dissonantdreams vs HSBC - they've made me an offer

[dissonantdreams]

Hi everyone

 

I haven't posted here for a while - got loads going on as well as my claim against HSBC, I've got a disability tribunal coming up plus I'm moving house, so I'm really really busy and not a little stressed.

 

I am claiming £612, which comes to £704.86 (plus court fees of £80) with the 8% interest. I filed via MCOL on the 6th June and HSBC filed Acknowledgement of Service on the 8th, saying that they intend to defend. Yesterday (18th) I received a letter from HSBC offering me full and final settlement of £550.80. I am not sure what to do now - they've given me 10 days to respond and I assume this is just a standard letter.

 

Given that I have so much else going on at the moment, and I really need the money for my house move (and although I filed my claim via MCOL, I live in Scotland at the moment and am using a friend's address as a c/o address for my claim, so I'd have to travel to England for the court hearing) I am almost tempted to accept this offer, if HSBC also stump up the £80 court fee I've just paid out and couldn't really afford. I have this other tribunal coming up and don't know if my nerves will withstand two court visits in a short space of time.

 

Does anyone have any experience of asking HSBC to add the court fee amount to a settlement out of court, and will they play ball if I ask them to do this? If not, what's the alternative? Is it worth me just continuing with the claim?

 

Any advice and moral support would be hugely appreciated!

 

Thank you...

[lateralus]

yes, that's fine - i'll put a letter here for you.

 

 

 

Date

Dear Whoever

Ref: Your Offer of Settlement

 

Account: xxxxxxxx

Sort Code xx-xx-xx

Claim No: XXXXX in XXXX County Court

 

I acknowledge receipt of your letter date xx/xx/xx and your settlement offer of £XXX.

 

I thank you for the offer, however as you may or may not be aware, I have already filed a claim through the court system and as such have incurred further costs of £xx. Due to personal circumstances, I am inclined to accept your offer if you would add the cost of my claim to your offer. The total amount that I would accept as a full and final offer in this claim is £XXXXX (the amount they offered plus your court fee).

 

As soon as I receive confirmation from you that you agree to this increased figure I will accept the new offer without prejudice and I reserve the right to make any further claims should you apply future charges that may be considered unlawful under common law or in violation of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 or Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

 

I will be willing to withdraw my claim upon receipt of unconditional full settlement of my claim of £XXX(same as above)

 

I am also not prepared to agree to any confidentially clauses you try to impose, unless of course your client wishes to make an offer of due consideration in addition to the amount of £xxxxx, in order to be afforded this privilege by myself. (put here whatever you want - maybe the interest - you won't get it - but it's fun to ask)

 

I look forward to receiving your revised offer.

 

Yours Sincerely

[dissonantdreams]

Thanks so much lateralus, that's really useful and I may well still use it. However, having read through some more of the threads here today I've taken heart a bit by the fact that people seem to be getting offers for the full amount of their claim before it goes to court. I'm charging 16p interest a day so it's mounting up, and moving house soon I would welcome as much money as possible!

 

I'm unsure as to whether or not to accept HSBC's offer or just to plough ahead with the claim... can anyone offer advice? If I go ahead with the claim what is likely to happen next? Do I have to send anything to DG?

 

Thanks again for your help.

[lateralus]

if you decide to reject their offer - you should let hsbc know -

as to what happens next - they will defend the claim within the 28 days, it will be sent to your local court and from there - it depends on wht the local court directs - a probable court date and usually dg makes their offer before then - possibly more paperwork - just depends.

it's entirely up to you.

if you reject the bank's offer - you don't need to include dg in your letter.

[dissonantdreams]

Well, according to my calculations HSBC's 28 days were up on the 2nd July (a week ago today) and I haven't heard a peep, either from DG or the court. I wrote to HSBC rejecting their offer of full and final settlement a couple of weeks ago, and received no response to that either.

 

Does this mean I've won? What do I need to do - should I contact MCOL to chase them up, or contact DG directly? Any help appreciated!

[pinkduchess]

what status is your claim showing as on mcol?

[dissonantdreams]

Hi pinkdutchess

 

The claim status is "Defence" as of the 6th June. It says, "You are unable to take any further action online on this claim.

