Belville v Lloyds

[Belville]

Although I have been avidly watching this forum this is my first post!
I appologise in advance if it's abit lenghthy!!

I have had my case against LTSB stayed and when I called Northampton (mine's an MCOL case) the lady I spoke to was extremely helpful and suggested I write in explaining my circumstances and ask for the stay to be removed and said that that would result in my case being transfered to my local CC (Mine's Croydon and they seem not to be staying cases at present).

I would be extremely grateful if someone,A Moderatetor perhaps ,could look over my letter and tell me if I should add anything or change anything

Dear Mr justice ***

I would be grateful for your time in this matter.
You have granted LTSB a stay in the above case and I am writing to you in the hope that you will either lift the stay or transfer my case to my local county court, this being Croydon county court for hearing
I am a 37year old single mother living on Widowed Parents allowance, Child benefit and child tax credit. My husband died 25th may 2007 after a very long and distressing illness.
The charges I am claiming were all taken from My/Our benefit payments and at time left us with no money for food and resulted in us having to ask our families for help, on several occasions.
When my husband died I immediately informed the bank that I was going to experience even more financial hardship as a result of this and asked for their help. None was forthcoming. My family’s income dropped from £***** to £***** per month upon my husband’s death. In fact since informing them they have added charges to the sum of £***** to my accounts.( Enclose a schedule of charges for your attention) I am unable to work due to ill health, partly as a result of caring for my late husband. I am awaiting treatment at the Neuro-rehab clinic at the *************
I strongly believe that a stay will cause my family and me great financial hardship as if this case remains stayed until the outcome of the test case we will have even more charges to deal with and this will cause an unending vicious cycle.

I look forward to your decision with anticipation

Please accept my thanks for taking time in your busy schedule to read this.

Yours sincerely


Thankyou to all who read this and also in advance for any help I can get

[jowalshy]

If the bank are taking penalty charges from your benefits there are a few things that can be done about it. I will hunt around and find a few threads in order to help you.

[Belville]

Thank you forvyour speedy reply
I look forward to your reply



Shooter

[jowalshy]

Here is a post by zootzcot I found and having read your letter, I think that it hopefully should do what you need to be done.

If your claim has been stayed by MCOL you can contact them to request that the case is transferred to your local court. If a request is received MCOL WILL transfer your claim.

Your local court may also order a stay which you may then, if you wish, make an application to lift the stay based on your individual circumstances.

There have been some successes with regards to lifting a stay but also many disappointments. You need to consider your own circumstances as to whether you feel it is appropriate for you to apply to have the stay lifted.

[Belville]

Once again thank you

[Belville]

Can anyone suggest anything that I should attach to my letter other than the Schedule of charges, Maybe my letter from the hospital and my husbands death certificate?

I have added a paragraoh suggested on the MSE Forum and my letter now looks like this


Dear Sir/Madam

I would be grateful for your time in this matter
You have granted LTSB a stay in the above case and I am writing to you in the hope that you will either lift the stay or transfer my case to my local county court, this being Croydon county court for hearingI am a 37year old single mother living on Widowed Parents allowance, Child benefit and child tax credit. My husband died 25th may 2007 after a very long and distressing illness.

The charges I am claiming were all taken from My/Our benefit payments and at time left us with no money for food and resulted in us having to ask our families for help, on several occasions.When my husband died I immediately informed the bank that I was going to experience even more financial hardship as a result of this and asked for their help. None was forthcoming. My family’s income dropped from £**** to £**** per month upon my husband’s death. In fact since informing them they have added charges to the sum of £1361.93 to my accounts.( Enclose a schedule of charges for your attention) I am unable to work due to ill health, partly as a result of caring for my late husband. I am awaiting treatment at the Neuro-rehab clinic at the ********
I strongly believe that a stay will cause my family and me great financial hardship as if this case remains stayed until the outcome of the test case we will have even more charges to deal with and this will cause an unending vicious cycle.Also I would like to draw the attached particulars of claim in the case of OFT v Abbey National PLC and Others. I believe from reading this document that the stay was obtained by a misrepresentation of the facts. As you will see the only issue that the High Court is being asked to decide is whether the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations applies in relation to bank charges. No other matters are being dealt with so regardless of the decision in the OFT case a trial will still be needed to determine whether the actual charge in this case is fair or not. Also the question of whether the terms under which the charges are levied is in substance a liquidated damages clause and if so whether it amounts to a penalty clause so as to be unenforceable would have to be decided. As there are therefore triable issues which will not be decided in the OFT case a stay would not be appropriate.

