Ronald Raygun wrote
I agree.
I am sure that not all charges are unfair. But ones that are excessive are unfair.
I don't believe a defendant should be expected to pay a charge which the claimant does not have to pay.
I don't think it's a waste of time but do think the claimant would have to show the amount charged is properly payable to the bank.
Bryan
Regulations 1999 the
doesn't look fair to me.
And how come the 30 charge did not itself " bounce"? :)
I agree, but I don't think my plumber will, next time he tries to charge me £40.20 to change a 20p tap washer.
Agreed, but at the time of the court case it will not yet have been established as fact that the charge does not have to be paid.
It is manifestly a waste of time. It takes twice as much effort to pursue two cases as it does one, and it takes hardly any effort to add the consequential loss claim to the cheque claim.
It might be slightly different if the cheque claim did not happen, i.e. if the defendant (sensibly) volunteered immediately to pay the amount of the cheque and was only fighting the consequential loss claim, and is arguing that the plaintiff is suing the wrong person. But even then it could be a waste of time because success in suing the bank under unfair terms is not guaranteed, and the plaintiff is thus risking having to expend twice the effort by then suing the drawer after all.
Agreed, but that's easy, all he has to do to satisfy the court is to show they were reasonably incurred, not that they were fair.
"peopleschampion" wrote in message news:cdp0ro$3o3$ snipped-for-privacy@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
claimant does not have
show the amount
In addition to the Unfair Contract Terms legislation (which I too have used for clients), if the charge is regarded as a penalty, it could be unenforceable anyway.
Ronald Raygun wrote
But if they are not payable because of the Unfair Term in Consumer Contracts Regulations they would not be reasonably incurred.
Bryan
Dougl Ramage wrote
Agreed. The rules about penalties have been around long before the Unfair Contract Terms rules.
Bryan
Yes, they would. Even if they're unfair, they are *prima facie* incurred under a contractual obligation, and it is not competent for a third party to try to pick holes in that contract, especially when the claimant himself is not convinced they are unfair.
Ronald Raygun wrote
I think we will have to agree to disagree.
Bryan
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.