Start Hitting the TSB Harder by Claiming Your Own Costs for Pursuing Claims

[mooreda]

I have read with interest a case that was taken against Barclaycard. It can be seen by going to

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclays-bcard-woolwich-successes/30300-bong-barclaycard.html

 

A claim was made for costs and was successful - and settled out of court.

 

I personally think we need to start hitting the banks harder by claiming our costs in dealing with these cases in addition to the interest charged and court fees. The above case makes some interesting reading.

[GuidoT]

This claim of costs is not something I would advocate per se, but worthy of a discussion.

 

Soon I believe, we are going to see some cases going to court. The banks can only draw this matter out for so long, their tactics are gradually being discovered by some courts and abuse of process orders are gradually coming through.

 

The banks are shrewd and clever, they will carefully select the claims that they are more likely to be successful or partly successful with. If you include costs then you are looking to be selected - not to mention if you do not know what you are doing.

 

The majority of claims are allocated to the small track and as I am sure you are aware the courts do not award inter party costs on this track.

 

Many peoples claims are of a higher value than Bong's. If I had incurred genuine penalty charges I would not want to taint my claim by asking for costs, which comparatively speaking would be of a low value in relation to the penalty claim.

 

In any event, generally costs are legal costs, e.g. solicitors, counsel, experts and not for the claimant's own time (there are some exceptions but they would not amount to much).

 

If your claim is allocated to the fast (or multi!) track then you can of course instruct lawyers and if you are successful or the bank settles then you will recover some or all of your costs and of course vice - versa if you loose. But that is not what this site is about - it is about self help.

 

I see that Bong was successful, and I am pleased for her, but that claim was reasonably small and it of course settled, i.e. not decided by judge.

 

If you want to hit the banks harder I would go for contractual over statutory interest and or claiming charges back pre 6 years. In my view these have a greater prospect of success (although still grey areas) than claiming costs when allocated to the small claims track, in particular if you do not have representation.

 

Discuss....

[GaryH]

Agreed.

 

Its come up a number of times before and I personally am strongly against the claiming of costs on top of small claims track claims. There is a 'no costs rule' in the SMT which means you are not entitled to charge for time or expenses, etc.

 

Some people, like Bong, have added amounts in costs and had them settled. Thats fine if the bank chooses to settle it. I don't think Lloyds would though and they haven't in the past. They would more than likely offer you settlement minus the costs element. If you refused and pursued it to court solely for the costs, then the judge would'nt be too impressed and would almost certainly strike out the remainder of your claim and quite rightly so. You could even find a costs award being ordered against you!

 

Apart from anything else, the no costs rule is there solely for our benefit and so should be respected. It enables ordinary consumers to resolve disputes without the fear of getting screwed for hundreds, or even thousands, in legal costs in the event we were to lose a claim.