is the link to get the particulars of claim mentioned. http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...s-of-claim.pdf
What do you think have I given enough information? do I need to add anything else?
Should I send a copy to SCaM?
I look forward to you advise

Belville

[zootscoot]

Hi Belville,

MCOL will transfer to your local court if asked. Croydon CC hasn't been the most accomodating court with regards to stays although your circumstances are quite exceptional and could be grounds for lifting a stay if one is imposed.

Have a look through the forum for stays here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/

All the best for a speedy settlement.

Zoot

[zootscoot]

You don't need to attach anything at this stage although if you didn't send a schedule with your original claim you will need to do this now.

[Belville]

Thank You Zootscoot
Do you think I should send SCaM a copy?

Did you see the full post with the redone letter?

I only ask because I have had problems with parts being missing from my post and have only just managed to get the entire post to show!

If not does it sound enough to you or should I add anymore info?

Belville

[zootscoot]

It does sound very persuasive. Also have a look at the template for an application for removal of a stay here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ml#post1046820

You might want to use some of the arguments based on the overriding objectives and the Human Rights Act.

If you make a detailed objection to the stay it is likely to be transferred to your local court and the judge may order a hearing to decide if a stay should be granted.

[Belville]

As always you have given good advise.
I shall read the link you have given and will again add to my letter and then post it for your and anyone elses opinion

THANKYOU

[zootscoot]

Pleasure. Hope you get sorted soon

[Belville]

This is the new version of my letter

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would be grateful for your time in this matter.

You have granted LTSB a stay in the above case and I am writing to you in the hope that you will either lift the stay or transfer my case to my local county court, this being Croydon county court for hearing.

The stay infringes my rights under the European Convention on Human Rights directly and as enacted in the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 6 of the Convention provides that;

“1. In the determination of his civil rights… everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.”

The 8 banks involved in the High Court test case have recently published identical statements on their websites informing customers that they expect the test case to last for over a year. Moreover, the nature and gravity of the case is such that any judgment is highly likely to be appealed to the Court of Appeal and possibly even then appealed further to the House of Lords. It is entirely conceivable, even indeed probable that final resolution may not be reached for 2 – 4 years or perhaps even longer. It is thus submitted that the time of the final determination of the test case cannot be predicted and so the stay would be indeterminate, which is contrary to the right of entitlement to a fair hearing within a reasonable time as provided for by Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998

I would respectfully draw the courts attention to the Master of the Rolls decision that all outstanding bank charges cases should not be automatically stayed. My understanding is that the Deputy Head of Civil Justice has written to all designated Civil Judges, inviting them to consider staying outstanding claims on an individual case by case basis as appropriate.
I do not believe this has happened with my case.
I object to the order of stay and submit that there is good reason why my case should be allowed to proceed to trial in advance of the final determination of the OFT case. The grounds for such objections are set out as follows.
I am a 37year old single mother living on Widowed Parents allowance, Child benefit and child tax credit. My husband died 25th May 2007 after a very long and distressing illness.
The charges I am claiming were all taken from My/Our benefit payments and at time left us with no money for food and resulted in us having to ask our families for help, on several occasions.
When my husband died I immediately informed the bank that I was going to experience even more financial hardship as a result of this and asked for their help. None was forthcoming. My family’s income dropped from £**** to £**** per month upon my husband’s death. In fact since informing them they have added charges to the sum of £1361.93 to my accounts.( Enclose a schedule of charges for your attention) I am unable to work due to ill health, partly as a result of caring for my late husband. I am awaiting treatment at the Neuro-rehab clinic at the *********.
I strongly believe that a stay may potentially mean great difficulty for me and my family and yet be insignificant for the defendant bank. In fact a stay is supportive of the banks litigation strategy which is to frustrate justice by repeatedly taking the claimant to the door of the court and then to settle the claim.