 

The Defendant disputes the whole amount you have claimed. Your claim cannot proceed online and will be transferred to the appropriate court for continuation. You will receive confirmation to where the claim has been transferred to shortly."

 

That was over a month ago now though and I'm not sure whether I need to chase anyone about it, and if so who. Any ideas?

[Lenlu]

You should receive a form from mcol stating they are defending and notice of transfer to local court, give mcol a call, mine was late too and then apparently we get some info from our local court so once you have called mcol then they will tell you which court it has been transfered to and you can give them a call. The people at mcol are really friendly and also heard the court people are. Good luck with your claim

[pinkduchess]

the volume of claims is slowing down the system too.

 

give mcol a call as lenlu says.

[dissonantdreams]

Hi everybody, me again -

 

Well, I had the letter from MCOL a couple of weeks ago now saying my claim has been transferred to Manchester County Court. Heard nothing from the court since and I've been so busy (moving house, renovating new flat, and preparing for a tribunal relating to something else, also my health's not too good atm) I keep forgetting to phone up and chase them. I'm assuming it's got something to do with the volume of claims they must be getting at the moment but I will phone them tomorrow and see where things are up to.

 

I know everyone has a lot of questions to ask about the Test Claim thing, but does the fact that the court haven't contacted me have anything to do with this? Are they just putting everything on hold indefinitely? (I'm beginning to wish I'd just accepted HSBC's offer now as I really could do with the money... arrrgh...)

 

Also, a slightly unrelated question. I've checked my HSBC account today and, what a surprise, they've whacked an overdraft charge of £41 on me because a DD went out of my account a few weeks ago and took me overdrawn (I rectified the problem via internet banking the very next day by transferring some money in from my savings account). Is it worth my phoning HSBC tomorrow and demanding they remove this charge, or does the test claim give them the right to refuse this? I haven't had one overdraft charge since I started proceedings against HSBC - how predictable that they've whacked one on me now.

 

Any advice? TIA

[lateralus]

well, that's a tough one- the not having heard from mcc - i think is normal - it takes a couple of weeks to hear from the locals - however.....

with the oft thing - i think hsbc will draw a line in the sand - at some point they will request a stay on all outstanding claims - and i'm just not sure at all how far along they will be - i'm hoping it is only on claims which have not yet been defended (ie within the 28 days) which would mean not yours - but i am only guessing on this. we had felt anyone with a court date would probably be seen through - though this is iffy.

in your position, i'd ring mcc tomorrow and tell them you know your case has been sent to them and ask your status - they may not know - but just ask - saying will i be hearing from you soon with court directions.

 

 

as for new charges - i fear the worst - if they are saying it could take up to a year for this to be resolved - my only suggestion (after trying to get them to reverse it - which i very much doubt in the circumstances of the oft) would be to start a list - because at the end of this - either everyone will get refunded or everyone won't.

 

i'm truly sorry i can't be more positive - it's a bit of a wait and see but i'm not hopeful for anyone in the early stages.

 

still - if you really, truly wish you had taken that offer back then - it would be worth writing asking if you can still accept it - and saying maybe - were they to include your court filing fee - then you would accept.

the decision is yours - it may or may not work anyway.

worth a try - if that's the course you decide to follow.

[dissonantdreams]

Hi, me again - well, Manchester County Court finally contacted me, saying my court date is on 1st November, which surprised me as I didn't think I'd have to wait that long. The letter they have sent also says the following:

 

"The parties shall exchange the following not later than 4:00pm on the 31st August 2007

 

(a) The written statements of evidence of any witness whose evidence is relied on in support of or in defence of the claim.

 

(b) Copies of any documents which a party proposes to rely on."

 

I'm not 100% clear on this - does this mean I should send my schedule of charges to DG, and is there anything else I need to send them? Sorry if the answer to this is obvious, I've not been well recently so I haven't been online as much as I'd like to keep up with what's going on. I'm hoping that the fact I have a court date will mean they might see it through and I'll get my money, but I'm prepared that it might not!

 

I never bothered to try and get that new charge back in the end - didn't think it was worth the effort, I never have much luck with HSBC call centres and I can't get to a branch at the moment, but I have a mental note of it, should I ever need to make another claim...

