Bean's Timeline (Joint Acct)

[Bean]

Does anyone have any comments on my last post re completing County Court claim form N1?

[reload]

Looks good, although I would make one minor alteration were it me (But it's not, so entirely up to you!):

 

Replace:

 

For the sake of clarity in this claim, but entirely at the court's discretion, it is requested that consequential losses form the subject of a separate future legal action by the Claimant.

 

With:

 

For the sake of clarity in this claim, but entirely at the court's discretion, it is suggested that any consequential losses deemed applicable should form the subject of a separate future legal action by the Claimant.

 

Suggested sounds a bit less demanding of the court - and again 'deemed applicable' to me reads that the consequential losses are the court's decision rather than your own.

 

Other than that minor niggle, though, reads fine to me!

[Bean]

Thanks reload, that's a big help. I agree and will amend as you propose.

 

I have deliberated over how best to handle consequential losses, taking the following into account:

1. Making my intentions entirely transparent to the court

2. Keeping the issues simple and straightforward

3. Giving Lloyds TSB the opportunity now to discuss this and if they wish, to include consequential losses in any settlement discussions

4. Showing that I expect to recover for consequential losses, either

a) shortly in settlement out of court

b) at the court's discretion, in court for this claim

or

c) as a future civil action.

 

I will also be adding a note to 'The Claimant contends that:' as follows:

'In the event that the charges are not a penalty, they are unreasonable under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15. The Defendant has declined to justify the charges.'

 

You are clearly on a mission reload - your output over recent days is striking.

[reload]

It's mainly only in this forum to be honest - but I've been bored at work. Shhh, don't tell my boss!

 

Liking your comment about 'the defendant has declined...' though - may use that in my own offensive should it come to it

[Bean]

Hi reload,

 

I would like to claim that the phrase 'the Defendant has declined to justify the charges' was my own but it was lifted from another post, simply replacing 'bank' with 'Defendant'.

 

..Just shows how much we can draw on collective strength and resources.

 

:o Quick, look busy, the boss is looking your way..

 

Don't get sacked on my account.

[Spiceskull]

I definitely agree with reload regarding the consequential losses - you are coming to court as "Joe Average," and whilst you need to demonstrate reasonableness and that you have thoroughly researched your claim, decisions such as these are for the courts to decide.

 

Your claim is purely for the return of the penalty charges, as well as interest, and you have already acknowledged the court's jurisdiction when referring to the s.69 interest...and the application from the day of the claim to the day of judgement (sounds very Arnie there...)

 

I would also change, or even omit this bit:

The Claimant claims the return of unlawfully imposed bank penalty charges*...Office of Fair Trade ruling of 5 April 2006 relates.

OFT only made a statement on 5th April, and then only in reference to CCs, and the lawfulness of the charges has not been demonstrated at present. By all means refer to them as unlwaful, but the asterisk, and subsequent reference...I would leave them out for now...

 

Apart from that, a beautifully crafted letter - well done, and good luck.

 

 

See the steps I took to get my bank charges back.

Spiceskull v HSBC.

Thank you Consumer Action Group.

Read my blog.

[Bean]

Thanks Spiceskull, I will amend accordingly.

 

You don't know how much "apart from that, a beautifully crafted letter" from the Wordmeister himself means to me:) .

[Spiceskull]

You don't know how much "apart from that, a beautifully crafted letter" from the Wordmeister himself means to me

Aw shucks...I'm blushing now...

[Bean]

Aw shucks...I'm blushing now...

 

You're incisive and you really make me laugh:D . Name still freaks me out though.

[closey]

Yeah, name freaks me out a little too!

[Spiceskull]

Okay - is it the spicey bit or the skully bit? Or is it that it sounds too much like Spicegirl?

[closey]

it's the mix of spice and skull together

[Bean]

I agree, it's the combination...

 

and references to dungeons and stuff...

 

..all of which belies the fact that you're really a good-hearted soul who is making sterling efforts on this site

 

but I won't tell anyone if you wish to maintain an aloof and freaky public persona.

 

N1 Claim Form done, just tidying calculations/spreadsheet before taking to court tomorrow. Will post amended particulars of claim shortly.

[Spiceskull]

N1 Claim Form done, just tidying calculations/spreadsheet before taking to court tomorrow. Will post amended particulars of claim shortly. Bean

You will need to make adjustments to the spreadsheet: I realise it will be stapled to the claim form, but you need to indicate the following at the top of the page(s):

• Your Name
  
• Bank Name
  
• Claim Number (not available until a few days after raising claim)
  
• Claim Period (i.e. June 2000 - June 2006)
  
• Bank Sort Code
  
• Bank Account Number

Sorry if you have done this already - a lot of people don't, and it would be terrible to have hurdles placed through a simple omission such as this...good luck...

 

See the steps I took to get my bank charges back.

Spiceskull v HSBC.

Thank you Consumer Action Group.

Read my blog.

 

[Bean]

Only had 4 of the 6 at top of every page - had missed off the period and claim number - so will amend, thanks Spiceskull.

[Bean]

Issued my claim at County Court today so should have the claim number in a couple of days. Claim total approx. £6400. Will PM Mods shortly with details.

[Bean]

I suppose it's not possible, but does anyone know if you can lawfully put a time limit on settlement before preparations for court, e.g. if a settlement has not been received by a minimum of 14 days prior to the court hearing, then it will be resolved in court? By that I mean that some of the banks settle on the courthouse steps after a Defendant has gone to the effort of preparing to appear.

