Bank charges claim with CCJ

AgentJR

Hi
Can anyone shed some light on whether a claim can still be made against a bank for overdraft/transaction fees where they have made a county court claim for the balance owed (closed account)? The CCJ has been set aside as the balance has been challenged (due to the charges)....being handled by their solicitor.
Thanks

Stevie_Palimo

From what I read here looks like the bank are dealing with this and if so then wait until you hear what the outcome is and then write to them asking for the situation to be put back as to how it was prior to action.


Ie:- bank charges removed, credit file shown as nothing listed in respect of this, no monetary loss and also monetary compensation for the issues raised by the bank.


On the above only if this is nothing of your own doing, Also I wouldn't want to be banking with them afterwards so open another account.

AgentJR

The bank aren't dealing with it. The claim was made by their solicitor and was part settled (as a goodwill gesture), whist the statements were awaited. Due to an admin error on their part they successfully applied for a CCJ. On challenging this, they agreed to ask the court to set aside the CCJ. The situation now is that there is still an outstanding balance, much of which is charges etc, which I now wish to challenge, and wonder if I should follow the normal process directly with the bank, or some other way because of the claim/CCJ element/factor?
Thanks

Stevie_Palimo

Speak to the bank first and look for a resolution, They will not want a Court case unless you are in the wrong completely and even still sometimes the banks just want an issue put to bed.

Atidi

AgentJR wrote: »

Hi
Can anyone shed some light on whether a claim can still be made against a bank for overdraft/transaction fees where they have made a county court claim for the balance owed (closed account)? The CCJ has been set aside as the balance has been challenged (due to the charges)....being handled by their solicitor.
Thanks

This doesn't sound right at all.

Has a CCJ really been issued (and subsequently stayed)?
Or is it just a summons that has been issued?

There are limited reasons for requesting a CCJ is set aside, and the reason you give does not sound like a valid one to me.
The reason you give may be a defence offered to a summons issued - and that would be why their solicitor is now looking at it.

However, as the banks won the arguement in the Supreme Court back in 2009, I suspect if that is the defence being offered, it won't take too long for the solicitor to consider merits or otherwise of it

Atidi

AgentJR wrote: »

The bank aren't dealing with it. The claim was made by their solicitor and was part settled (as a goodwill gesture), whist the statements were awaited. Due to an admin error on their part they successfully applied for a CCJ. On challenging this, they agreed to ask the court to set aside the CCJ. The situation now is that there is still an outstanding balance, much of which is charges etc, which I now wish to challenge, and wonder if I should follow the normal process directly with the bank, or some other way because of the claim/CCJ element/factor?
Thanks

Sorry I don't undertstand


You say "The bank aren't dealing with it."
Aren't dealing with what? Presumably the claim for a refund of charges. If the bank aren't dealing with it, who is?

You say "The claim was made by their solicitor and was part settled (as a goodwill gesture),"
What claim? Presumably the claim for reimbursement of charges?
Who part settled it? That must surely have been the bank.

You say "Due to an admin error on their part they successfully applied for a CCJ. "
Who is their? Presumably the bank.
Whilst anyone can apply for a CCJ, no admin error by anu complainant will successfully grant it. CCJ are issued by the County Court - it's what the CC stands for in CCJ.

You say "On challenging this, they agreed to ask the court to set aside the CCJ."
Who are they? Presumably the bank (or the solicitors acting on behalf of the bank)
That makes no sense at all, sorry.
Those who have been granted with a CCJ do not then ask for it to be set aside.
It sounds more like a request to delay action over a summons has been requested, to give more opportunity to perhaps resolve a claim out of court.

You say "The situation now is that there is still an outstanding balance, much of which is charges etc, which I now wish to challenge, and wonder if I should follow the normal process directly with the bank, or some other way because of the claim/CCJ element/factor?"
What have you got that says there is an outstanding balance?
Is this the situation of the complainant after all the above has been taken into account?

If so, it sounds like if you don't pay up, they will continue with the court action (after changing PoC) to recover the amount owed.

You should of course continue to negotiate with the other party, but if they re-commence with the summons, then you will then have to send your defence to the court (if you do plan to defend it)
On what possible basis are you hoping to challenge bank fees?

About the only way would be because they were inappropraitely applied. In which case you should have complained to the bank at the time. If that failed, you should have taken the complaint to the FOS.
The FOS won't help now there is a legal claim in progress.

AgentJR

Sorry, I thought I'd made myself clear. To summarise:
The bank passed my account to their solicitor to recover the outstanding overdraft balance. A county court claim was then issued. I contacted the solicitor and asked for supporting documents (statements etc), making an interim part payment as a goodwill gesture. The solicitors agreed to take no further action on the claim until this had happened, to give me a chance for a defence. In the meantime, the claim was progressed into a Judgment by default - an error on their part having agreed to hold off. They acknowledged this and applied to the court to set aside the Judgment, which was accepted and happened.
So at present there is still an outstanding balance which I need to challenge....negotiate....pay etc. and I have only just now discovered that people can claim against a bank for some charges made, and having checked the criteria (financial hardship etc) I appear to fall into this category.
Therefore, my question was whether I should make a claim directly to the bank, as per the guidance out there, or whether the claims/CCJ factor affects this and my next course of action.
I hope this is clearer. Thanks.

[Deleted User]

Since Banks are not legally obliged to give refunds of charges and any that are are classed as goodwill payments, I can't see how you can "challenge" a CCJ in the manner you state. In addition, I don't think your payment towards money owed to the bank can be described as an "interim goodwill part payment".

I think if the Bank were prepared to write off the amounts owed by you due to financial hardship they'd have done it already.

I think you need to prepare your defence against the still pending CCJ.

AgentJR

I was just asking for advice on here, having first read the MSE guidance on reclaiming bank charges, of which I fall into several of the criteria listed.

meer53

Were you in financial hardship when the charges were applied ? How long ago was this ? Did you contact the bank for help at the time ? What criteria do you think you fall into ?

What do your bank statements show with regard to day to day spending ? Any payments to Sky (or similar),mobile phone contracts/gym memberships/eating out etc ?

Financial hardship means not being able to meet the costs of essentials, rent,utilities etc have a look at your statements. The bank will decide whether you are in financial hardship, you won't make that decision i'm afraid.

As previously mentioned, the banks won the court case against unfair charges back in 2009 so you'll have a fight on your hands.

Nasqueron

AgentJR wrote: »

I was just asking for advice on here, having first read the MSE guidance on reclaiming bank charges, of which I fall into several of the criteria listed.

The MSE article now states that the info is out of date (since the court case win in 2009) and that only claims for current hardship are likely to be looked at (though you can't rule out a gesture of goodwill sometimes, it's not 100% you won't get old charges back but fairly close as the banks have no obligation to look at them)