Claiming over £5000- more info needed, please.

[gazza]

Hi, I am one of the new influx of members

Forgive me if this info is elsewhere, I have looked...

 

But my wife and I's joint accounts charges over the last 6 years are likely to have charges of over £5k- we have all our original statements and are still adding it up! .

 

I guess this put us out of the small claims courts.

 

My question being, what are the things to be aware of by going this route if necessary? Or should we claim £4999 only perhaps?

 

Thanks in advance.

Gaz

[gazza]

Hi, I am one of the new influx of members

Forgive me if this info is elsewhere, I have looked...

 

But my wife and I's joint accounts charges over the last 6 years are likely to have charges of over £5k- we have all our original statements and are still adding it up! .

 

I guess this put us out of the small claims courts.

 

My question being, what are the things to be aware of by going this route if necessary? Or should we claim £4999 only perhaps?

 

Thanks in advance.

Gaz

[gazza]

Have I done something wrong?

[gazza]

Have I done something wrong?

[BankFodder]

Have I done something wrong?

 

No, you were forgotten.

 

 

 

the question is whether you can divide your claim into bits and keep on going back and in this way keep it within the Small Claims limit.

 

This queston has come up a few times and I am not sure of the answer. My first impresson is that it sounds like an abuse to me but someone is trying find the definitive answer.

 

here is a comment which I received from ThoughtCriminal which I think is a very sound point of view:

 

... don't think there's a legal bar, but there are several litigation-related points that spring to mind:

 

 

The bank may try to settle before the hearing. To cover their backs, they'll probably use some wording like "in full and final settlement of all claims or potential claims relating to charges etc taken from account number XXXXX." If you sign this, it would preclude you from taking action on the second lot of charges.

 

If you've asked for the full amount of £8000 in your pre-action letters, then you take the claim down to £4,000 for the small claims court, the judge (assuming he's awake) will want to know why. See discussion of the overriding objective below.

 

Plus, even if you get the first £4,000 without an adverse costs order, when you bring your claim for the next £4,000 the Bank is bound to point out to the Court that there was no reason why you couldn't have brought the claim alongside the first one. Unless you have reason which is acceptable to the court to explain why you didn't, you're even more likely to get costs awarded against you this time.

On the his fist point, I would suggest that you go into court rather than agree to a conditional settlement.

However the other two points are absolutley correct.

So the position is probably that in the absence of any rule against severing the claim (and we are still looking) then the answer is as above.

[BankFodder]

Have I done something wrong?

 

No, you were forgotten.

 

 

 

the question is whether you can divide your claim into bits and keep on going back and in this way keep it within the Small Claims limit.

 

This queston has come up a few times and I am not sure of the answer. My first impresson is that it sounds like an abuse to me but someone is trying find the definitive answer.

 

here is a comment which I received from ThoughtCriminal which I think is a very sound point of view:

 

... don't think there's a legal bar, but there are several litigation-related points that spring to mind:

 

 

The bank may try to settle before the hearing. To cover their backs, they'll probably use some wording like "in full and final settlement of all claims or potential claims relating to charges etc taken from account number XXXXX." If you sign this, it would preclude you from taking action on the second lot of charges.

 

If you've asked for the full amount of £8000 in your pre-action letters, then you take the claim down to £4,000 for the small claims court, the judge (assuming he's awake) will want to know why. See discussion of the overriding objective below.

 

Plus, even if you get the first £4,000 without an adverse costs order, when you bring your claim for the next £4,000 the Bank is bound to point out to the Court that there was no reason why you couldn't have brought the claim alongside the first one. Unless you have reason which is acceptable to the court to explain why you didn't, you're even more likely to get costs awarded against you this time.

On the his fist point, I would suggest that you go into court rather than agree to a conditional settlement.

However the other two points are absolutley correct.

So the position is probably that in the absence of any rule against severing the claim (and we are still looking) then the answer is as above.

[gazza]

Sorry for my impatience.

 

Thats interesting(Bankfodder), I hadn't thought of that aspect.

 

If I/we were to go for the full amount, not in the small claims court, what are the implications of that?

By the way I should say, it would all be from Abbey but a from 2 or 3, all joint, accounts.

 

Is there a whole lot of difference in trying to claim back through the normal courts?

 

Thanks again

Gaz

[gazza]

Sorry for my impatience.

 

Thats interesting(Bankfodder), I hadn't thought of that aspect.

 

If I/we were to go for the full amount, not in the small claims court, what are the implications of that?

By the way I should say, it would all be from Abbey but a from 2 or 3, all joint, accounts.

 

Is there a whole lot of difference in trying to claim back through the normal courts?

 

Thanks again

Gaz

[BankFodder]

By the way I should say, it would all be from Abbey but a from 2 or 3, all joint, accounts.

 

Don't understand this sentence

[BankFodder]

By the way I should say, it would all be from Abbey but a from 2 or 3, all joint, accounts.

 

Don't understand this sentence

[leehughes]

Hi

 

Solicitor on behalf of Tesco Personal Finance filed a claim against me for just 10% of the balance outstanding...they obviously don't see anything wrong with it. They did state on their claim that they are not waiving the rights to the rest of the money due.

 

Just go after charges from the last say 2 years first..... since you have the records...what can the bank prove? Then say you located records you archived......

 

Will they even force you to court????? Ensure settlement terms are not restrictive..

 

Would assume seperate accounts are rightly seperate claims anyway.

 

Corrections accepted......

 

Regards

[leehughes]

Hi

 

Solicitor on behalf of Tesco Personal Finance filed a claim against me for just 10% of the balance outstanding...they obviously don't see anything wrong with it. They did state on their claim that they are not waiving the rights to the rest of the money due.

