Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: BANK OF SCOTLAND -v- ROBERT MITCHELL

  • Share
  • Thread Tools
  • Display
  1. #1
    righty's Avatar

    VIP Member



    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,720
    Mentions
    4 Post(s)

    Default BANK OF SCOTLAND -v- ROBERT MITCHELL

    IN THE LEEDS COUNTY COURT Case No: 9LS70096
    The Combined Court Centre
    Oxford Row
    Leeds
    1st June 2009
    Before
    HIS HONOUR JUDGE
    LANGANQC
    __________
    BANK OF SCOTLAND
    (Claimant)
    -v-
    ROBERT MITCHELL
    (Defendant)
    __________

    APPROVED JUDGMENT
    __________
    APPEARANCES:
    For the Claimant: MISS GARDNER
    For the Defendant: MR BERKLEY QC
    __________
    Transcribed from tape by
    J L Harpham Limited
    Official Court Reporters and Tape Transcribers
    55 Queen Street
    Sheffield S1 2DX
    BANK OF SCOTLAND -v- ROBERT MITCHELL
    1st June 2009
    APPROVED JUDGMENT
    JUDGE LANGAN:
    1. I have to deal with an issue as to costs which has arisen on the informal discontinuance of an action.
    2. The action was commenced on
    21st May 2008. The claimant bank had, in December 2003, issued a credit card to the defendant, and the claim was for £15,417.23, being the amount said to be due on the defendant's account. Judgment in default, for a total sum of £15,727.23, was obtained on 4th July 2008. The defendant subsequently applied to have the judgment set-aside. That application came before District Judge ****** on 29th January this year and was successful. The recitals to the District Judge's order say this: "And upon the defendant's proceedings on the basis of a breach of Section 61(1)(a) of the Consumer Credit Act, namely that the claimant
    failed to comply with the requirements to give copies of all the documents relevant to the agreement at the time of signing, and upon the defendant contending that notwithstanding Section 65 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 127(3) of the Act preventing the enforcement". After those recitals it is ordered the court sets judgment aside, and it is ordered that there be, "A determination of the issue set out above". Various procedural directions then follow.
    3. What has been listed for trial today is, "The determination of issue", referred to in the order which I have just recited.
    4. The agreement made in relation to the defendant's credit card was a regulated agreement within the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Section 61(1)(a) of that Act provides:
    "A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless a document in the prescribed form, itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under Section 60(1), is signed in the prescribed manner, both by the debtor or hirer, and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner".
    Having regard to the date of the agreement made in this case, which was prior to amendments made to the Act which took effect from 5th April 2007, the result of non compliance with Section 61(1)(a) would be that the credit card agreement would be unenforceable against the defendant, see Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 127(3).
    5. This morning I was informed by Miss Gardner, counsel for the bank, that the bank was withdrawing its claim against the defendant. This announcement has been accepted by Mr Berkley QC, who appears for the defendant, as equivalent to the service of a notice of discontinuance under the Civil Procedure Rules Part 38.3. By the Civil Procedure Rules Part 38.6.1: "Unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom the claimant discontinues incurred, on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on the defendant". Miss Gardner contends that the court should, "Order otherwise", and make no order for costs as between the parties. Mr Berkley contends that the presumption in CPR 38.1.6 should operate, and further that the order for costs to be made in favour of his client should be an order for assessment on the indemnity basis.
    6. The thrust of Miss Gardner's submission is that the issue directed by the District Judge, and on which the evidence has been focussed, is whether the bank supplied the defendant at the time of signing the application form for credit with documents which contained all the terms of the agreement between them. I shall elaborate a little further on this. It has been the defendant's case that he was supplied with nothing more than the application form which he signed. It has been the bank's case that in accordance with the usual practice of the bank the defendant would have been, and must have been, supplied with other documents, including a pack which will have contained all the terms and conditions of the agreement made between the parties. Miss Gardner goes on to say that the defendant has at the last moment taken a new and radically different point, namely that the document signed by the defendant did not contain all the prescribed terms of the agreement. I must again elaborate on this. It is common ground that the only document signed by the defendant was the application form. It
    is also common ground that the application form did not, on its face, set out the prescribed terms of the agreement between the parties. The point which is treated by Miss Gardner as a new point is dealt with in paragraphs 22 and 23 of Mr Berkley's written argument, and it will, I think, be more economical if I simply quote those two paragraphs in full rather than attempt, in my own words, to expand on them:
    "The key words in Section 61(1)(a) are the reference to a document itself containing all the prescribed terms, and conforming to the regulations under Section 61. This language is clear and specific, and ensures that mere reference to terms contained in another document will not suffice. The document must contain the prescribed terms, just as the signed document referred to in Section 127(3), which might save the day, must however contain the prescribed terms. The construction contended for by the defendant is entirely consistent with the language of Section 61(1), and is also supported by Professor Good in his encyclopaedic work - see Good & Consumer Credit Law and Practice volume 2, 2B 5.121, and see also the comments at 2B 5.247. There the learned author draws a distinction between the language of paragraph
