Jump to content
We are now - The National Consumer Service ×


  • Tweets

    No tweets were found.

  • Posts

    • Is this the correct email to send WS to the courts? I was sure there was a thread here with updated emails. [email protected] Thanks again Andy
    • Thanks again Andy. I have used the following. Not 100% sure on it as it's a bit technical for me. But hopefully shines a light on the points I want to enforce of the 'Full and final' settlement.   Exhibit 2: (relevant extracts used).   URL:https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2001/8.html Cite as: [2001] 1 All ER 961, [2001] ICR 337, [2001] 2 WLR 735, [2002] AC 251, [2002] 1 AC 251, [2001] Emp LR 359, [2001] IRLR 292, [2001] UKHL 8   Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v. Munawar Ali, Sultana Runi Khan and Others [2001] UKHL 8; [2001] 1 All ER 961; [2001] 2 WLR 735 (1st March, 2001) HOUSE OF LORDS Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL SA (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) (APPELLANTS) v. (1) MUNAWAR ALI (2) SULTANA RUNI KHAN AND OTHERS (RESPONDENTS) ON 1 MARCH 2001 [2001] UKHL 8   LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD 22. This appeal raises a question of interpretation of a general release. By a general release I mean an agreement containing widely drawn general words releasing all claims one party may have against the other. The release given by Mr Naeem was of this character. Mr Naeem accepted a payment from BCCI 'in full and final settlement of all or any claims . . . of whatsoever nature that exist or may exist'. LORD HOFFMANN 38. The language of the document is very wide. The impression it conveys is that the draftsman meant business. He has gone to some trouble to avoid leaving anything out. He uses traditional style: pairs of words like "full and final settlement", "all or any claims", "that exist or may exist" and phrases like "whether under statute, common law or in equity" and "of whatsoever nature". Admittedly, he could have gone further. Tudor Grange Holdings Ltd v Citibank NA [1992] Ch 53, 57 contains an even more elaborate release and I have seen American documents in which the release covers an entire page. But most people in this country would regard this as overkill. The modern English tradition, while still erring on the side of caution, is to avoid the grosser excesses of verbiage and trust to the judges to use common sense to get the message. I think that this tendency should be encouraged. So I think that anyone who was simply reading the document without preconceptions would accept that the draftsman was not leaving deliberate gaps. It does not however follow that the language was to be read completely literally. There may be limitations in scope to be inferred from the background, limitations from context which the draftsman may have thought too obvious to mention. But that is a different matter from saying that he did not use enough words. LORD CLYDE The critical words are: "The applicant agrees to accept the terms set out in the documents attached in full and final settlement of all or any claims whether under statute, common law or in equity of whatsoever nature that exist or may exist and, in particular, all or any claims rights or applications of whatsoever nature that the applicant has or may have or has made or could make in or to the industrial tribunal, except the applicant's rights under the respondent's pension scheme."
    • change 4 options to  a. Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, which this claim is based on. b. Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment. c. Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account and quantify how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. d. Evidence how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.   add in: add a new point 2. (old one now being 3)  2. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.  
    • Use the relevant extracts and refer to both ...you cant just use the URL make it as convenient as possible for a judge to refer to. Yes you can use email for court and claimant but also follow up with hard copies particularly the courts copy.
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 162 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Thanks
        • Like

dbmbawswlb v lloyds ***WON***


dbmbawswlb

Recommended Posts

This is a bit long winded but I want you to have as much detail as possible so please read on . . .

 

Story so far:

 

1. Data Pro Act SAR sent 24.07.2006

2. Request for Repayment of Charges sent 14.09.2006

3. LBA sent 02.10.2006

4. County Court Claim issue date 24.10.2006

5. Defendant filed Acknowledgement of Service 07.11.2006

 

At this point things started going wrong due to an incorrect address for us being entered at the court!!

 

6. Queried none receipt of Allocation Questionnaire 23.11.2006 (Duplicate sent out by Court: received 25.11.2006)

7. Filling in Allocation Questionnaire today but realised I should have a copy of Lloyds Defence: Defence served 13.11.2006 by S C & M received faxed copy from Court today.

 

My query is their defence. Does this sound standard?

 

1. Bank don't dispute my account with them

2. By opening an account I entered into a commercial arrangement with the Bank. The Bank is entitled to charge for services. I was made aware of charges when I opened account.

3. If I'd operated my account within it's limits I could have avoided most if not all charges. Because I didn't, I used the Bank's own funds and for providing this service they made a charge as specified in their leaflets . . .

4. 'There is no breach of contract; the charge cannot therefore be a penalty, consequently there is no requirement that the charge be a pre-estimate of the Bank's loss.'

5. I was given advance warning of the charges on statements and letters.

6. 'The charges are fair and reasonable, and it is denied that they are unlawful.'

7. I was notified in 'plain intelligible language' about the charges. ' The charges are terms which relate to the price payable by the customer for a service provided by the Bank, and pursuant to Regulation 6 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999, are not subject to the assessment of fairness.'

8. 'In the premises:'

8.1 'the charges are for banking services, and are not damages nor a penalty;'

8.2 'the Bank is entitled by contract to impose the charges, which are fair and reasonable;'

8.3 'it is denied that the charges are unlawful or contravene any statute or regulation.'

9. 'The Claimant's claim is denied in its entirety. It is further denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed or to any sum from the Bank'

 

Should I be concerned or carry on??

