Joint Names - Striking Out Claims - Update March 07

[seanic]

In addition, I am currently filing a claim against Halifax for a joint account. I spoke to the MCOL helpline today and they advised that I could put the other account holder's details in the service address box of the form, and this should suffice for representation of both parties.

[ladykenco]

I filled out the MCOL with CD and D....which are both mine and my hubbies initials....and the letter from the court had exactly that on it

[caro]

I thought it wise to post Alymacs experience here as a very relevant update. Alymac won, but he was lucky.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/yorkshire-bank-clydesdale-bank/7991-alymac-yorkshire.html

[lillboy]

Hi Caro

Though i should post the Joint Names section of the defence quote here.

If, which is denied, the bank is liable to the claimant as alleged or at all,Mr XXX as one of the customers jointley entitled with the claimant to the same remedy. the claimant has therfore failed to comply with CPR 19.3, Since Mr XXX has neither joined in the action as a claimant nor been named as a defendant, and the action is liable to be struck out under CPR3.4(2). the remainder of the defence is without prejudice to the contention in this paragraph.

 

The More i read the more confused i am becoming.

 

Quite like trundles anwser though

 

 

"

We did not respond to your recent letter regarding your change of defence as we do not want to be involved in your wasting the courts time because:

a. We cannot see the relevance of CPR 19.3 to this matter.

b. Yorkshire Bank are very aware the account was in joint names & would no doubt exercise the right to pursue either of us as individuals for collections should the situation have ever arisen. Due to this we do not see the logic or justice in insisting any claim against yourselves be in joint names.

c. Should you persist in this futile attempt to stall proceedings form N244 will be submitted to include Mr Trudlecat."

 

Also sent similar to the judge (but more polite) & he ignored their request for the case to be struck off.

[caro]

As far as I know, Alymac is the only one who has had the problem with the cheque, as the judge felt his ex should have had a share of the refund, but he won as she didn't go to court. I don't think YB have succeeded in getting a claim struck out on these grounds.

[lillboy]

If the case is suck out on the basis of joint names, then would it by possibly to take them to court again using both names or would it be best to file the N244 form now and get it right. Like trundle says it another stalling tactic.

Going to spend a little time now trying to get insperation on filling the form out. i have seen plenty of people using the form but none for adding names to cases.

One other point could she send in the N244 with the AQ.

[caro]

Assuming that both are in agreement with the claim proceeding, a simple letter to the court pointing this out is likely to be enough, with both parties signing it. In Alymacs case he was the only one who had ever used the account or paid into it, it was just that his ex's name was on the account. If your friend is genuinely claiming on behalf of both account holders I don't think there will be a problem.

[lillboy]

I am going to add the names for her, All previous ltters have had both names on them. it's just the N1 filled online with the missing names.

Could you just please confirm what she needs to do.

1. Fill in for n244 asking for huubies name to be added. immediatley.

2. Submit AQ on 21 March as directed with £100.00.

 

Send banks legal team copies of both letters

 

JUST HAD A MIND BLOWING THOUGHT.

when the ladie from the court said both parties had to agree to the ammendment. she meant both the claimants ? am i right.

I have been thinking how she could get YB to agree to the ammendment if they where going to use this fact to their advantage. I think i have misinterpreted was she said. I hope so. ??? plz

[caro]

No, I think she meant both the claimant and the defendant, and if they couldn't agree, then there would need to be a hearing for the judge to decide. YB would be unreasonable to refuse. I've amended my last post as when I read it again I was contradicting myself. If YB aren't questioning both names being on it, save your money. Just send a note with the AQ as I suggested. I think you are probably worrying too much about this.

 

Can we keep this in your own thread cos I'm getting confused answering on the same subject in 2 threads.

[voyager9]

i am looking into a claim for my cousin and we have a simalar problem my cousin was sole account holder on this account uptil 1997 and then had his girlfriends name added however when they split in 2002 she volintarily took her name off and then it was his sole account again they are not speaking he cant even see his kids so theres no chance she would claim with him however this is RBOS i am wondering if they will argue this point or not any advice would be apreciated