Preliminary Hearing Regarding Bank Charges Claim - Advice Please.

JAnimalR

I have today received a date for a "pre-trial review" at Peterborough County Court for 28th June ... does anybody know what this is please? Does this mean that there will then be a full trial afterwards ... ?
Also, what do I need to prepare and take with me on the day (I presume a list of the charges in question, as the court won't have seen these ... but is there anything else?)
And, luckily, this date is the day after we return from holiday (phew!), but my hubbie is pretty likely to be unable to attend as he is back at work that day. The claim is in our joint names (as the account in question is), but is it OK for him not to attend, or do you think this will be frowned upon?
YIKES .... PLEASE HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks in advance ...

piggeh

A pre-trial review is normally I criminal proceeding I thought. I went to one the other day as I'm contesting my speeding fine. I went through my charge, my plea, if I will be calling any witnesses, etc, but ultimately I think it is to set a date for a trial.

Does it say what the pre-trial review relates to? It should be on the summons.

JAnimalR

piggeh wrote: »

A pre-trial review is normally I criminal proceeding I thought. I went to one the other day as I'm contesting my speeding fine. I went through my charge, my plea, if I will be calling any witnesses, etc, but ultimately I think it is to set a date for a trial.

Does it say what the pre-trial review relates to? It should be on the summons.

Hi,
No, unfortunately, the only thing it says is:

"TAKE NOTICE that the Pre Trial review will take place on 28 June 2007 at 12 noon at Peterborough Country Court
When you should attend
10 MINUTES has been allowed for the Pre Trial Review

I'm scared now ... makes it sounds like we're on trial ... !!!

Does anybody know if this is this something that is happening more now - surely if courts are now dispensing of the AQ's to save time, this "pre-trial review" is only taking up more time ... ???????????????????????
I am SERIOUSLY confused!

richdeniro

I have also received a preliminary hearing notification.

What does this involve?

Do I need to attend?

daniel1985_2

If you used MCOL you should have applied for judgement by default after 28 days of making the claim, this means you would have won by default because the bank didnt enter a defence within that time period.

If i were you i would attend the preliminary hearing although the bank will probably make you an offer before it comes to that.

its a pain in the !!!, but youll get your money back eventually!

richdeniro

daniel1985 wrote: »

If you used MCOL you should have applied for judgement by default after 28 days of making the claim, this means you would have won by default because the bank didnt enter a defence within that time period.

If i were you i would attend the preliminary hearing although the bank will probably make you an offer before it comes to that.

its a pain in the !!!, but youll get your money back eventually!

The bank did issue a defence within the 28 day period.

This is what they wrote...

