Need help with Allocation Questionnaire pls

[lab32uk]

Hi everyone
I am currently in the process of asking HSBC for my bank overdraft charges back.I have got as far as the court stage via an N1 form.
I have now received the defence from HSBC and also the N149 Allocation Questionnaire form which i need to get back to the court by 5th May.
I am having problems with section 'G' on the form 'other information' as i don't really know what to put in here.
The defence HSBC submitted is below







If anyone could help me with section 'G' i would be very grateful

regards

Lee

[Tools]

Re: Need help with Allocation Questionnaire pls

Is this a personal or business account?

Could you also post up your Particulars Of Claim (POC)

[lab32uk]

Re: Need help with Allocation Questionnaire pls

Hi Tools

Thanks for the reply.This is for a personal account.

I will have to dig out my copy of the N1 form which has my POC attached to it.I will scan it and post it up later today when i get in from work....need to get some sleep now


Thanks again

Lee

[Glenn UK]

Re: Need help with Allocation Questionnaire pls

Before spenindg a lot of time worrying about the allocaiotn quesiotniiare i am surprised that the claim has got this far and has not simple been stayeed by the court.

is it worth speaking directly to the court and asking if they intend to apply the stay to the claim and whether they actually want an AQ?

Have you asked for anyhitng else to be taken into account on your N1 other than trying to reclaim the charges?

Glenn

[lab32uk]

Re: Need help with Allocation Questionnaire pls

Here is the POC that i used from a template (Sorry for the delay, been helping my sister to move house)


PARTICULARS OF CLAIM:


1. The Claimant [has] an account ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around (DATE)[and closed on or around (DATE)

2. During the period in which the Account [has been] operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant or in respect of various purported services provided by the Defendant. The Defendant also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.

4. The Claimant contends that:

a) Insofar as they may be penalties, the charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach, but instead act in terrorem to ensure contractual compliance and to deter a breach on the part of the Claimant.

b) Insofar as they purport to be services provided by the Defendant, the High Court on the 24th April 2008 rejected the notion that the blocking of cheques, direct debits and so forth were services in the sense commonly understood. Furthermore the High Court held that the Defendant's charges were subject to tests of unfairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999.

Whereas, at all material times the Claimant was a consumer within the meaning of the Regulations and the Defendant was a supplier within Regulation 3(1), and
The banking contract was conducted on the Defendant’s standard terms

The terms imposing the charges levied by the Defendant are contrary to the requirement of good faith. Furthermore The terms imposing the charges cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer in that:-

• Bank accounts have become a basic essential service
• The Defendant is a wholly dominant partner in a non-negotiable standard-form contract.
• There are a limited number of providers of banking services all whom exercise similar dominance over their customers in non-negotiable standard form contracts.
• These banks exercise a collective dominance in the market.
• The charges of all banks are highly similar in nature and in cost and so the consumer in general and the claimant in particular has no real choice between banking service providers and is forced to acquiesce to the charges.
• The charges exceed actual costs by several thousand percent
• They are applied unilaterally in a standard form contract without the possibility of negotiation
• The Defendant raises the charges or restructures its charging scheme at will without discussion with its customers
• The Charges are of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of the Banking Contract as a whole and would not influence the making of the Banking Contract.
• The customer had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges at the time of entering the contract
• The charges reflect a markup of several thousands of percent on the costs of dealing with the claimant's "delinquency" episodes. This is an extraordinary markup for any UK business. The normal markup on the High Street is less than 100%.
• Many of the Defendants charges are levied on previous charges incurred in preceding months. Therefore the Defendants are themselves causing the impecuniousity which then triggers more charges. Therefore the Defendants have caused much of the claimant's impecuniousity and it is the Defendants who are causing the charges to be levied with a view to their own profit.
• The Defendant operates its high level of charges in order to cross-subsidise other banking services which it provides to other customers at less than cost price - "free-banking".
• The charges could be imposed repeatedly and interest at a higher rate could be charged on those accumulated charges
• The Defendant's charges structure depends upon the impecuniousity and vulnerability of its poorer customers to provide free-banking services for those in a better position.
• The overall charging regime operated by the Defendant is disproportionately applied to a minority of its customers, often those who are least able to afford it.·
  
• As established by the High Court (OFT v Abbey & 7 Ors) the customer would receive no service or benefit in return for the imposition of charges.

g) In the premises the terms imposing the charges are unfair within the meaning of Regulation 5 (1) and thus not binding on the Claimant under Regulation 8.


5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £xxx;

b) Interest charges which have been paid on the above charges in the sum of £xxx;

c) The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year, from [date when the money became owed to you] to [the date you are issuing the claim] of £ [amount] and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of [enter the daily rate of interest]

d) Court costs or other costs as allowed by the court;



I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true




------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Hi Glenn
The only other thing on the N1 form was in the Brief details of claim section where i wrote :

Money claim for the return of penalty charges applied to the claimants bank account by the Defendant.


This is the first time i have issued Court proceedings against any bank so im in at the deep end so to speak


cheers for the replies everyone


regards

Lee

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Need help with Allocation Questionnaire pls

It is a standard defence, IMHO. 4(a) is completely wrong btw, but you have 4(b) in which covers your base argument.

Some of the bullet points are completely irrelevant IMHO.

I think the next thing you should receive is an order to stay the claim.

[Guest]

Re: Need help with Allocation Questionnaire pls

Look here for details of how to complete the AQ.

Legal Beagles

Since, as has already been pointed out, your claim is highly likely to be stayed, try not to worry too much about the Allocation Questionnaire. It is intended only as a guide to the Judge in order that the claim is allocated to the appropriate track and you cannot win or lose based on how you complete it.

[lab32uk]

Re: Need help with Allocation Questionnaire pls

Thanks everyone

I found some info for section 'G' (taken from another site)


I am respectfully requesting that my claim be allocated to the Small Claims track. This issue is not a complicated one; it is an issue of fact and not of law. The issue is only whether the money levied by the Defendant in respect of its customer's contractual breaches exceed their actual costs incurred. I am happy to pay their actual costs and I am surprised the Defendant did not counterclaim for these, because I would have paid them without argument.
However, the continuing problem is (in common with the 1000s of other cases currently being brought by other bank customers) that the banks refuse to reveal the details of their charging regime. As the banks have a fiduciary duty toward their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly and in utmost good faith.
Accordingly, I would respectfully ask that the court in this case, not withstanding allocation to the small claims track, order standard disclosure. I understand that it is in the courts discretion to do so and I believe this would bring a rapid end to this litigation.



cheers
Lee

[Amethyst]

Re: Need help with Allocation Questionnaire pls

Do you mean everything said in that section G ?

Really there is no need to put that, its a very old CAG template for an AQ. There really isnt any need to put anything in G tbh as you will just be stayed. Section G is meant to be for things like whether you need interpreters/wheelchair access, and yes asking for small claims track if your claims over £5k.

How much is the claim? and do you have to pay an AQ fee?

But then if you do put all that it wont really matter, really dont worry about it, bit annoying they have got to AQ stage without applying the stay really isnt it. give the court a buzz and ask if its been stayed on monday before paying anything for the AQ.