Non-hardship claims

Premier_2

billshutbob wrote: »

Tried to reclaim with the help of FSA (Halifax,Alliance + Leicester,First Trust.) 3cases 3 rejections by FSA. Disappointed lot of time and effort into letter writing phone calls etc. Totally unfruitful. Feel like giving up and accepting the loss!!!!

Not surprised the FSA didn't help you - it's not their role.

If you meant the FOS, they won't help you in non-hardship claims either.

Have a read of the MSE article on attempting to reclaim bank charges on non hardship grounds - that explains what you would need to do ... but as it says, no guarantees.

billshutbob

]Not surprised the FSA didn't help you - it's not their role.

If you meant the FOS, they won't help you in non-hardship claims either.

Have a read of the MSE article [/URL]on attempting to reclaim bank charges on non hardship grounds - that explains what you would need to do ... but as it says, no guarantees.[/QUOTE]

Sorry meant FOS. Too late now I think we are beaten.
Not surprised either . Dont have time or patience to go down the courts route . Will be bankrupt by then ..The Big Lad Wins Everytime, Small Lad Stuffed.

Premier_2

billshutbob wrote: »

]...Will be bankrupt by then ..The Big Lad Wins Everytime, Small Lad Stuffed.

If you go bankrupt, I can assure you the creditor doesn't win.

billshutbob

Premier wrote: »

If you go bankrupt, I can assure you the creditor doesn't win.

Neither do I mate, but the bank still gets away with it

dyfrigj

I was granted a judgment in default, but the bank contested it, claiming that they had submitted a defence, but that Northampton County Court had mislaid it. Amazingly, they sent a barrister from London to north Wales to argue their case - costing double what it would have cost to settle with me.
I now have a new date for the hearing, and have recieved their defence. I'm submitting my particulars of claim this week, and we'll see what they have to say in return.

Premier_2

dyfrigj wrote: »

... Amazingly, they sent a barrister from London to north Wales to argue their case - costing double what it would have cost to settle with me.

It doesn't amaze me.

Companies will often spend a fortune to enforce their correct legal position, even if it doesn't make sense from a financial position in a cost/reward analysis of the individual claim.

If they don't, and word gets out that a company will not defend certain claims, the flood gates will open as they did when the banks failed to initially defend bank charge claims. Perhaps they learnt lessons from that previous mistake. Once bitten ...

dyfrigj wrote: »

I now have a new date for the hearing, and have recieved their defence. I'm submitting my particulars of claim this week, and we'll see what they have to say in return.

Do you mean you intend to revise your POC?
Because you must have included a POC when you initially filed the claim.
The normal practice would be where a judgement by default is sucessfully appealed the court will ask the defendant to submit a full defence to the claim, usually within 14 days.
An allocation questionaire will also usually be sent (for which another charge may be made) if one has not already been sent.
Only once the defence is submitted would a court usually set a hearing date (for which an additional charge is made). That hearing would be to hear the claim as already set out, including the defence to that original claim.
If you wish to now change the POC (for which another charge will usually be made, if the court allows you to change the POC), I would suspect the court hearing date to be set aside to allow the defendant to file a new defence based on that new POC.
Then, if appropriate, a new hearing date would be set.

dyfrigj

I meant Allocation Questionairre, not POC. Late night slip of the tongue.

Premier_2

dyfrigj wrote: »

I meant Allocation Questionairre, not POC. Late night slip of the tongue.

Thanks, that makes more sense, but it would still be most unusual to have a hearing date set before the allocation questionaire is returned.

The allocation questionaire requests details in order to help the court decide how best to progress the claim. It even gives the opportunity to request a change to the court location (which may or may not be agreed to). Also the allocation questionaire is issued to decide the appropriate track the claim should be allocated to. It also requests such information as dates the court should avoid setting the hearing for (e.g. because of holidays arranged). To have already set a hearing date seems to be putting the cart infront of the horse.

Furthermore, to fail to return the allocation questionaire (or pay the appropriate fee, if any) may even result in the claim being struck out, so no hearing will take place.

dyfrigj

Once again, you're absolutely right. I haven't been given a court date, only a deadline for sending back the Allocation Questionairre.