[Audreygreeneyes]

The parties shall exchange the following not later than 4:00pm on the 31st August 2007.........have your requst for their defence to be struck allready typed and ready to go as they will nto keep this deadline....... you can either be at the court at 4pm to see if it is infact in or fax it to the court once you have confirmed DG's non compliance..

 

(a) The written statements of evidence of any witness whose evidence is relied on in support of or in defence of the claim.......there is witness statements in the library.

 

(b) Copies of any documents which a party proposes to rely on."..... copies of all letter you have sent DG/HSBC and a up todate copy of charges.........

you also need to give the court the above as well........... so you need 3 copies of this lot........

 

 

I'm not 100% clear on this - does this mean I should send my schedule of charges to DG, and is there anything else I need to send them? Sorry if the answer to this is obvious, I've not been well recently so I haven't been online as much as I'd like to keep up with what's going on. I'm hoping that the fact I have a court date will mean they might see it through and I'll get my money, but I'm prepared that it might not!. there is every likelyhood they will go for a stay nearer the time........... lets concentrate on the 31st adn get that dealt with and out the way, then sit back and wait.............

if I have got the above wonrg in any way someone will correct it:):)

 

 

I never bothered to try and get that new charge back in the end - didn't think it was worth the effort, I never have much luck with HSBC call centres and I can't get to a branch at the moment, but I have a mental note of it, should I ever need to make another claim...

[dissonantdreams]

Hi Audrey

 

Thanks for that, that's really helpful. Just to get a couple of things straight - do I need to include everything in the court bundle here, or does that come later? I've got the following things on my list at the moment:

 

1. Witness statement (I've looked in the library and can only find witness statements specific to other banks, is there anything specific for HSBC that I can copy?)

2. Copies of all correspondence (should I include letters HSBC have sent to me as well?)

3. Up to date schedule of charges

4. Request for defence to be struck out (again, is there a template for this anywhere? I've looked but haven't found anything yet)

 

Sorry for all the questions, I've had a look around the site but I can't find anything, sure I'm just being dim! I'll get to work on compiling and printing all of this tonight and send it to the court special delivery (I'm not able to get there on Friday, unfortunately).

[dissonantdreams]

ooh, and I've also noticed lattie's very helpful thread here - should I include everything mentioned in this thread too? I know there's a lot of copying involved and I don't want to charge ahead and do it if it turns out I don't need all that stuff at this stage (especially as I'll have to go into a printing place to get it done as I don't have my own printer or copier - which will also take time, and it's all got to be in on Friday). Sorry for being so confused, I'm getting a bit jittery given that I've only got a few days to do all this, and I'm not sure what exactly I should be sending!

 

Thanks again in advance...

[dissonantdreams]

OK, ignore all my previous stressing - I've gone ahead and started preparing the whole court bundle, as I figured it was better to be safe than sorry, and after reading over the court letter again, plus a few hours reading through various threads on here, it sounds as if that's what I should be sending!

 

So I've copied the statement of evidence from Gary's post here, and gone through it with a fine-toothed comb making sure I've taken out any bits that don't apply to me. However, paragraph 7 of the letter is confusing me slightly.

 

7. The Claimant further submits that the Defendant’s contention that the charges are now a legitimate service charge represents a contradiction to materials published by the bank previously. Here, add in details of any correspondence in which the bank referred to the charges as ‘penalties’, ‘defaults’ or ‘exist to cover costs’, etc. For example -In correspondence with Lloyds TSB’s ‘Customer Service Recovery’ department in July 2006, Martin Orton, who is manager of the department, stated this in a letter: “As you are aware, I am afraid that it is the case that any items that are returned incur a fee in order that we can recoup our costs”. This was in response to a direct and plain request to justify Lloyds TSB’s charges. Throughout the letter, no mention was ever made of the charges as being the cost of any sort of ‘service’.(If anyone wants a copy of this letter, drop me a PM with your address and I'll post it to you.)

This seems to be specific to Lloyds; is there any other example that I could use that is relevant to HSBC, or is it OK just to use this bit as is, given that it refers to another bank?

 

 

I'm also including the T&Cs from July 2002, as that's when I opened my account. Is this OK to include on its own or should I also include T&Cs from the time of the first charge, which wasn't until 2003?

