Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

[Tools]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

I have to disagree with you Tanz, I do still think that the FOS are approachable even though the complaint is now in Court.

Tuttsi, you mention your mortgage is still in arrears, were these not cleared with the £4k+ paid out by Abbey back in September?

I agree that you could ask for a lift based on hardship grounds if you could demonstrate to them that is the case and they accepted it. This would have to be based on your current situation. Will have another read of your attached letters and digest more as I have only quickly skimmed through them.

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

Yeah I remember you previously meeting the criteria, but wasn't sure if your situation had changed.

Worth a punt then I would say.

Situation has not really changed , the only exception is that with the Libor rate having dropped in Feb our mortgage will be set for the next 3 months at a the lower rate. This may not make a huge difference to our overall situation

We are currently still in arrears with Mortgage ( since o/h's eyes ops the year before last) and we still have the Suspended order on the Mortgage hanging over our head and will have for some time yet. So we are not out of the deep water yet.

xx

[TANZARELLI]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

Yeah I remember you previously meeting the criteria, but wasn't sure if your situation had changed.

Worth a punt then I would say.

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

Hi Tuttsi the FOS will not touch this if its already in the court system so no point attempting this.

It could be worth going for the stay lifting due to hardship, but only if you meet the criteria for hardship. See what others think mate.

We do meet the hardship criteria - Halifax had already agreed this in writing prior to us taking this action, but they only offered 1 of the charges to be returned in full which was within the 6 year period. The rest unfortunately is all outside the 6 year limit. We were also paid out on hardship from Abbey under the FSA waiver rules on hardship.


xx

[TANZARELLI]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

Hi Tuttsi the FOS will not touch this if its already in the court system so no point attempting this.

It could be worth going for the stay lifting due to hardship, but only if you meet the criteria for hardship. See what others think mate.

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

Well the order dropped on the door mat today.....

Stayed, as expected............do I,


1. Is there any merit in taking this to the FOS!
2 or do I try to go for a lift of stay based on hardship - which they have
already agreed to.

Notice they have made no reference to the limitations part of the claim!

Anybody got any suggestions!!

xx

[Tools]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

At last

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

Sorry Tuttsi, I edited instead of quoting. My mistake

That is good you did it that way it shows me where the changes are to be placed and your extra imput was very useful.

You will see that I have listened to you and I have already taken out the interest element and a thought occured to me whilst we were talking in chat. If I had left in the compounded wording on the AQ, the Judge might have decided to fast track it! then I would be in trouble if I had cost awarded against me. So in all I am pleased we were able to discuss it openly.

Thanks Tools, I really appreciated the help.

xx

[Tools]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

Sorry Tuttsi, I edited instead of quoting. My mistake

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

......

Here is the DRAFT AQ section ’G’ please feel free to add your changes or comments, we have done our best to include everything which you have all imputed on this subject. I feel a lot happier now.....

1. The Defendant has accepted that this claim is exempt from the current FSA
Waiver indicating that the Defendant must continue to deal with the
Claimants concerns fairly regardless of the current test case. The Defendant
has already identified the Claimant as being in financial hardship.

2. The Claimant is mindful that the Defendant has indicated in their defence a
request that the case be stayed pending appeals on Claim No.2007/1186.
(“The Test Case”) The Claimant respectfully requests that this claim
continues based on the ruling by Mr Justice Andrew Smith that the
charges are subject to assessment under the UTCCR 1999. The current test
case will not deal with issues raised in this claim under the Limitations Act
1980. The Defendant has already offered a full refund of charges that fall
within the limitation period and only contest the charges that do not.
The Claimants draw the courts attention to the issues relating to their
arguments as set out in the Particulars of Claim and the Limitations Act,
to which the Defendants have failed to offer a response to this issue in their
defence.
With this in mind, the Claimants would respectfully seek the courts
permission for the claim to continue without delay, as it is not an issue being
covered or to be decided in the Test Case. The Claimants respectfully suggest
that even if the court wishes to stay some aspects of this claim that, in the
interests of expediency they allow those issues of this claim not being
covered in the Test Case to proceed to a hearing.

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

G Other information
In the space below, set out any other information you consider will help the judge to manage or clarify the claim, including any other information you consider should be supplied by the other party.
Quote:
The Claimant is mindful that the Defendant has indicated in their defence a request that the case be stayed pending appeals on Claim No.2007/1186. The Claimant respectfully requests that this claim continues based on the ruling by Mr Justice Andrew Smith that the charges are subject to assesment under the UTCCR 1999. The current test case will not deal with issues raised in this claim under the Limitations Act 1980. The Defendant has also accepted that this claim is exempt from the current FSA waiver indicating the Defendant must continue to deal with my concerns fairly regardless of the current Test Case. On this basis the Defendant has already offered a full refund of charges that fall outside the limitation period and only contest the charges that do not. With this in mind I would respectfully seek the Courts permission for the claim to continue without delay.
__________________


Excellent. Thanks Tools.


One little bit, and slap me if I'm confusing myself, is the £28 offered inside the limitations period rather than outside. The rest of the claim being outside the limitations period of 6 years ? Correct

also.