    (a) contain and paragraph (b) embody. It is respectfully submitted that the court should adopt the same reasoning in determining this issue in favour of the defendant, irrespective of whether or not it finds that the defendant was supplied with documents other than the credit agreement itself".
    7. In my judgment, the point with which I have just been dealing is not properly to be
    characterised as a new point on which the bank can present itself as being taken by surprise. I refer to four documents. First, on
    3rd November 2008, when the defendant was acting as a litigant in person, in the request to have the default judgment set aside he said this:"As the court is aware, in the absence of all the prescribed terms being embodied, it will render a document unenforceable in court. These terms must be contained within the agreement, and not in a separate document headed 'Terms and Conditions', or words to that effect". Secondly, on 18th February 2009, solicitors, who were by then acting for the defendant, sent to the solicitors acting for the bank a copy of what they called an expert report setting out the reasons why the agreement was in breach of Section 61(1)(a), and they went on:
    "As you are aware it is our client's position that at the time he entered into the agreement he was not provided with a copy of the terms and
    conditions governing the agreement". If one goes to the so called expert's report, one finds that it is in effect an opinion prepared by another firm of solicitors, and the opinion contains the following: "Based on the information provided, it appears that the prescribed terms and conditions were not included in the document signed by the borrower. The agreement would appear to be in breach of the regulations in that it does not contain within the signed agreement itself all of the prescribed terms". Thirdly, that point having been taken on behalf of the defendant, it was robustly rejected by the solicitors acting for the bank in their reply of
    19th March 2009: "Our client has sought counsel's opinion on this matter and her view is that the agreement is compliant. We note that your client is arguing that at the time of signing the agreement, the application for a credit card, he was not provided with the actual terms and conditions which were contained in a separate document to the application. Whilst our client accepts that the application itself does not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and only becomes compliant by reference to terms and conditions, there are references in the agreement to the conditions in which it states that they are provided in the Halifax credit card application pack".Fourthly, going back in time a little, on 4th March 2009, in the defendant's witness statement made for the purpose of the trial of the issue, at the very beginning of the statement, in paragraph 3, he said this:
    "It is my position that the agreement is not enforceable by the claimant as it has failed to comply with its obligations under Section 61 of the
    Consumer Credit Act 1974 by failing to include within the document that I signed all the prescribed terms".
    8. The absence of further reference to the point in the evidence is hardly surprising, since the point is one of law, on which there was no controversy as to the facts.
    9. Miss Gardner has given no reason for the withdrawal of the action. She is in no way to be criticised for the omission. She is bound to act in accordance with her instructions, and those instructions were presumably to say no more than she has in fact said. But this does not prevent me from drawing what is in my judgment the only inference which can possibly be drawn from what has happened, which is that the bank realises that if the issue were to be contested it would either lose on the issue or be at serious risk of losing. There may be hundreds of similar cases and the bank would plainly not wish other defaulting customers to get wind of an adverse decision on the fundamental point which is embodied in the quotation
    from Mr Berkley's written argument, which I have already set out.
    10. Accordingly, I conclude, without hesitation, that there is no reason for displacing the presumption as to incidence of costs which is ordinarily applicable in a case of discontinuance. The bank will pay the defendant's costs of the claim, subject only to any existing order for costs in favour of the bank not being disturbed.
    11. Finally, I have to consider whether the costs of the defendant should be assessed on the standard or on the indemnity basis. In my judgment the assessment should be on the indemnity basis. The only realistic view of what has happened is that the bank has surrendered on a straightforward point of law, to which it has on several occasions been alerted by the defendant or his solicitors. A large commercial enterprise which proceeds with litigation in the face of warning signs of the kind which were erected here, adopts a high risk strategy. The point in question was a simple one. There was no relevant controversy as to the evidence. To choose to abandon the claim on the very day of the hearing is doing a serious disservice to the efficient administration of justice, and comes very close to constituting an abuse of process. At the very least, the bank's conduct of the litigation falls comfortably within the range of cases in which, on the modern authorities, an assessment of costs on the indemnity basis is appropriate.
    Last edited by Paule; 1st July 2009 at 13:12:PM. Reason: removed cagisms