 

 

 

Right, I hope I'm doing everything OK so far - please tell me if I'm not! - and I'm definitely going to bed now, as it's 5am and I've been up all night poring over these forums! I don't know what I'd do without you lot! Back to it tomorrow once I've had a decent sleep and am able to concentrate better...

[lateralus]

look up nawanda's thread - back when she did a witness statement (although she was using it as particulars of claim - but it is the witness statement renamed in that instance) gary and others helped her get the wording right - it's pretty close as i think lloyd's uses the "service charge" defence as well as hsbc. nawanda's been back on - so her thread isn't very down the forum, sorry no time to look it up for you.

[dissonantdreams]

Thanks again Lattie, found it no probs.

 

Here is my Statement of Evidence as it stands, would someone possibly be willing to check over this to make sure I've got it right? I'm compiling all the other stuff as we speak, ready to print it tomorrow and send. Three copies, right - one to go to the court, one to go to DG and one for my own reference?

 

1. The Claimant submits that the charges levied to her bank account, as set out in the enclosed schedule, are, notwithstanding the defence of the Defendant, penalty charges arising from and relating directly to breaches of contract, both explicit and implied, on the part of the Claimant. As a contractual penalty, the charges are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Unfair Contracts (Terms) Act 1977, and the common law.

 

2. It is admitted that the Defendant's charges were levied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the account in question. However, it is submitted that the Defendant's charges are not related to or intended to represent any actual loss arising from a breach of contract, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which, by virtue of the legislation cited in paragraph 10 above, exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

 

3. The Defendant avers that the charges levied are legitimate fixed price contractual services, unrelated to breaches of contract, which are therefore not required to be a pre-estimate of loss incurred on the part of the Defendant. The Claimant further submits that this contention is merely an attempt to 'cloak', or disguise, their penalties in order to circumvent the common law and statutory prohibition of default penalty charges with view to a profit.

 

4. The Claimant believes the definition of a 'service' to be a provision of knowledge, skill or other transferable facility that benefits the consumer, and one that the consumer agrees is at a reasonable market rate commensurable with the service provided. The Claimant believes it to be inconceivable that the charges levied to her account by the defendant could be any form of 'service', rather than a penalty.

 

5. I understand the definition of 'breach of contract' to be the failure of a party, without legal excuse, to perform a contractually agreed obligation pursuant to any or all of the terms agreed within that contract. I have an overdraft facility with the Defendant. This overdraft has a contractually agreed limit, which is an express term of the bank account contract between myself and the Defendant. When I exceeded this agreed overdraft limit, therefore breaching an express term of the contract between myself and the Defendant, I was consequentially penalised for each such breach by way of a charge of anything between £18 and £80.

 

6. In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co [1915] AC 79, Lord Dunedin stated that a clause is a penalty if it provides for;

 

"The essence of a penalty is a payment of money stipulated as in-terrorem of the offending part;"

 

i.e. if it is designed to scare or coerce or is used as a threat. It is submitted that the charges applied are not representative of any 'service' provided by the Defendant, but instead are punitive, and held "in-terrorem".

 

7. The Claimant further submits that the Defendant's contention that the charges are now a legitimate service charge represents a contradiction to materials published by the bank previously.

 

8. The Claimant refers to the statement from the Office of Fair Trading (April 2006), who conducted a thorough investigation into default charges levied by the British financial industry. While the report primarily focused on credit card issuers, the OFT stated that the principle of their findings would also apply to bank account charges. They ruled that default charges at the current level were unfair within their interpretation of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. With regard to the 'cloaking' or disguising of penalties, the OFT said this;

 

"4.21 The analysis in this statement is in terms of explicit, transparent default fees. Attempts to restructure accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made should be viewed as disguised penalties and equally open to challenge where grounds of unfairness exist. (For example, a charge for 'agreeing' or 'allowing' a customer to exceed a credit limit is no different from a customer's default in exceeding a credit limit.) The UTCCRs are concerned with the intentions and effects of terms, not just their mechanism".

 

9. As submitted above, the Claimant believes the charges levied to her account to be disproportionate contractual penalties, arising from clear and demonstrable breaches of express terms of the account contract between herself and the Defendant. The Claimant vehemently refutes the Defence's contention that they are legitimate contractual service charges.

