A brief introduction for clients for the Damages Claims Portal.
The scope of the DCP is wide ranging for County Court claims.
|
Included Claims |
Excluded Claims |
|
Claims were the sole remedy sought is damages, irrespective of the value |
Claims not listed for consideration in the County Court |
|
Claims where the claimant is legally represented; |
Claims that seek a remedy that is not only damages |
|
Claims that are conducted in English |
Claims that are debt claims or possession claims; |
|
Claims that have fully paid the necessary fees for issuing the claim using the “Payment by Account” System |
Claims where the defendant is not represented by a legal representative; |
|
Claims involving children are permitted |
Claims that have more than three parties |
|
Claims leaving the MoJ’s portal or the Official Injury Claims portal, that have been issued as CPR 7 claims |
Claims brought under CPR 8 (e.g. costs only, and approval hearing) |
|
Claims that involve up to three parties |
Claims where the defendant has a postal address for service outside of England and Wales |
|
|
Claims against individuals under 18 years old |
|
|
Claims where the claimant is a protected party under CPR 21.1(2)(d) (e.g. children and parties who lack mental capacity) |
|
|
Claims that are made under one of the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 specified within PD 7B para 3.1 (e.g. claim by the creditor to enforce regulated agreement relating to goods) |
|
|
Claims is being progressed under PD 27B (RTA Small Claims Protocol) |
This article is the second in a series to help firms take a practical approach to complying with the ‘cross-cutting rules’ within the new ‘Consumer Duty’ (CD) framework. The article summarises what it seems the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is seeking to achieve from the applicable rules (section 2 below) and potential complications arising from legal considerations (section 3).
Claims arising from interest-only mortgages have been farmed in volume. Many such claims to date have sought to drive a narrative that interest-only mortgages are an inherently toxic product and brokers were negligent simply for suggesting them. Taylor is a helpful recalibration, focussing instead on what the monies raised by the mortgage product were being used for and whether the client understood the inherent risks.
This article is the first in a series aimed to help firms get to grips on a practical basis with the ‘cross-cutting rules’ within the new ‘Consumer Duty’ framework.