---

1. Barclaycard is a trading division of Barclays Bank PLC and not a legal entity in its own right.
2. The Particulars of Claim are summary and do not provide details of the precise charges alleged to have been unlawful. Accordingly, this defence is summary in nature and the Defendant reserves the right to amend this Statement of Case in due course.
3. To the extent it is alleged that the Claimant incurred charges on his account for unauthorised borrowings (whether late payment fees, exceeding authorised credit limit fees, or any other such fees (the "Charges"), the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of each charge and the date thereof.
4. The Defendant's standard terms and conditions ("Terms"), which the Claimant accepted upon opening the account, entitle the Defendant to debit the Charges from customer accounts upon certain events (including, but not limited to, exceeding account credit limits and / or unauthorised borrowing and / or failing to make sufficient monthly payments to reduce the account balance by the required date) .
5. It is the responsibility of the account holder to properly monitor his account so as to ensure compliance, for example, with the obligation to make payments by the required date. '
6. The Terms gave the Claimant a fair and transparent view of the obligations and entitlements set out in paragraph 4 above, including the basis on which the Defendant would be entitled to debit the Charges from the Claimant's account.
7. If, and to the extent it is the Claimant's case that the failure to make monthly payments. and / or his failure to remain within the agreed credit limit, constituted a breach of the Terms, and that the contractual entitlement to debit the Charges from the Claimant's account constitutes a liquidated damages clause, the same is denied. The Charges applied to the Claimant's account were payments that the Claimant agreed to make upon the events described at paragraph 4 above by reason of the Terms. Accordingly, it is denied that the Charges or any such charges constitute unfair and / or unreasonable charges, and it is denied that the legal principles governing the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses applies or is relevant to the Charges, as alleged by the Claimant, or at all, and / or that the charges are otherwise unenforceable.
8. Further or alternatively it is denied that any such charges constitute unlawful penalty charges or are in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, (particularly but without limitation to, paragraph l(e) of Schedule 2), or are in breach of s.4 of the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 (or any other provision), or are unreasonable within the meaning of s.15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (or indeed any other provision) .
9. Further or alternatively, without prejudice to the matters pleaded at paragraph 4 above, if the Claimant's failure to make sufficient account payments by the required date and / or to remain within pre-agreed credit limits constituted a breach of the Terms, the Defendant avers that the Charges were nonetheless valid and enforceable. 10. It is further denied that the Charges were unlawfully debited from the Claimant's account. It is averred that the said charges and interest are and remain lawful and enforceable and that the Defendant was entitled to debit the same.
11. Accordingly, it is averred that the Charges are legally enforceable and the Defendant was entitled to debit the Charge from the Claimant's account.
12. The Defendant denies that it is liable to the Claimant for the sums claimed and interest, as pleaded or at all.
13. In the alternative, and without prejudice to matters stated above, if (which is denied) the said charges or any part thereof are unlawful or unenforceable as alleged by the Claimant or at all, and the charges were a consequence of the breach of contract by the Claimant, the Defendant has nonetheless suffered loss and damage as a consequence of such breach of contract in allowing the account to go into unauthorised overdraft. Accordingly, in the event that the Defendant is unable to rely on its express entitlement to enforce the charges as set out above, it will seek to recover to the extent necessary such loss and damage as it actually suffered, which will not necessarily be limited to the value of the said charges, and the Defendant seeks to set off such sums against any liability owed hereunder to the Claimant.

---

Must admit it is a bit scary. I am a bit nervous of actually having to go to court and am not particularly good at public speaking - is it likely that it will come to that?

Has anyone received this? Is this normal?

littlejaffa

just wondered how this went....assuming it's all dealt with now could you shed some pearls for anyone in the same boat?

dave010183hsbc

Hi, I have a claim going through with HSBC at the moment and it has gone all the way to court via money claim online, I have recieved a letter from the county court stating the "before the claim is listed for hearing the judge has ordered a preliminary hearing" because " special directions are needed in this claim to prepare for the final hearing which the judge would prefer to explain in person." And it has given me a date and time to go to the court.

Has anyone been this far that can give me some info as it getting a bit worrying now, I've also claiming my girlfriends mum's from Lloyds TSB where the same thing has happened but I haven't done anything differently from the last time i claimed some back (£1655 from RBS, £1100 from Lloyds TSB and £648 from HSBC)

Someone HELP!!!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!

beardface_2

Don't worry Pre Trial Reviews are quite common in civil procedings.

Basically a judge is trying to get the parties to narrow the issues down so that time is saved at the full hearings for example the judge may ask the defendant to file a list of how much it costs to process its charges.

In reality in these cases the judge is trying to avoid listing a full trial when they know full well that the defendant is going to settle before the hearing.

Different courts are trying differnet methods of dealing with these cases. I would be suprised if tthe defendant shows up and doesn't make an offer first.

littlejaffa

dave010183hsbc wrote: »

...I've also claiming my girlfriends mum's from Lloyds TSB....

:rotfl: :T
This really made me laugh.....most people claim cash back...your claiming your girlfreinds mum, i have this little image of her stored away in their vault! I know what you mean really, but laughter is by far better than fact!