Tweet
A bank paid me several days later than legally obliged, leading to significant problems which I will not go into here. Suffice to say I am not happy. I am several hundred pounds out of pocket. And it is clear the bank are just disorganised.
The sealed Tomlin order was sent to both parties by the court on Wednesday February 12th. I received it in the mail Friday February 14th. I can prove this. Also, CPR 6.26 states that this date i.e. February 14th; the second business day after it was sent, is to be considered the service date for a court document.
I consider payment was due, at the latest, by Thursday March 6th, as this is the 21st day from February 12th.
The bank responsible for payment, who I subsequently made a complaint to about the late payment, have stated in their response that that CPR 6.26 does not apply here, as they stated "receipt of" and not the term "served by" which allows them several extra days. They state they received the Tomlin order on February 17th.
Further, when I pointed out that they still only had until March 9th to make the payment, being the 21st day as per their statement above i.e. "within XXX days", they have drawn my attention to CPR 2.8.
The only thing of relevance to this specific term that I can see in CPR 2.8 is the following:
""(iii) Particulars of claim must be served within 14 days of service of the claim form.
The claim form is served on 2 October.
The last day for service of the particulars of claim is 16 October."
Not only is this a bit unfair, as far as I am concerned, as they want to pick and choose which parts of the CPR apply to their argument, but this is then what I have found myself online:
"Within 21 days in legal terms means that a company or person has a strict deadline of 21 calendar days from the date of a specific event to take a required action, essentially meaning they must complete the action within 21 days, including the day the event occurred".
Further, I have read that the term "clear days" should be used if you intend for the first day to not be included.
Therefore bank had, even by their date, until the 9th March to make payment. As this is a Sunday, and the banking system does not make these type of payments on the weekend, it follows that it should have been made by the Friday before.
But even had I received the payment on the Sunday, which is the first date they say they received my email chasing the late payment, I could have avoided incurring the costs I am complaining about.
Interestingly, I have been told that if I start a new claim to pursue my complaint about the alleged breached Tomlin order, the ban kwill apply for summary judgment against me, and will then recover the costs they expect to be awarded from my bank balance!!!
It all seems to me to be threats and bluff.
Can the legal savvy members of this forum tell me whether my thoughts above are sound?
I think that the date of receipt could reasonably be expected to be the date of service, and 21 days would start on the day of receipt of the Tomlin Order.
The sealed Tomlin order was sent to both parties by the court on Wednesday February 12th. I received it in the mail Friday February 14th. I can prove this. Also, CPR 6.26 states that this date i.e. February 14th; the second business day after it was sent, is to be considered the service date for a court document.
I consider payment was due, at the latest, by Thursday March 6th, as this is the 21st day from February 12th.
The bank responsible for payment, who I subsequently made a complaint to about the late payment, have stated in their response that that CPR 6.26 does not apply here, as they stated "receipt of" and not the term "served by" which allows them several extra days. They state they received the Tomlin order on February 17th.
Further, when I pointed out that they still only had until March 9th to make the payment, being the 21st day as per their statement above i.e. "within XXX days", they have drawn my attention to CPR 2.8.
The only thing of relevance to this specific term that I can see in CPR 2.8 is the following:
""(iii) Particulars of claim must be served within 14 days of service of the claim form.
The claim form is served on 2 October.
The last day for service of the particulars of claim is 16 October."
Not only is this a bit unfair, as far as I am concerned, as they want to pick and choose which parts of the CPR apply to their argument, but this is then what I have found myself online:
"Within 21 days in legal terms means that a company or person has a strict deadline of 21 calendar days from the date of a specific event to take a required action, essentially meaning they must complete the action within 21 days, including the day the event occurred".
Further, I have read that the term "clear days" should be used if you intend for the first day to not be included.
Therefore bank had, even by their date, until the 9th March to make payment. As this is a Sunday, and the banking system does not make these type of payments on the weekend, it follows that it should have been made by the Friday before.
But even had I received the payment on the Sunday, which is the first date they say they received my email chasing the late payment, I could have avoided incurring the costs I am complaining about.
Interestingly, I have been told that if I start a new claim to pursue my complaint about the alleged breached Tomlin order, the ban kwill apply for summary judgment against me, and will then recover the costs they expect to be awarded from my bank balance!!!
It all seems to me to be threats and bluff.
Can the legal savvy members of this forum tell me whether my thoughts above are sound?
I think that the date of receipt could reasonably be expected to be the date of service, and 21 days would start on the day of receipt of the Tomlin Order.
Comment