 

Thanks for reading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

That is the standard defence, so no worries there. Looks like everything is flowing along nicely, it's just a matter of waiting for a copy of LTSB AQ and then getting a Court date.

Good luck!

Barty:)

I WON!!!! :D :D :D

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloydstsb-successes/1774-barty-lloyds-tsb.html

 

IF I HAVE BEEN HELPFUL PLEASE CLICK THE SCALES:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi There,

 

Im on very same time scale to you 09/12 for them to do their AQ.

Im from Hull so we will see who if any of us get the earliest hearing date.

Myself like you was worried about that scary defence i can assure you mine is exactly the same.

 

Good luck

 

Matt

Im watching this thread closely!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read your first post with interest as i received Lloyds defence today .Sounds like my letter was word for word as yours which has put my mind at rest .I am waiting for my AQ to arrive .Just wanted to say good luck to you !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi everyone

 

just to keep up to speed and see if anyone else has had the same . . .

 

we received today a letter from S C & M. It was a copy of there AQ and a request for a copy of ours.

 

there AQ does NOT request any further postponement to arrive at a settlement but DOES state that December is not a convenient time for a hearing.

 

what does concern me is that they have said they intend to call a witness (although NOT an expert).

 

also in 'other information' they have said 'The Defendant intends to rely on its defence and the terms and conditions that govern the account.'

 

any comments/thoughts???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely standard. If you still have a copy of your AQ then send them one, if not don't worry, its not essential.

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gary

 

Thanks for your help - much appreciated.

 

Will send SC&M a copy of our AQ this week. Is it worth putting anything in the covering letter? Or should I just sit back patiently and wait for the money to come in?

 

Martin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright Mart.

 

Think we should get our docs ready for court mate, from what i can gather nxt step wait for a court date then swap documents wid lloyds sols and send a copy to local court keeping originals for ourselves. Think its then they are gunna settle. Was hoping for sooner but we know what there like. Hope i`m wrong like.

 

What u think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, its a difficult one. When they were requsting a month for settlement it was the perfect opportunity to put a bit of pressure on and it gave a certain amount of leverage over them. Thats why they've changed it obviously. On recent evidance though many claims, if not most, seem to be getting settled within a month of AQ return anyway.

 

As Matt said, familiarise yourself with the court bundle and all the evidance you'll need if it was to get as far as document exchange, just in case.

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone

 

Got in from work tonight and read an interesting article in my local paper . . .

 

Banks 'overcharge' costs

Banks are charging customers £30 in penalties for a service that costs them just £4.50, a study says today.

 

Tonight's edition of the BBC2's The Money Programme will look into allegations that financial institutes are overcharging customers who default on payments.

 

It found that it costs banks no more than £4.50 when a customer's cheque bounces, and a maximum of £2.50 to deal with unauthorised overdrafts.

 

But despite the low cost incurred by banks, customers received penalty charges of around £30 in relation to unauthorised credit.

 

The issue has led to calls for regulators to step in.

 

Thinks it's on at 10pm . . . could be interesting!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, we could be busy here in the next few days - the issue is really hitting the mainstream now. And Lloyds think their snowed under now.....!:D

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

EXCELLENT!!

 

Just to keep you up to speed:

 

Have posted a copy of my AQ to S,C&M. Just looking round the site now ready to prep my documents for Court.

 

Will keep all posted. Thanks again for all your help/support.

 

Martin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone

 

Got my 'General Form of Judgment or Order' through today from the Court.

 

It says that:

 

Before District Judge ***** sitting at ****** County Court....

 

Upon the Courts own motion. The Court has made this order of its own initiative without a hearing. If you object to the order, you must make an application to have it set aside, varied or stayed within 7 days of receiving it.

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

1. The matter be listed for preliminary hearing on 28th March 2007 by way of telephone

 

******* Combined Court Centre scheme for Telephone Hearings

(CPR Practice Direction 51.2 - supplement to Part 23)

 

The hearing of this case will take place by way of a telephone conference.

 

The Claimants Legal Representative is ordered to arrange the telephone conference.

 

Please quote telephone number ***** ****** when arranging your telephone conference.

 

Time estimates for hearings must be accurate as they will not be allowed to over-run. In the event that a time estimate is insufficient then please contact the court. Please note that time has been allocated for the Judge to read relevant papers in advance of the hearing.

 

 

HELP!!! Is it me or are the courts now trying to make things as complicated as possible?? Or is it just my conspiracy theories running away with me?

 

They know I'm representing myself - do they think every average guy has conferencing facilities at home?

 

Has this happened to anyone else and do you have any suggestions?

 

Not sure I like the idea of a telephone conference even if I could set one up!!

 

Thanks in anticipation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have'nt seen this ordered before TBH. Nothing to panic about though. You'll more than likely get a settlement well before then, but still plan ahead as if you won't.

 

Get in touch with the court on Monday morning and tell them you are a litigant in person and do not have the facility to set up a telephone conference. Ask exactly how you would go about setting up a telephone conference even if you did! Does it have to be 3 way?

 

See what they say. If they can't/won't help, don't worry about it, I'll see if I can seek further advice. I think the best bet would be to make an application to vary the order to have either a prelim hearing or by written representations instead. See what the court say first though.

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant Gary - thanks.

 

Was thinking along those lines myself. Thought the courts might be getting to the stage that they have so many of these now they are looking for ways to speed things up or they are getting so used to them settling before the actual hearing they don't want to 'diary' court time?

 

Will keep all posted of developments.

 

Martin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...