 

10. However, and without prejudice to the above, in the event the charges were accepted by this honourable court as being a fee for a contractual service, the claimant submits that they are unreasonable under section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

 

11. Further, under the UTCCR:

 

"5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

 

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

 

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was."

 

Schedule 2 also includes such clauses (to define examples of unfair clauses) as:

 

"(i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;

 

(j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;

 

(m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract."

 

The defendant is a multi-national corporation. The term regarding charges was inserted unilaterally in contract. The contract was pre- and mass-produced and I had no opportunity to negotiate the clause, or indeed any of the contract.

 

12. Following on from the above, the Claimant does not accept the Defendant's contention that the charges are enforceable as service charges. It is not disputed that the Defendant is entitled to recover its damages following my breaches of contract, and it is entitled to include a liquidated damages clause. I accept without reservation the bank's right to recover its actual losses or a genuine pre-estimate thereof. A penalty, however, is unenforceable.

 

13. The Claimant cites the case of Robinson v Harman [1848] 1 Exch 850 which states that a contractual party cannot profit from a breach and that the charge for a loss suffered from a breach of contract should be the amount necessary to put both parties in the same position before the breach occurred.

 

14. Lord Dunedin in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co [1915] AC 79 set down a number of principles in definition of a penalty clause and how such clause may be ascertained from a liquidated damages clause, one of these principles being;

 

"The sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could have been suffered from the breach."

 

15. The Claimant will further rely on numerous recorded authorities dating throughout the 20th century up to the most recent case of Murray v Leisureplay [2005] EWCA Civ 963, all of which have upheld and reinforced the principles set down by Lord Dunedin defining contractual penalty clauses and the unenforceability thereof.

 

16. Further, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, schedule 2 (1) includes to define an example of an unfair clause as;

 

"(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation."

 

17. On numerous occasions, the Claimant has requested that the Defendant justify its charges by providing details of the costs incurred as a result of her contractual breaches. Each time those requests were rebutted or ignored.

 

18. In a recent study undertaken in Australia, (Nicole Rich, "Unfair fees: a report into penalty fees charged by Australian Banks") it was estimated that the cost to an Australian bank of a customer's direct debit refusal was estimated to be in the region of 54 cents. By reviewing the charges against the above figure, the study estimated that banks could be charging between 64 to 92 times what it costs them to process a direct debit refusal. The study’s key findings stated that in its opinion the Australian bank's cheque and direct debit refusal fees were likely to be penalties at law.

 

19. The Defendant, or indeed any of the UK banks, has never published any information to support how their charges are calculated, or what their actual costs associated with such breaches are, or what revenue they derive from such charges.

 

20. For their recent BBC2 documentary "The Money Programme", the BBC appointed a commission of former senior banking industry figures and business academics to attempt to ascertain the actual costs to the UK banks of processing a customer's breach of contract. They concluded that the absolute maximum conceivable cost that could be incurred by a direct debit refusal or overdraft excess is £2.50, and of a returned cheque £4.50. They did state, however, that the actual cost is likely to be much less than this. The commission also estimated that the UK banks collectively derive as much as £4.5billion in profit a year from their charging regimes.

 

21. It is submitted that the Defendant's charges are applied by an automated and computer-driven process. This process consists of a computer system 'bouncing' the direct debit, and sending out a computer-generated letter. It is therefore impossible to envisage how the Defendant can incur costs of £80 by carrying out this completely automated process. Note that the letter received notifying of a charge is identical in every instance, and if multiple breaches occurred on the same day, a separate letter would be sent in each instance.

 

22. On 22nd May 2006, the House of Commons passed an early day motion which welcomed the OFT's statement that default charges should be proportionate to the actual loss incurred. The house described such default charges as "exorbitant" and "excessive".

 

23. The Claimant also cites a radio interview in 2004 with Lloyds TSB's former head of personal banking, Peter McNamara, in which he states bank charges are used to fund free banking for all personal customers as a whole.

