Well Have Abbey helped me make legal History

[Guest stephen]

Well I proven my point that banks will pay out, so they can avoid having the courts make a declaration that there charges are illegal.

 

My claim was worth a total of £840.00 however to avoid facing the courts Abbey paid me £5,000.00 that Almost 600% more than my claim that got to be a legal record.

 

 

All I can say now is I am going to be working on the OFT to do there job and apply for a injunction.

 

 

[BankFodder]

This is very good news indeed. Are you able to tell us exatly what the story was and what the basis of the negotiation was?

[gothicf0rm]

im guessing he refused their offer to settle out of court for 848 because of the "principle" and they paid him not to get to court.

[eeloojon]

Fantastic!!!

 

If I get an offer of an out of court settlemnt for my £577 from Nationwide should I decline it then? A higher offer like that would get me out of debt!!

[BankFodder]

Sounds nice, doesn't it but you need to understand the whole story from Stephen. If the money they offer is less than you are claiming or if they are trying impose conditions - then you should refuse it. Butif the money is what you are claiming then you should accept.

 

Pm Stephen and ask him to put up the whole story

[gothicf0rm]

why should you accept an offer if they refuse to admit their guilt? you dont have to do you? surely you dont have to accept goodwill offers, particularly if the party in question says they will do it again?

[BankFodder]

Because if a judge considers that you have forced the matter into court unnecessarily, there could be an application for costs against you.

 

If you really insist that you want a judical ruling given on a question of law, you have to seek a declaration.

This takes you out of the small claims track immediately and could get extremely expensive if you fail.

[gothicf0rm]

however if the other side says theyll do it again how is that an unnecessary way of forcing it into the court?

[BankFodder]

In some circumstances you might be able to sue for "anticipatory breach" of contract. Rare, though and not Smalls Claims - so same problem ££££

[BankFodder]

You misunderstand the purpose of suing in contract law.

 

It is not in order to put the world to rights or to make a wayward contracting partner behave. (It could be but very rarely) - It is merely to make sure that you get what you were promised in your contract up until that point. In other words to satisfy the reasonable expectations which were promised to you by the contract at the time the contract was made.

You reasonably expected that the contract would be conducted lawfully and that you would only be required to pay any charges which were levied lawfully. So you claim back anything which was charged in excess of that.

[gothicf0rm]

however you could get a court order frmo the small claims court for to make sure they dont do it again. what im asking anyway is, why should you accept a settlement if the defendant not only refuses to admit liability but actually says they will do it again in the future? i would submit their admittance theyd do it again as evidence when it gets to court.

[BankFodder]

I can't add anything.

I know what you are saying and your sentiment is right. But I don't make the rules and what I have said is correct.

[gothicf0rm]

hmm. thats a bit crap then, infact its very crap and flies in the face of natural justice and basic common law.

[BankFodder]

But natural justice and common law have nothing very much to do with each other. Where they do coincide it is really a coincidence.

 

It has nothing to do with the common law because here we are only talking about procedure. Not Law.

[Russe11]

well done stephen and mark for getting in what you could, Five live is a joke as is the BBC. They basically cut off the disscussion just as it was getting to the points that mattered.

 

I have now complained to the station for acting as they did.

 

Can I reccomend you try talksport, they are a commercial radio station....

much more likely to get a better broadcast from them.

[Tony Rounthwaite]

Well done. I heard interview on 5 Live. I have had very similar experience with Abbey. Advice on what to do would be very welcome. Tony.

quote="stephen"]Well I proven my point that banks will pay out, so they can avoid having the courts make a declaration that there charges are illegal.

 

My claim was worth a total of £840.00 however to avoid facing the courts Abbey paid me £5,000.00 that Almost 600% more than my claim that got to be a legal record.

 

 

All I can say now is I am going to be working on the OFT to do there job and apply for a injunction.

 

 

[Guest stephen]

that was fun i dont think the radio station new what to do, we closed the bank down on every point.

[Russe11]

they did not like the fact that it was not a two sided arguement, they had basically very little to come back on.

 

however imo more people would be interested in peoples bullshat stories about outer body experiences NOT

[Guest stephen]

Hi, Tony

 

Well first you need to request a copy of your bank statements dating back six years. once you have these you can clearly work out how many charges you had,

 

then you need to send the bank a letter requesting a full refund there is a sample letter on this site or if you email me are send you one.

 

I hope that at that point abbey will refund the charges, however if the do not, then you need to submit a claim to the court.

