Default Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

Apologies, I was looking at the 1998 CPRs for some reason...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1...2/part/46/made

but they are updated by...

http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/proc...6.htm#IDAM3IGC

which bumps the cost up to £1,650.

However, I still think that if the costs are at this level you can request an unreasonable costs order be made, if the trial has been handled quickly.

This of course assumes that TMC will lose...

[toomanycalls]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

Thanks again Ame, fingers crossed it won't come to that but I like to know both sides of the coin.

[Amethyst]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

I think it works out as forthwith but can be redetermined to installments. Not saying it would def be that much if you lost but we see quite regularly costs between £3k and 10k on CCA defence cases sadly, not so much on here but theres a fair few on CAG.

[toomanycalls]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

Defence posted SD today.

[toomanycalls]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

Thanks Ame, do you know should I lose is this payable straight away as lump?

[Amethyst]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

Just picking up on a couple things

WS should be 7 days for comfort, 3 minimum...yes you can show up at the hearing with it, but it will just result in hearing being adjourned or judge ignoring it, so 7 days to court and claimant is safest.


COSTS - they are claiming 20k ? So liable to be fast track or multitrack at least, especially considering complexity of issues, so your first estimate around £6k was much nearer the mark.

Sorry LA - I don't know where ''OC can claim in costs is £750 for a claim over £10K '' is from ? If its 46.2 as I think then that is a specific area of costs for advocates ...

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

Good luck TMC - you have a strong defence, and lots of support!!

LA

[toomanycalls]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

Cheers LA,

Looked through the link and it certainly looks like your right. I was expecting far more than that, somehow had an idea that it would be £6-8k. If its a "grand" the I think its worth the gamble in this instance anyway. My worry was suddenly being expected to pay £8k should everything go wrong somehow.

Defence will be posted tomorrow by registered post.

TMC

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

If I were you TMC I would just respond to the POC and get your defence in.

I think you will be allocated to the fast track, where costs are fixed - the OC will not be able to claim all his costs.

It's worth going through the CPRs at;

http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/

(The CPRs govern all civil litigation).

I think (may be wrong) that the maximum amount the OC can claim in costs is £750 for a claim over £10K, plus the trial costs which are covered in CPR45.4 (quite low - just admin charges).

I also think you can submit your WS at any time up to the trial (maybe even at it?), but the OC will have to submit his statement of costs beforehand.

So you will not be stung for thousands in costs - otherwise no-one would dare defend a claim!

HTH

[toomanycalls]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

Basa

Thanks again, I'd seen that thread am eagerly awaiting the judgements publication. It was part of my reasoning for continuing with this at this stage.

The reason I ask about the costs issue is I'm sure I read somewhere that if you couldn't pay your opponents costs for a lose then they could potentially bankrupt you but I'm quite happy to be corrected. If they just add it on to the amount claimed then so be it.

So do you think it would be wise to remove what I've drafted for the witness statement for now? Maybe reintroduce it later when I get a bit further along.

[basa48]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

Thnaks Basa

Debt is £20k so costs will be....a lot? If I lose.

I do understand that I will get a payment schedule for the ccj but what about the opponents costs should I lose. Am I expected to pay this immediately or is that factored into the payment schedule?

TBH I don't know about costs in fast/multi track cases. Yes they can be considerable.

I know you can't be forced to pay what you don't have.

At this stage (which is still very early in the procedure) I would concentrate more on your defence. From what I read in the thread I feel you have a good case.

You should be aware of a case pt2537 is involved with here:

Legal Beagles Consumer Forum - View Single Post - Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Keep your defence vague (but accurate) until this result is fully known. It could affect your case.

[toomanycalls]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

Thnaks Basa

Debt is £20k so costs will be....a lot? If I lose.

I do understand that I will get a payment schedule for the ccj but what about the opponents costs should I lose. Am I expected to pay this immediately or is that factored into the payment schedule?

[basa48]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

Thanks Basa48, so you think this revised defence is still too much?

It was OK, but I'v taken out the clause references. A judge isn't interested in regs and case law at this stage. See below:

1) It is admitted that the defendant signed the credit agreement numbered xxxxx/xxxxxxxxx between the defendant and the bank on 2 May 2008 and note specifically that this agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and that it contains terms and conditions which are subordinate to the provisions of the Act.

2) The defendants’ ability to remedy the default was removed unilaterally by the claimant in his notice of default of 4 March 2010 which demanded the whole balance as remedy contrary to the regulating legislation.

3) The lawful arrears of xxx were paid on 29 March 2010, yet the claimant terminated the contract without entitlement on 8 July 2010

4) The claimant brings his claim to court without entitlement and where the breach was remedied according to the Act.

5) It is further claimed that the claimant forms an unfair relationship by taking action without entitlement and seeking money where he has no entitlement and I ask the court to consider an order be made for relief under relevant provisions of the Act.

6) It is averred that no sums are due as provisions within the Act preclude any claim for unpaid sums where the Acts requirements are not complied with.

7) I believe the above statement to be true and factual to the best of my knowledge

At what point to the costs start ramping up on the claimants side as this loan is large so costs will be high?

Am I right in thinking that if I was to lose the costs are payable straight away and won't be added to the "bill"?

If the debt is below £5k it is a small claim and costs are very limited. Otherwise costs can add a significant amount. Costs start when the claim form is issued.

If the judgement does go against you you can apply for a time order - essentially time to pay (a dmp if you like).

If I quote the CCA is that sufficient to state or should it always be written in full ie Consumer Credit Act 1974 section X (x) ?

Usually you would refer to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 at the beginning and put in brackets after the quote (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

[toomanycalls]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

Thanks Basa48, so you think this revised defence is still too much?

At what point to the costs start ramping up on the claimants side as this loan is large so costs will be high?

Am I right in thinking that if I was to lose the costs are payable straight away and won't be added to the "bill"?

If I quote the CCA is that sufficient to state or shold it always be written in full ie Consumer Credit Act 1974 section X (x) ?

[basa48]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

Just to clarify the procedures a little.

The initial defence in response to the claim should be brief and concise. It certainly should not refer to any case law and probably not even any sections of the Act. It is enough to refer to the claimants actions being contrary to the Act.

When you have completed the next stage, which will be the AQ there may be a judges directions or a Case Management Conference where directions will be made.

The directions will normally be for both parties to file and exchange WS and disclose documents. The WS can quote sections of the Act and case law you will rely on but not in detail.

The final preparation before the full case hearing will be Skeleton arguments which should be filed with the court maybe a week or so before the hearing. TBH I'm not sure whether you send Skeleton arguments to the opposing party. The skeleton argument should be all your arguments in detail - this is your full case in detail.