Directions Hearing Leeds

[Calculator]

Reference the comments about why do the banks spin this out so much:

 

What the banks have paid out to us this time and to all of the others that have gone before us is minute compared to the the £billions of profits that thay have made and continue to make on those account holders who either are oblivious to the fact that they can claim repayment, or do not have the knowledge/will to proceed through the bank process and to Court etc.

For every day that goes by, a day is dropped off under the 6 year rule, and for that day the banks will have escaped with £thousands/millions. Also the less the number of people that claim, the greater is the 'escape' for the banks.

Therefore it is not in the banks interests to make things easy. Quite the opposite, they want to be difficult and deter others from making claims. A few hundred thousand pounds in lawyers fees is nothing to them compared to what is at stake.

Similarly the cost of setting up departments of staff within the banks to be obstructive/delaying in dealing with customers requesting statement details and making claims is 'chicken feed' compared with the gains that the banks are making as days drop off under the 6 year rule or by frustrating customers so much that they throw in the towel and do not proceed.

[mmace]

Probably People & Offices Colin Passmore | Simmons & Simmons - Law firm website

 

... and he didn't seem too happy by all accounts

that's the fella, and he seemed fine

[jb79]

2 people walked out of the court without a settlement, we need to look closely into the wording regarding the contractural rate of interest the judge made suggestions of how it should be worded, also the higher rate of interest is a (cough went the judge) charge.

 

I can't speak for the other fella but I settled the same day.

 

Mr Passmore was exceptionally annoyed to the point he couldn't hold a civil tongue in the scramble to get details after the case was adjourned.

[JonCris]

Tell us more jb particularly about the judges comments/suggestions

[roboraver]

"also the higher rate of interest is a (cough went the judge) charge." JB can you please explain about the judges comments and suggestions as the above poster has mentioned.

[TANZARELLI]

2 people walked out of the court without a settlement, we need to look closely into the wording regarding the contractural rate of interest the judge made suggestions of how it should be worded, also the higher rate of interest is a (cough went the judge) charge.

 

I can't speak for the other fella but I settled the same day.

 

Mr Passmore was exceptionally annoyed to the point he couldn't hold a civil tongue in the scramble to get details after the case was adjourned.

 

 

I'd also like to know some more details if you can post them or PM me. What suggested wording did the judge give???

[caro]

Could he have been referring to the overdraft interest on the charges?

[jb79]

I felt the judge was about to describe the unauthorised interest rate as a penalty on top of the authorised rate but stopped himself before doing so.

 

There was someone in court recording everything and I would expect that details will emerge in due course but I was too busy keeping the case running to get the detail. The gist was that it should elude to all intrest charged on the account due to the charges and that the banks should work it out and add the 8% on top.

 

The judge also suggeted that the banks pay all costs for a trial case all the way.

 

I will try get hold of the detailed notes as there was alot of learning and insight in the judges summing up of the case.

[Coombep]

Thanks JB. If detailed notes of the Judges views were available that would make very interesting reading.

 

Any chance Barclays had a lawyer present to hear all this?...I am due for a direction hearing at London Mercantile on 20th Feb.

[matreb]

I took a lot of notes at the hearing. I have promised to type these up for Bankfodder, but it may take a bit longer! To answer some specifics:

 

1. In giving his preliminary, non-binding views, the judge said that:

(a) if overdraft interest was charged by the bank on the penalty charges, and deducted from the account, the consumer may have a claim.

(b) However, if the consumer tried to recover these or other sums by way of a claim for contractual interest, it is unlikely contractual interest would be awarded at such a high rate (28%+). "More than likely" the judge would award a sum of 8%. To justify a higher amount the judge would need more information on how the account was managed (perhaps the implication was that if the customer has been deprived of money unfairly, possibly with a result that the customer could not pay off other borrowing elsewhere at an equally high rate, there might be a justification??)

 

2. The two unsettled cases had paid overdraft interest on their penalties, so should have met the criteria in 1(a) above. BUT because their particulars of claim sought to recover these sums as contractual interest, they would have had less chance of success. So, the judge offered as a suggestion that they could amend their claims to bring them back within 1(a). He was careful not to be prescriptive, but outlined wording for an amended claim:

"The repayment of interest deducted in respect of unauthorised borrowing, and an order that the amount so deducted be calculated by the court on enquiry".

 

Barclays were represented, and tried for two specifics in the directions (which might be ones to look out for, or ask for the opposite, at the other forthcoming hearings):

- the overdraft interest charged on penalties be itemised by the consumer. Judge refused, referring back to his desire this be calculated by the court on enquiry, and the fact that the banks have sophisticated systems to assist with this.

- they wanted items on which there had been a full settlement offered (ie the basic penalty charges) to be out of scope of directions etc. Judge refused. This potentially meant Barclays would have had to disclose cost of processing DD refusals etc as part of disclosure,

even if this was settled.

[JonCris]

matreb

That is really a very good result

[jb79]

Cheers Matreb.

 

Your assistance was very helful on the day.

 

Barclay's are using a lawyer called Colin Passmore, I have done some transaction analysis on his persuasive style, beware that he has a wish to use an aggresive Critical Parent stance to force his opponent into a Adapted Child stance and manipulate into a lesser settlement, this seems to be the only trick in his arsenal and he seems to be a one trick pony.

 

I believe that a simple reiteration of the original request plus subsequent costs is the best strategy to counter his style until he and his client plays like grown ups and allows an adult conversation and a colaborative settlement to be achieved i.e. the bank identifies and repays all unlawful charges with any susequent intrest.

 

In every offer there is a judgement and a threat and the use of expert evidence will easily identify this as a non co-operative action.

 

Given that this is not a reasonable way for him to make an offer to the claimant it is defenately worth recording the conversation as justification for not accepting any offer until the original amount requested is offered.

[brownshoes]

so what has actually happened?

[caro]

They all settled before court so nothing.

[j.barton1]

Hi All....If i BUMP this..its got a vast amount of info for those attending mercantile...

Jenny:)