done only when no other options remain. Those individuals who become known as “vexatious litigants” have, in the opinion of the High Court, so abused this right by the commencement of unmeritorious claims or by the manner in which they have used the Courts that their right to continue to use the Court has to be subject to a right of supervision by the Court itself. The Section 42 procedure is, however, safeguarded by the fact that personal consideration is given by the Attorney General or Solicitor General to the issues involved in each case in their determination of whether to make an application. This ensures that the provision is not being used arbitrarily to remove a citizen’s rights. Furthermore, the effect of a Section 42 Order does not actually remove the right to issue proceedings entirely. Those who have been proclaimed vexatious still do have access to the Courts. They are simply required to take an additional step in the process by obtaining the permission of the Court prior to any claims being issued. It has, therefore, been held that the Section 42 procedure does not violate either the European Convention on Human Rights or the Human Rights Act 1998. The Treasury Solicitor 15 November 2002 Comments as usual greatly appreciated

Sorry to hear this - you will be greatly missed. Many thanks for all your help on here. Anyone up to filling the void that will be left?

Not quite clear from this where your claim is at - has defence been filed? have you received defence from court together with allocation questionnaire?

Seems unlikely that LTSB will go to court - but what are further details of claim?

well we can only draw our own conclusions on that one - but seeing as they are in the same building as Lloyds collection department it wouldn't be the most surprising news in the world

Believe from another post and a google search that SC&M all have First name.lastname@ltsbasset.co.uk adresses so just need to find the name of the relevant person

Probably worth a quick call to the court to see if it has been sent out.

Just follow the system and you will have nothing to worry about.

The only reason I contacted them was to make sure that they were happy that they had everything they needed from me to prepare their defence. Thought this might stop any messing about later on.

don't worry steve I have spoken to Mr Thomas a couple of times and he is nothing to worry about - seems to me that he has been badly briefed by the bank to me.

I look forward to seeing a copy of your reply to the hapless Mr Thomas

Thunderpuss have sent you a pm

Having re-read this - not sure that a) it is very helpful and b) even relevant to the claim you are making - seems like a bit of a smokescreen to me!

White & Carter case as follows - don't know if this helps! Where a party is in renunciatory breach of contract, the other party is not bound to accept the breach and sue for damages, but may perform its own obligations under the contract and claim what is due under the contract. Lord Reid: "The general rule cannot be in doubt. It was settled in Scotland at least as early as 1848 and it has been authoritatively stated time and again in both Scotland and in England. If one party to a contract repudiates it in the sense of making it clear to the other party that he refuses or will refuse to carry out his part of the contract, the other party, the innocent party, has an option. He may accept that repudiation and sue for damages for breach of contract, whether or not the time for performance has come; or he may if he chooses disregard or refuse to accept it and then the contract remains in full effect." As an exception: "It may well be that, if it can be shown that a person has no legitimate interest financial or otherwise, in performing the contract rather than claiming damages, he ought not to be allowed to saddle the other party with an additional burden with no benefit to himself." Here the contract-breaker could not take advantage of the exception: "Here the respondent did not set out to prove that the appellants have no legitimate interest in completing the contract and claiming the contract price rather than claiming damages; there is nothing in the findings of fact to support such a case and it seems improbable that any such case could have been proved. It is, in my judgment, impossible to say that the appellants should be deprived of their right to claim the contract price merely because the benefit to them as against claiming damages and reletting their advertising space, might be small in comparison with the loss to the respondent…." Lord Keith said that absent express agreement, an action for the price arises only in two cases. First where the property in the goods has passed to the buyer, and: “The only other case is where parties have contracted for payment on a day certain, irrespective of delivery or the passing of property. This is a clear case of a contractual debt unconditioned by any question of performance by the other party.”

Best of luck Freebird welcome aboard - stick with it and any problems you will get plenty of support here

As far as i understand this means that any communication with this heading can not be admissable in court (I'm sure someone will correct me if i am wrong). If this is the case why should we not reply to any such correspondence stating clearly that we will not accept any correspondence headed as such. The bank has been given plenty of opportunity to state their case why should not all correspondence now not be admissable in court seeing as it down to the bank that the situation has got to this stage?

At the end of the day it is your money that they have taken from you - why should they impose conditions on what is rightfully yours - tell them where to go!