Tweet
Bob the Bankbuster has a link to the steve whiting article on bank charges and the Credit Consumer Act 1974 and sections 87 to 89 in part VIII which relates to default notices. He is stating that a default notice has to be served prior to any penalty being given ie prior to the penalty charge.
His article was posted on his website on 19th December 2007. I have made contact with the author and asked about whether it had been used in any court cases to date. I asked about the article and this is his response which he has kindly given permission for me to reproduce on this site.
"This new article is intended as a response to the specific defence, if raised by a bank/lender, that the bank/lender is entitled to be compensated for it's customer's breach of the account terms and that, as such, it is simply intended to be a tool to overcome this defence by establishing that the bank/lender is not entitled to any such compensation at all.
From my perspective, I hope that the article will therefore be useful as an additional second line of attack, so to speak, in cases where such a defence has been filed and/or in cases where the Court may be considering placing a limit on penalty charges (to say £12 as with credit-cards) and/or in cases which have been subjected to an automatic stay pending the outcome of the OFT case.
Also, to answer your own specific question - no, unfortunately I haven't had the chance yet to use the arguments in the small claims court as yet. However, I do feel that any Solicitor representing a bank/lender would find the arguments set out in the article very difficult to oppose in any of the situations which I have described and especially so when he/she wouldn't be expecting these particular arguments to be made. I also think that any Registrar or District Judge who took the time to hear or read the arguments contained in the article would, once seeing things from the angle which I looked at them, find it difficult to disagree with my conclusions.
Indeed, this was really the main reason that I wanted to make the article available in full to anyone who wanted it. Hopefully it can be used in small claims courts all over the Country to "ambush" unsuspecting banks/lenders and their Solicitors and allow claimants' cases to succeed."
to read the article the link is contained here.
http://stevewhiting.co.uk/Documents/Article002.pdf
His original article on bank charges was posted in "The Legal Executive" a subscription magazine in 1994.
Link is http://stevewhiting.co.uk/Documents/Article001.pdf
His article was posted on his website on 19th December 2007. I have made contact with the author and asked about whether it had been used in any court cases to date. I asked about the article and this is his response which he has kindly given permission for me to reproduce on this site.
"This new article is intended as a response to the specific defence, if raised by a bank/lender, that the bank/lender is entitled to be compensated for it's customer's breach of the account terms and that, as such, it is simply intended to be a tool to overcome this defence by establishing that the bank/lender is not entitled to any such compensation at all.
From my perspective, I hope that the article will therefore be useful as an additional second line of attack, so to speak, in cases where such a defence has been filed and/or in cases where the Court may be considering placing a limit on penalty charges (to say £12 as with credit-cards) and/or in cases which have been subjected to an automatic stay pending the outcome of the OFT case.
Also, to answer your own specific question - no, unfortunately I haven't had the chance yet to use the arguments in the small claims court as yet. However, I do feel that any Solicitor representing a bank/lender would find the arguments set out in the article very difficult to oppose in any of the situations which I have described and especially so when he/she wouldn't be expecting these particular arguments to be made. I also think that any Registrar or District Judge who took the time to hear or read the arguments contained in the article would, once seeing things from the angle which I looked at them, find it difficult to disagree with my conclusions.
Indeed, this was really the main reason that I wanted to make the article available in full to anyone who wanted it. Hopefully it can be used in small claims courts all over the Country to "ambush" unsuspecting banks/lenders and their Solicitors and allow claimants' cases to succeed."
to read the article the link is contained here.
http://stevewhiting.co.uk/Documents/Article002.pdf
His original article on bank charges was posted in "The Legal Executive" a subscription magazine in 1994.
Link is http://stevewhiting.co.uk/Documents/Article001.pdf
Comment