The Defendant has also accepted that this claim is exempt from the current FSA waiver due to financial difficulty indicating the Defendant must continue to deal with my concerns fairly regardless of the current Test Case.


And Hi Bud, hope you are okay.

We will together with what Tools and Bud has given us try and put something together, although not sure what to write about compound interest as the POC although was based on 8% stat interest, we mentioned in the POC about compound if the court saw fit, here is the section from the POC:-

"Interest

The Claimant claims such rate of interest, applied to the total of the relevant charges so claimed, on either a compound interest or simple interest basis, as the Court thinks fit, in its equitable jurisdiction, to impose.

Alternatively the Claimant claims interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum, from the dates of the charges set out in Schedule 1 to the date of filing the instant claim, being the sum of £xxxxx and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier settlement at a daily rate of £xxxxx."

Thanks Ame,Tools and Budgie xx

[Amethyst]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

G Other information
In the space below, set out any other information you consider will help the judge to manage or clarify the claim, including any other information you consider should be supplied by the other party.
Quote:
The Claimant is mindful that the Defendant has indicated in their defence a request that the case be stayed pending appeals on Claim No.2007/1186. The Claimant respectfully requests that this claim continues based on the ruling by Mr Justice Andrew Smith that the charges are subject to assesment under the UTCCR 1999. The current test case will not deal with issues raised in this claim under the Limitations Act 1980. The Defendant has also accepted that this claim is exempt from the current FSA waiver indicating the Defendant must continue to deal with my concerns fairly regardless of the current Test Case. On this basis the Defendant has already offered a full refund of charges that fall outside the limitation period and only contest the charges that do not. With this in mind I would respectfully seek the Courts permission for the claim to continue without delay.
__________________


Excellent. Thanks Tools.


One little bit, and slap me if I'm confusing myself, is the £28 offered inside the limitations period rather than outside. The rest of the claim being outside the limitations period of 6 years ?

also.

The Defendant has also accepted that this claim is exempt from the current FSA waiver due to financial difficulty indicating the Defendant must continue to deal with my concerns fairly regardless of the current Test Case.


And Hi Bud, hope you are okay.

[Tools]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

Everything covered in my suggestion then other than 3) which isn't an issue if Tuttsi is claiming stat 69 interest. I kind of lost track what interest you decided to claim Tuttsi could you clear that one up for me please.

[Budgie]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

Sorry Tuttsi, What with Xmas and other family problems I have not had a chance to look at this till today.

OK, what I had in mind was to draw the Judges attention to that fact that the Halifax have requested a stay based on the test case. However, three issues which are extremely relevant to your claim are not being covered, nor will they be covered at any point in the test case.

1) Your financial hardship situation, which the Halifax have acknowledged.

2) The time period of your claim. You raised the issue of the limitation act in your POC. Halifax had previously offered to pay back your charges that were within a six year period but refused the earlier historic charges on limitation act grounds. Despite you covering the arguments against the limitation act in your POC they have failed to respond to this issue in their defence. They are relying on the test case to try and avoid discussing this issue in front of a Judge at the present time. There is no reason why the historic, ( pre six years ) charges issues in relation to the Limitation act cannot or should not be heard NOW. ie that part of your claim does not need to be or should not be stayed as it is not an issue being covered in the test case.

3) The compound interest issue, again this is not being covered in the test case.

I suggest you have a go at drafting section "G" of the AQ. Basically requesting that the Judge allows your claim to continue on the basis that your claim raises issues that are not covered in the test case. Maybe suggest that even if the Court wishes to stay some aspects of your claim that, in the interests of expediency they allow those issues of your claim, not being covered in the test case, to proceed to a hearing.

As far as I am concerned you would have absolutely nothing to lose by taking this approach and a whole lot to gain. There is no way that the Halifax would wish to go to Court to argue those three points !!!!!

Have a go at drafting something and post up for peeps to check and comment etc.

I wouldnt worry too much about the deadline, the Court will understand if your AQ is filed one or two days later than anticipated.

Apologies once again for delay in responding.

Budgie

[Tools]

Re: Tuttsi V Halifax ( 18 year claim )

Tuttsi, I don't know if Budgie was working on an all singing all dancing answer to Section G but I do not think there is any need to make it complicated.

Just a start and probably needs touching up but here is my suggestion:-

G Other information
In the space below, set out any other information you consider will help the judge to manage or clarify the claim, including any other information you consider should be supplied by the other party.

The Claimant is mindful that the Defendant has indicated in their defence a request that the case be stayed pending appeals on Claim No.2007/1186. The Claimant respectfully requests that this claim continues based on the ruling by Mr Justice Andrew Smith that the charges are subject to assesment under the UTCCR 1999. The current test case will not deal with issues raised in this claim under the Limitations Act 1980. The Defendant has also accepted that this claim is exempt from the current FSA waiver indicating the Defendant must continue to deal with my concerns fairly regardless of the current Test Case. On this basis the Defendant has already offered a full refund of charges that fall outside the limitation period and only contest the charges that do not. With this in mind I would respectfully seek the Courts permission for the claim to continue without delay.