  2. #2
    Curlyben's Avatar

    VIP Member



    Joined
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,066
    Mentions
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: BOS Lose & ordered to pay indemnity costs

    This is the order that goes with it
    Have fun, I'm done..

    Laterz


  3. #3
    righty's Avatar

    VIP Member



    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,720
    Mentions
    4 Post(s)

    Default Re: BOS Lose & ordered to pay indemnity costs

    Don't you just love it:tinysmile_grin_t:

  4. #4
    Curlyben's Avatar

    VIP Member



    Joined
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,066
    Mentions
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: BOS Lose & ordered to pay indemnity costs

    You know it
    Have fun, I'm done..

    Laterz


  5. #5
    pt2537's Avatar

    LB Team Member



    Joined
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    4,086
    Mentions
    311 Post(s)

    Default Re: BOS Lose & ordered to pay indemnity costs

    ive got a few like that myself including a couple of appeals , bless the lenders for being so stooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid

  6. #6
    pt2537's Avatar

    LB Team Member



    Joined
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    4,086
    Mentions
    311 Post(s)

    Default Re: BOS Lose & ordered to pay indemnity costs

    ive posted a set of particulars which we used to offend Monument a few months ago here Legal Beagles - View Single Post - Sapphire v Cabot (Monument Card)

  7. #7
    jax007's Avatar

    VIP Member



    Joined
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    611
    Mentions
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: BOS Lose & ordered to pay indemnity costs

    Ok - I think I've got the gist of this judgment in between the legal speak.

    At the risk of appearing totally stoopid - what now happens to this 'debt'. All ADVERSE data is removed from the CRA but I am assuming the debt still sits there?? And therefore if you have a number of these unenforcables, your credit file will still show that you owe loadsamoney??

  8. #8
    Tools's Avatar

    Site Admin



    Joined
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,392
    Mentions
    57 Post(s)

    Default Re: BOS Lose & ordered to pay indemnity costs

    Quote Originally Posted by jax007 View Post
    Ok - I think I've got the gist of this judgment in between the legal speak.

    At the risk of appearing totally stoopid - what now happens to this 'debt'. All ADVERSE data is removed from the CRA but I am assuming the debt still sits there?? And therefore if you have a number of these unenforcables, your credit file will still show that you owe loadsamoney??
    A very good question. Righty? Curly? PT?
    Any opinions I give are my own. Any advice I give is without liability. If you are unsure, please seek qualified legal advice.