 

I recognise that we have a duty to resolve issues prior to attending court, but settling at the last minute seems to be an abuse of the process. Is there a way to pre-empt last minute settlement? I recognise that the court would look very dimly on a Claimant who had been offered full settlement just prior to the hearing but might one who had stipulated a time limit for settlement be covered?

 

Any thoughts?

[reload]

Given that Lloyds are doing this in every single case raised against them, it most certainly is an abuse of the court proceedure. Trouble is, I seem to recall reading that it's not possible to file for a judgement (Contempt of Court?) against them for doing so - that's down to the judge's decision with the SCC? Although there's the possibility of bringing it up in a class action lawsuit (I think?!), but as we're all on individual cases...?

 

Really got to get myself a copy of the Lawpack! 8 day still payday

 

As far as pre-empting the last minute settlement, again I don't believe it'll be possible. As you say we have a duty to settle before the courts, and stating a timelimit for a settlement could be construed as an unreasonable preventative measure?

 

However, on the other hand... as Lloyds state in their initial template letters - "We will not enter into any further negotiation in this matter". I'm guessing, but I'd say that gives you justification to issue a similar response "... will not enter discussion outside the Small Claims Court" to the solicitors in a letter of some form - essentially preventing them from sending you a settlement offer at the last moment. Not quite the same thing, as you're trying to get an earlier settlement rather than none at all...

[Bean]

Thanks reload,

 

You must be going for burnout, the sack, or infamy (infamy, infamy, they've got it infamy!) - you are all over this site like a rash! Good stuff - you are helping a lot of people.

[Spiceskull]

You are duty bound to mitigate your losses, so there is no facility for setting a deadline by which settlement must be made. You are raising the claim, the bank is defending, and if they offer to settle before a hearing, they are perfectly entitled to do so.

 

However, whilst this might be considered an abuse of a taxpayer-funded legal route, you are NOT compelled to accept the offer if there are ANY non-agreed conditions attached to the offer. Your claim is £xxx, their offer must be £xxx. Anything else does not settle your original claim...

 

It's a bitter pill, but settlement on the steps of the court is one that needs to be swallowed...good luck nonetheless.

 

[reload]

Me? Burnout? I'll still be posting when they're turning the lights out and locking the doors

[Bean]

Thanks for your definitive reply Spiceskull.

 

Keep rolling reload.

[Bean]

'Notice of Issue' received from local County Court on Saturday 24 June 2006. Claim deemed served 24 June 2006, Lloyds TSB have till 10 July 2006 to respond.

[Spiceskull]

Good luck - almost there.

 

See the steps I took to get my bank charges back.

Spiceskull v HSBC.

Thank you Consumer Action Group.

Read my blog.

 

[SAMREID21]

hi, im a little worried as everyone seems to knows what to do next bar me! Ive read up quite a lot on the process but yet it stills seems bother me. Ive just sent off my second letter shown below:

 

I write in response to your letter refusing my request for a refund of bank charges. I note your position is that I am not entitled to a refund because the terms and conditions of my account allow you to impose charges where I have insufficient funds in my account. I also note that in the past three years alone between my two accounts you have taken in excess of £1000 resulting recently in me having to take out an over draft in aid of me being able to live. This resulting in excess fee’s, interest and still outstanding charges to be debited - as I have had to spread them over a few months in order to be able to pay them. I do still believe these charges to be unfair.

I also note your suggestion that I can complain to the Financial Services Ombudsman if I am dissatisfied with this decision. However, please be advised that it would be inappropriate to complain to the Financial Service Ombudsman where the only forum can determine a dispute on the legality of charges is my local court. I would ask you to note the following.

Your bank insists it can impose charges in accordance with its terms and conditions of contract. However those terms and conditions are subject to the common law and the unfair terms in consumer contact regulations 1999 (UTCCR). Indeed the UTCCR takes precedence over any contractual term where the court finds a term to be unfair. The court can then treat that term of contract as having no legal effect.

The question that arises is this: are your charges unfair in terms of the UTCCR? On July 26th 2005 the OFT stated that ‘a charge is likely to be disproportionately high if it is more than a court would likely to award if a lender sued a cardholder for breach of contract’. So what would the court award your bank for my minor breaches of contract?

As you will be aware, the court will only award (in a non-negotiated consumer contract) a sum to reimburse actual loss. Your charges do not reflect actual loss. Rather, they include a massive profit margin or penalty. Alternatively, they subsidise the banks global debt recovery costs and lending losses. There is parliamentary evidence for this assertion.When the UK banks gave evidence in the House Of Commons Treasury Committee on how bank charges were calculated they said:“Bank charges are going to pay for all the people we have to pursue debt, collect debt, and speak to customers and chase payments. The way these charges are arrived at is by taking these total costs and making some assumptions about the volume that is going to come through to arrive at the individual charges” (House of commons, 2nd report 25th January, paragraph 50)

Accordingly your charges do not reflect the actual loss in my case. They are an illegal penalty charge designed to recover money unconnected with the conduct of my account. Please advise whether you have an appeals procedure, and if so, please treat this letter as a request for an appeal against your decision not to refund charges.

If I do not hear from you within the next 7 days, I will raise an action of payment at my local court. In that eventuality, I would require you to lodge in court financial vouching for the actual loss sustained in my case, together with your full accounts revealing how much income is generated from your bank charges, as against the cost of administering dishonoured transactions

i got this from a similar website and added a bit here and there but im kinda thinking its a bit much now. And what happens next i mean do i need a solicitor? Can anyone help any advice/criticism welcome!