 

Just go after charges from the last say 2 years first..... since you have the records...what can the bank prove? Then say you located records you archived......

 

Will they even force you to court????? Ensure settlement terms are not restrictive..

 

Would assume seperate accounts are rightly seperate claims anyway.

 

Corrections accepted......

 

Regards

[gazza]

By the way I should say, it would all be from Abbey but a from 2 or 3, all joint, accounts.

 

Don't understand this sentence

Hmmm...not great grammar is it

 

All our charges are from 2 or 3 joint accounts, with Abbey.

 

Gaz

[gazza]

By the way I should say, it would all be from Abbey but a from 2 or 3, all joint, accounts.

 

Don't understand this sentence

Hmmm...not great grammar is it

 

All our charges are from 2 or 3 joint accounts, with Abbey.

 

Gaz

[thoughtcriminal]

If I/we were to go for the full amount, not in the small claims court, what are the implications of that? ...

 

Is there a whole lot of difference in trying to claim back through the normal courts?

 

 

There are a few important differences:

 

The Small Claims Track is fairly informal, and most of the Civil Procedure Rules don't apply. It's designed for people to be able to do themselves, without needing to pay a lawyer. If you have a claim of between £5,000 and £15,000, you will be allocated to the Fast Track. This means you have to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules, which can get pretty complex - the White Book, the copy of the Rules which lawyers use, is 2 inches thick and in small print. It's not the kind of thing that I'd fancy wading through without legal training. You really need to know what you're doing - and, for this reason, it might be worth paying for a solicitor to launch this claim for you.
 
The second big difference is that on the Small Claims Track, if you lose and the Bank wins, the Court won't normally order you to pay the costs the Bank has had to pay out to defend your claim. On the Fast Track, the general rule is that if you lose, you'll have to pay the Bank's costs as well as your own.
 
Essentially, if you lost, the Bank would be able to recover a 'fixed fee' (£500 on claims up to £10,000) to cover the costs of their advocate, plus VAT, plus 'disbursements,' which are certain types of expenses. The judge could reduce or increase this in certain circumstances if he thought it was just - see see Part 46 of the CPR ( http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part46.htm )

 

Essentially, once your claim's worth over £5,000, the risks if you lose increase massively. As I've said before, you probably need to instruct a lawyer rather than doing everything yourself, because the procedure gets much more formal, and works to a much stricter and more complex timetable.

 

The upside - if you win, you get costs for your own legal representation, which you wouldn't get on the Small Claims track.

[thoughtcriminal]

If I/we were to go for the full amount, not in the small claims court, what are the implications of that? ...

 

Is there a whole lot of difference in trying to claim back through the normal courts?

 

 

There are a few important differences:

 

The Small Claims Track is fairly informal, and most of the Civil Procedure Rules don't apply. It's designed for people to be able to do themselves, without needing to pay a lawyer. If you have a claim of between £5,000 and £15,000, you will be allocated to the Fast Track. This means you have to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules, which can get pretty complex - the White Book, the copy of the Rules which lawyers use, is 2 inches thick and in small print. It's not the kind of thing that I'd fancy wading through without legal training. You really need to know what you're doing - and, for this reason, it might be worth paying for a solicitor to launch this claim for you.
 
The second big difference is that on the Small Claims Track, if you lose and the Bank wins, the Court won't normally order you to pay the costs the Bank has had to pay out to defend your claim. On the Fast Track, the general rule is that if you lose, you'll have to pay the Bank's costs as well as your own.
 
Essentially, if you lost, the Bank would be able to recover a 'fixed fee' (£500 on claims up to £10,000) to cover the costs of their advocate, plus VAT, plus 'disbursements,' which are certain types of expenses. The judge could reduce or increase this in certain circumstances if he thought it was just - see see Part 46 of the CPR ( http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part46.htm )

 

Essentially, once your claim's worth over £5,000, the risks if you lose increase massively. As I've said before, you probably need to instruct a lawyer rather than doing everything yourself, because the procedure gets much more formal, and works to a much stricter and more complex timetable.

 

The upside - if you win, you get costs for your own legal representation, which you wouldn't get on the Small Claims track.

[BankFodder]

 

All our charges are from 2 or 3 joint accounts, with Abbey.

 

Gaz

 

Sue on each account separarelty but at different times. If you sued separately on each account butat the same time the bank might seek to consolidate the claims.

But separate accounts, separate claims - no problem. They sever naturally

[BankFodder]

 

All our charges are from 2 or 3 joint accounts, with Abbey.

 

Gaz

 

Sue on each account separarelty but at different times. If you sued separately on each account butat the same time the bank might seek to consolidate the claims.

But separate accounts, separate claims - no problem. They sever naturally

[gazza]

Thanks for all the above advice.

 

Making separate claims might seem the best way to go.

 

We are going thru our statements right now.....£2,500 and (much more)counting

[Empire Strikes Back]

We are counting £12,000 plus on one account alone over six years, whats the best way of dealing with this? Any answers would be appreciated before taking the plunge

[BankFodder]

We are counting £12,000 plus on one account alone over six years, whats the best way of dealing with this? Any answers would be appreciated before taking the plunge

 

Could you repost this in the appropriate bank forum and give some more deatils as to how the charges arose.

[McIavelli]

A lot of water has passed under the bridge since thoughtpolice made his very helpful post. Has anything fundamentally changed since Feb that I should know about?

 

If it hasn't, my particular claim actually comes to £5,114 (before interest) I personally would want a blooming sight more than £115 to stand up in a law court So I think my claim will be for £4,999.

 

Best Wishes

 

McIavelli (I'm not that devious really)

[gazza]

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