 

24. As set out previously, it is submitted that the Defendant's charges can not be considered to be a service charge. In arguing that they are, they also effectively admit that their charges make profits. The Defendant seemingly contends that their charges are not subject to any assessment of fairness whatsoever. This implies they can set these fees at whatever level they like without limit or regulation. Similarly, as set out above, the charges cannot be considered to be liquidated damages. They, by the Defendant's own admission, are not a pre-estimate of loss incurred as a result of the breach of contract. The charges are punitive, held "in-terrorem", and unduly and extravagantly enrich the Defendant. As such, they are contractual penalties and unenforceable at law.

 

I, the Claimant, believe all facts stated to be true.

 

If this is all fine, I'll get it printed off tomorrow as is. Thanks again everyone!

[lateralus]

looks ok to me

[dissonantdreams]

Cheers Lattie. I've been working flat out today on getting my bundle together; just put together my table of contents (taking a lead from corn flake's thread) and it contains:

 

1. Statement of Evidence (as above)

2. Correspondence from Claimant

3. Correspondence from Defendant

4. Bank Statements

5. Schedule of Charges

6. Relevant Case Law Summary (copied from the basic court bundle)

7. Dunlop v New Garage 1915

8. Robinson v Harman 1848

9. Murray v Leisureplay 2005

10. Nicole Rich Unfair Fees report 2003

11. BBC Commission conclusion

12. Early Day Motion

13. McNamara interview transcript

14. UTCCR 1999

15. UCTA 1977

16. OFT Statement 2006

17. HSBC T&Cs July 2002 (when I opened my account)

 

(numbers in orange are the contents of Guido's PDF bundle which Nevilley very kindly uploaded)

 

If I've calculated this correctly it comes to 233 pages, which sounds about right! I'm taking it to the printers tomorrow lunchtime so if anybody notices any glaring omissions, please let me know and I'll get it all sorted before I go tomorrow. Fingers are very much crossed it all works out.

 

I haven't heard of anyone else having to submit their court bundle so long before their hearing date... is this becoming more common in light of the test case, or perhaps something to do with the volume of claims? My hearing isn't scheduled until the 1st November yet I have to submit all this stuff by Friday. Seems a bit odd to me.

[lateralus]

list of settled claims?

Litigation Section - View and print out litigation spreadsheets here i'm told if you print it out in a larger font it prints more clearly. also, audreygreeneyes has a list of claims settled since the oft announcement which holds a lot of weight as it shows courts are still hearing cases. pm her for the list.

[dissonantdreams]

Thanks, I'll PM audreygreeneyes now. So I've got everything mentioned above, plus list of settled claims. I'm just about good to go... got a feeling I'm going to be up late tonight again putting all of this in order!

 

 

One more thing, I know I should have a letter ready requesting the defence to be struck out if DG don't meet the deadline (which I'm assured they won't)... I've looked around the site and the most relevant thing I could find was GaryH's letter templates here; are these the ones I should use? And is the procedure the same - send the first letter to DG, copied to the court, on the day the deadline expires, followed by the second letter to the court a week later?

 

Sorry for pestering again, with a bit of luck I'll have all of this in hand soon and will be able to sit back and wait!

[Castlebest]

GaryH's or there is one in post one of Latties thread written by Rob the Viking (its in green) which you should be able to edit to your needs

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/71343-when-you-have-filed.html

 

pete

[dissonantdreams]

Thanks Pete. How's this for a letter? I used Rob's example and jigged things around a bit to make it more relevant to the situation. I shall print it off and get it in an envelope all ready to send after I phone the court at 4pm on Friday to confirm they've ignored the deadline!

 

Dear Sir/Madam

I write to bring to your attention the fact that the Defendant has failed to submit the documentation requested by District Judge Jones in his/her Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track, dated 21st July, by today's deadline.

I, the Claimant, have gone to great lengths, without legal representation, to compile and submit my statement of evidence and other relevant documentation within the deadline set out by the Court. The Defendant is a large organisation whom I would have expected to conduct this process in a professional and timely manner, and the fact that they have seemingly ignored a clear deadline without excuse disappoints me greatly. I believe the Defendant has displayed a severe disregard for the instructions set out by the Court, and therefore I respectfully request that the defence be struck out on the grounds of abuse of process by the Defendant.

Should you need to contact me about any matter that may arise in this case, please do not hesitate to do so using either the above address or phone number.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully etc

[Castlebest]

That looks fine to me

 

pete