 

However once you have received your statements, furthermore you have sent a letter to the bank, let us know there response. if then you need further advice please ask.

 

also could you kindly let us know how things go.

[MrAngry]

Story from Evening Herald in Plymouth:

 

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=133464&command=displayContent&sourceNode=133158&contentPK=13959548&folderPk=78031

 

ABBEY CHARGES CASE IS SETTLED

12:00 - 04 February 2006 A Plymouth law student who sued banking giant Abbey to claw back what he claimed were unfair penalty charges has secured more than £7,500 in an out-of-court settlement.

 

Stephen Hone, 29, took the high street bank to court to claim back £840 in charges for bounced direct debit payments.

 

But the Evening Herald can reveal that Mr Hone, from St Budeaux, has accepted an offer of £5,000 from Abbey - six times his original claim - plus an additional £2,600 for court costs in an out-of-court settlement.

 

A bank spokesman said the settlement had been made for commercial and business reasons.

 

Now Mr Hone has called on the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to take out an injunction to stop banks making billions of pounds from charges.

 

Mr Hone said that he would have risked bankruptcy if he had turned down Abbey's offer. He said: "I would have loved to have got the declaration that their charges were unfair.

 

"Unfortunately, if they had gone to court and then the appeal court and won, I would not have been able to afford their legal bill.

 

"I would have been declared bankrupt and that would have finished my career as a solicitor."

 

Mr Hone, a father of three, is currently in the second year of a three-year law degree at the University of Plymouth.

 

After reading up on contract law, he entered a claim form against Abbey at Plymouth County Court last May.

 

He argued that, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, a consumer should not pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation for failing to meet his or her obligation.

 

Mr Hone said that Abbey twice offered him an out-of-court cash settlement as the case progressed, but he refused.

 

Mr Hone added that he also refused a 'part 36 offer' which Abbey made in court. Refusing this offer, which was slightly greater than his original claim, meant that he would have had to pay Abbey's court costs if he was awarded a lower amount at a later hearing.

 

Mr Hone said: "Abbey told me that their court costs would be about £20,000."

 

Abbey closed Mr Hone's account on December 9.

 

An improved out-of-court offer was formally agreed on January 31.

 

Mr Hone now wants the OFT, which warned eight credit card companies that their charges were excessive last July, to look at current account penalties. Mr Hone said: "I'm chuffed. I'm just hoping now that the OFT will act rather than sit there and do nothing."

 

A spokeswoman for Abbey said that the settlement with Mr Hone had been made 'for commercial and business reasons'.

 

She said: "It takes into account the fact that the legal costs of continuing with the case would far exceed the amount at stake. In particular, as Mr Hone is no longer an Abbey customer, it made sense to bring the matter to an end."

 

The spokeswoman added: "Our position in relation to bank charges, as stated in the terms and conditions of our accounts, is that it is the customer's responsibility to ensure that there are sufficient funds in the account to cover any direct debits, standing orders, card purchases or cheques that they may write.

 

"Abbey is up front and transparent about all its banking charges as set out in its Tariff of Charges. Abbey's bank account is good value and our charges compare fairly with others. We review our fees and charges regularly against our competitors.

 

"For most people, banking is free - they do not incur penalty charges. We do not charge fees to people who contact us and ask to borrow money - bank charges are only imposed on those who don't contact us and go beyond their agreed limits."

[2gr82btrue]

i atended preliminary court today in which the abbey attended. she so pushed for the CI issue to be addressed but the judge was in a dilema with streams and streams of paperwork to look at. He siad to the abbey this could not be dealt with in 10 mins and it would have to go to court. The abbey paid an am ount into my bank but there is a shortfall so hence the case. I did contact the abbey a couple of days before the case but they refused to satisfy the settlement. So now if i lose i pay abbeys cost...... oh my...... any advice. Think I need a representative on the case? any offers for a single mum of 2 on benefits...?

[arae1]

"Mr Hone added that he also refused a 'part 36 offer' which Abbey made in court. Refusing this offer, which was slightly greater than his original claim, meant that he would have had to pay Abbey's court costs if he was awarded a lower amount at a later hearing."

 

I dont think this would apply to you...you are continuing with your claim becuase you have not been offered a full settlement. This guy was offered full plus alot more, which he declined. I think that is where the difference is. Dont worry. why dont you start a new thread and then lots of people will be able to advise you?

[Guest]

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