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

[toomanycalls]

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

But is that when it goes to appeal PT, what would be typical for what we are discussing here?

[pt2537]

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

But is that when it goes to appeal PT, what would be typical for what we are discussing here?

if you go multi track then i would say anywhere between 20 to 40k

it depends on the work involved on the file

but most firms will involve counsel at an early stage and thats where the fees rack up quick

The £109k was a high court case which was in the multitrack and the costs are almost unlimited in that track save for the fact they must be reasonable costs.

[toomanycalls]

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

Is the fast track or multi track a choice or will it be taken out of my hands?

[pt2537]

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

Is the fast track or multi track a choice or will it be taken out of my hands?

Matters relevant to allocation to a track

26.8

(1) When deciding the track for a claim, the matters to which the court shall have regard include –
(a) the financial value, if any, of the claim;

(b) the nature of the remedy sought;

(c) the likely complexity of the facts, law or evidence;

(d) the number of parties or likely parties;

(e) the value of any counterclaim or other Part 20 claim and the complexity of any matters relating to it;

(f) the amount of oral evidence which may be required;

(g) the importance of the claim to persons who are not parties to the proceedings;

(h) the views expressed by the parties; and

(i) the circumstances of the parties.

That is what the court considers when allocating,

It is likely if you ask and the Claimant agrees, then you will be able to go fast track

[toomanycalls]

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

It is likely if you ask and the Claimant agrees, then you will be able to go fast track

Could it not be argued that if they disagreed and insisted multi track it formed an unfair relationship due to the potential cost of defending or is that just fantasy...

[pt2537]

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

Could it not be argued that if they disagreed and insisted multi track it formed an unfair relationship due to the potential cost of defending or is that just fantasy...

total fantasy,

Lord of the Rings stuff that

[toomanycalls]

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

I did think so.

[toomanycalls]

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

Found this in the bank lending code

Where possible, firms should operate policies that are consistent
for the customer rather than determined purely by account type.
In all cases where a customer is unable to make repayments that are
sufficient to meet a lender’s minimum requirements for a debt
repayment plan, the customer must be given clear information on the
effect this will have on their position and the options available.
However this should never be in a way that is designed to encourage
or pressurise a customer to pay more than they can afford as
demonstrated by an income and expenditure statement.

Seems strange that the Bank accepted I & E forms and suppressed charge and interest on my overdraft and then say they couldn't accept any less than the contractual payment on my loan and credit card account. Even though its only a code it must contribute to the unfair relationship case surely?

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

I still fail to see how costs can possibly be an issue...

The fact is that the OC has terminated an agreement with a bad DN and is claiming the balance in court, when CCA prevents this.

The POC only make a claim for the balance; the judge only needs to consider whether the contract and the relevent regs allow him to agree with the OC.

Is there more to this than there seems? What possible arguments is the other side going to propose that are going to cost thousands in legal fees? Or is this a cynical way for bank legal staff to rack up tidy profits in costs?

I just don't get it.

[Amethyst]

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

It is an issue in every case, even small claims, and potential defendants need to be aware of the facts and possible risks and weigh up the potential cost risks if they lose vs benefits of sucessfully defending. they also need to be aware of hearing fees, cost of bringing an appeal if they lose at first instance and so on....it wouldn't be fair to tell folks there is no costs risk and their case is sewn up especially when it is CCA arguments because at the moment nothing is sewn up. I don't know enough of TMC's case to comment whether it is a big or small risk of losing and tbh I probably wouldnt comment if I did as I don't know TMC's personal circumstances.

Estimates wise Brandon v Amex was £16k to first decision (it is under appeal now) I believe for comparative purposes, plus his own costs incurred of getting witnesses and experts to check documents and so on. I will go dig up some other county court costs threads for comparison.

It isn't meant as a put off, or being negative, it is meant as a helping you make an informed decision.

You can imagine you would make a different decision based on whether you were risking £750 or £10k as well as the debt. £10k you'd make damn sure your case is watertight, £750 you might wing it a bit.

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

Agreed Ame, although did understand that no costs apply to small claims (apart from court fees).

But in TMC's case, can it really be possible that, if the other side wins, he has potentially an additional massive liability?

Does CPR42 have no relevance when setting limits to fast track? Appreciate that the judge can agree higher costs, but in TMC's case I just don't see what these can be.

Given that TMC has had very little choice in his case, and has done very little wrong, might the judge look at costs on that basis and award accordingly?

It does seem exceedingly unfair to base costs (and allocation) on the size of the claim, when it may be wholly irrelevent to the legal issues being considered (the more so as there is now no limit to the size of a regulated agreement, and even pre-2006 it was £25K).

[toomanycalls]

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

Ame

Estimates wise Brandon v Amex was £16k to first decision (it is under appeal now) I believe for comparative purposes, plus his own costs incurred of getting witnesses and experts to check documents and so on. I will go dig up some other county court costs threads for comparison.

It isn't meant as a put off, or being negative, it is meant as a helping you make an informed decision.

You can imagine you would make a different decision based on whether you were risking £750 or £10k as well as the debt. £10k you'd make damn sure your case is watertight, £750 you might wing it a bit.

Informed is always the best option, look forward to anything you can dig up.

Costs are an issue, if its "a grand" against the possibility of writing off twenty then its probably worth a go. Risking ten against twenty I'll probably pull out... I think the case is strong but I'm also aware of the difficulties faced by a LIP in getting the facts across.

[pt2537]

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

Ame



Informed is always the best option, look forward to anything you can dig up.

Costs are an issue, if its "a grand" against the possibility of writing off twenty then its probably worth a go. Risking ten against twenty I'll probably pull out... Ithink the case is string but I'm also away of the difficulties face by a LIP in getting the facts across.

the lowest costs order ive seen for a loss recently is £6,690 in a Fast track case and then those costs were on the low side for the work that had been done

[Amethyst]

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

(Dn's/repudiation/recission and so on are all a bit meaningless to me I'm afraid just humour me a tic so I have some idea what the case is about, I won't get involved just don't like not understanding thanks )

Is your defence (in simple terms) that the DN gave 14 days, but to pay sums not yet due, so you calculated and paid just the arrears but outside the 14 days... you then were unable to make the contractual payments so tried to negotiate lower payments which resulted in the termination (not sure if there was another default notice before termination or not?)

Your defence sounds as though they terminated off the back of the original DN because you hadn't paid the full amount they said was owing which included sums not yet due, when in fact they didn't terminate at that point but after a further three months of not making the contractual payment.

(and sorry I didnt come back earlier I got engrossed reading back through some of the lost cases)

[toomanycalls]

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

(Dn's/repudiation/recission and so on are all a bit meaningless to me I'm afraid just humour me a tic so I have some idea what the case is about, I won't get involved just don't like not understanding thanks )

Is your defence (in simple terms) that the DN gave 14 days, but to pay sums not yet due, so you calculated and paid just the arrears but outside the 14 days... you then were unable to make the contractual payments so tried to negotiate lower payments which resulted in the termination (not sure if there was another default notice before termination or not?)

No other default notice until after termination, that one was wrong too but was not the one referred to on the POC

Your defence sounds as though they terminated off the back of the original DN because you hadn't paid the full amount they said was owing which included sums not yet due, when in fact they didn't terminate at that point but after a further three months of not making the contractual payment.

Pretty much. I'd of thought if nothing else they should of issed another default notice as the first one was "~settled"