    IF WE HAVE HELPED YOU PLEASE CONSIDER UPGRADING TO VIP - click here


  9. #9
    pt2537's Avatar

    LB Team Member



    Joined
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    4,086
    Mentions
    311 Post(s)

    Default Re: BOS Lose & ordered to pay indemnity costs

    the data will be totally removed, that will be a condition of the settlement, certainly that is the case in our experience

  10. #10
    righty's Avatar

    VIP Member



    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,720
    Mentions
    4 Post(s)

    Default Re: BOS Lose & ordered to pay indemnity costs

    What is being stated & with which I & many others agree is that merely the recording & processing of adverse data is itself an attempt by the creditor to enforce an unenforceable agreement - As I recall this was a position TS agreed with until got at by the OFT

  11. #11
    Amethyst's Avatar

    Site Owner



    Joined
    May 2007
    Posts
    61,254
    Mentions
    1848 Post(s)

    Default Re: BOS Lose & ordered to pay indemnity costs

    Can someone explain the indemnity basis of costs for me please ta muchly.

    This bit


    10. Accordingly, I conclude, without hesitation, that there is no reason for displacing the presumption as to incidence of costs which is ordinarily applicable in a case of discontinuance. The bank will pay the defendant's costs of the claim, subject only to any existing order for costs in favour of the bank not being disturbed.
    11. Finally, I have to consider whether the costs of the defendant should be assessed on the standard or on the indemnity basis. In my judgment the assessment should be on the indemnity basis. The only realistic view of what has happened is that the bank has surrendered on a straightforward point of law, to which it has on several occasions been alerted by the defendant or his solicitors. A large commercial enterprise which proceeds with litigation in the face of warning signs of the kind which were erected here, adopts a high risk strategy. The point in question was a simple one. There was no relevant controversy as to the evidence. To choose to abandon the claim on the very day of the hearing is doing a serious disservice to the efficient administration of justice, and comes very close to constituting an abuse of process. At the very least, the bank's conduct of the litigation falls comfortably within the range of cases in which, on the modern authorities, an assessment of costs on the indemnity basis is appropriate.
    “We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose. If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.” Hetty Bower

    Any advice I provide is given without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

    Find Solicitors offering fixed fees on our sister site - JustBeagle.com

  12. #12
    righty's Avatar

    VIP Member



    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,720
    Mentions
    4 Post(s)

    Default Re: BOS Lose & ordered to pay indemnity costs

    The court can award indemnity costs, as opposed to costs on the standard basis, in certain defined circumstances and in its wide discretion regarding costs under CPR 44.3. An order for indemnity costs is intended to provide a party to litigation, when their costs are assessed, with recovery of all, or nearly all, their outlay in the litigation. This is more favourable than costs on the standard basis under which a party only recovers a large proportion of his costs but never anything close to what he paid. Indemnity costs need not be, but often are, penal, that is, awarded for unreasonable conduct or abuse of process.

  13. #13
    Amethyst's Avatar

    Site Owner



    Joined
    May 2007
    Posts
    61,254
    Mentions
    1848 Post(s)

    Default Re: BOS Lose & ordered to pay indemnity costs

    Much clearer - many thanks Righty, I actualy understand now, and yep thats great
    “We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose. If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.” Hetty Bower

    Any advice I provide is given without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

    Find Solicitors offering fixed fees on our sister site - JustBeagle.com

Similar Threads

  1. Sainsburys Bank credit card administered by Bank of Scotland.
    By Joico in forum PPI - Payment Protection Insurance Reclaiming
    Replies: 2
    : 11th October 2013, 17:56:PM
  2. Ross & Robert Bailiffs
    By sairlp in forum Bailiff Help ( Enforcement Officers / Agents )
    Replies: 22
    : 7th June 2013, 12:19:PM
  3. Royal Bank of Scotland Bank Charges: A guide
    By natweststaffmember in forum Royal Bank of Scotland
    Replies: 0
    : 25th October 2008, 18:35:PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Contact Us



© Celame (UK) Ltd 2017
LegalBeagles® are DPA Registered No. ZA158014
LegalBeagles® is the trading name of CELAME (UK) LIMITED ( 09220332 )
Registered Address: 25 Moorgate, London, England, EC2R 6AY
VAT registration number 206 9740 02
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.3 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Celame (UK) Ltd Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3
Copyright © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

To find out more about managing your money and getting free advice, visit the Money Advice Service,an independent service set up to help people manage their money.

TOP