The sum claimed is insignificant to the bank but it is highly significant to me. Furthermore, although a stay prevents me from recovering my money, the defendant bank is not prevented from levying its charges or interest on debt comprised of those charges so the order of the court has the effect of favouring a powerful and well-resourced institution and does not place any restriction on their continued application of charges which I say are unlawful. Further, many banks are now routinely closing the accounts of their customers who commence claims against them. This amounts to a sanction for seeking a ruling from the justice system and as such is a basic denial of citizenship. I will remain at risk of such action despite the fact that my remedy has been placed on an indeterminate hold.


At least 300 claims have been brought against the defendant this year involving similar issues. This is evidenced by a sample list of settled claims, which is attached. Despite flatly denying its customers complaint in the preliminary stages then subsequently always indicating an intention to defend, then filing a defence, then an allocation questionnaire, then breaching any directions, the defendant has compromised each and every such claim in advance of the hearing, usually following unnecessary and protracted litigation. The defendant purports to settle these claims without liability for ‘costs’ or ‘commercial’ reasons, yet for example on many occasions previously, as the court may already be aware, it has gone to the expense of setting aside default judgments only to settle the claim shortly after. The defendant continues to spuriously defend claims only to subsequently settle them, flagrantly breaching multiple court orders and provisions of the CPR as it does so. Many County Courts now consider the litigation tactics employed by banks in these cases as an abuse of court process and are regularly striking out their defences as a result.

The Overriding Objective requires that my case is allowed to proceed speedily so that a just settlement may be obtained by the parties to this case. Dealing with cases justly includes ensuring that this case is dealt with expeditiously and fairly and in a way that is proportionate to the amount of money involved. I think that the imposition of an indeterminate stay in a small claims track case involving a relatively small sum, is not just, nor is it expeditious, nor is it fair on a claimant who has outlaid sums by way of court fees in pursuit of a legitimate right to seek a remedy.

The stay does not maintain the status quo. As submitted above, a stay favours the bank by preventing the my pursuit of a legitimate remedy without placing any restriction upon the banks activities which I submit are unlawful and/or retaliatory.

Furthermore, as submitted above the present case concerns a relatively small sum, and therefore I submit that to impose an indeterminate stay is unnecessary, inappropriate, not in the interests of justice and further, is detrimental to my rights in a way which is unfair and inequitable.

Also I would like to draw the attached particulars of claim in the case of OFT v Abbey National PLC and Others. I believe from reading this document that the stay was obtained by a misrepresentation of the facts. As you will see the only issue that the High Court is being asked to decide is whether the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations applies in relation to bank charges. No other matters are being dealt with so regardless of the decision in the OFT case a trial will still be needed to determine whether the actual charge in this case is fair or not. Also the question of whether the terms under which the charges are levied is in substance a liquidated damages clause and if so whether it amounts to a penalty clause so as to be unenforceable would have to be decided. As there are therefore triable issues which will not be decided in the OFT case a stay would not be appropriate.


I would urge the court to reject the indiscriminate blanket staying of claims as is seemingly being sought by the defendant in this and other similar claims by way of its generic template letters.


If the court does not accede to this application, I respectfully request that the stay remains subject to the following orders:

• That the defendant bank is prevented from applying further penalty charges to my account until the final settlement of the matter.
• That the defendant is prevented from applying interest charges to any outstanding amounts which are comprised of penalties until the settlement of the matter.
• That the defendant is prevented from closing my account.
• That the defendant is prevented from making any entry on its own systems or from communicating any similar information to any third party about any matter insofar as it relates to penalty charges until the final settlement of the matter.
• That the defendant removes any derogatory entry on its own records insofar as it relates to penalty charges. (The Court has the power to do this under the Data Protection Act 1998 )
• That the defendant arranges the removal of entries from the records of any third parties to whom it has previously communicated information insofar as it relates to penalty charges. (The Court has the power to do this under the Data protection Act 1998.)
• That these injunctions remain in place until the settlement of my claim.
• That should my claim proceed to a hearing that a decision should be made at the hearing as to whether these injunctions should be made permanent.
• That if the matter should not proceed to a hearing because the defendant decides to settle outside court, that these injunctions should become permanent.

I look forward to your decision with anticipation
Please accept my thanks for taking time in your busy schedule to read this.

Yours faithfully




Is this Ok or is it now too long and windy

I await you opinion

Belville

[zootscoot]

Fabulous!