Sean v's Lloyds *LLOYDS ABUSE STRIKE OUT*

[sean1]

Hi,

I have just received a reply from the court as below...

Upon the courts own motion. The court has made this order of its own initiative without a hearing.

It is ordered that

1/ The court of its own motion is considering striking the Defence in this action as an abuse of process

2/ The basis for this is the fact that the Defendant is settling all claims of this nature where claimants are seeking the reimbursement of bank charges, with no claims proceeding to a contested hearing

3/ The court considers the authority of Mullen-VHackney London Borough Council (1997)2 A11ER 906 relevant

4/ If the defendant objects to the proposed strike out it is ordered to file by ______________ a schedule setting out all claims of this type in England and wales which have proceeded to a final contested hearing, and the outcome of such hearings, together with a schedule of all such claims which it has compromised before final hearing, after proceedings have been issued

5/ Upon receipt of any such objections the court will consider listing the claim for an on notice hearing of the strike out issue

6/ In the absence of any such objections being filed in time, the defence herein will be struck out and entered for the amount claimed, together with the appropriate costs claimable on the small claims track.

Has any one else seen a letter like this?
Am I nearly home and dry?

Regards
Sean

[GaryH]

Sean, this is fantastic news. Firstly, which court is it dealing with your claim?

[sean1]

hi Gary,

It's Lincoln Court.

Regards
Sean

[GuidoT]

That is a nice order, Kazzaw had one of these a few weeks ago, we should find you soon what the outcome is, it should affect how you claim will be managed, see her thread:
KAZZAW v Lloyds Asset Card - EVERYONE READ post 15 & post 219 !!!!!!

[l33d5un1t3d]

Agree a very nice order. I have a directions of hearing in March, based on the Lincoln Court letter I wonder if it's sending a letter to the district judge quoting this before hand?
PS. I "googled" Mullen-VHackney London Borough Council (1997)2 A11ER 906, but got nothing back, any idea where I can see this authority in more detail please?

[Glenn UK]

If no one posts before i get home ill try to send you a link

Glenn

[charleyfarley]

Is this the case??
ex parte London Borough of Hackney -v- Maureen Mullen [1996] EWCA Civ 76718 Oct 1996
CA
Housing, Litigation PracticeThe authority appealed a fine of £5,000 for a breach of an undertaking to carry out repairs to their tenant's property. They complained that there had been no evidence of previous breaches, and that the judge had been wrong to take account of other breaches. Held: The authority might have applied for an adjournment, anticipating the order to be made. It had not. The judge was exercising a proper discretion, was entitled to take account of other breaches, and also to use his own special knowledge of the respondent's behaviour in other cases. An affidavit from the authority that it had only broken one such order in the previous twelve months was not to the point.Link[s] omitted

[flower19]

Hello everyone

Thank you for all your postings which are very helpful and encouraging.

I am in the process of preparing a letter to be sent to my bank, Lloyds TSB, requesting payment of charges together with a Schedule of Charges.

However, I am a slightly confused as to how one works out the proportion of the overdraft interest which was caused solely from the unlawful charges.

It is clear from my statements that overdraft interest was always charged on the same day as the charges itself.


Also, what is the correct department and address at Lloyds to where the letter should be sent to?


Thanking you all.

[Glenn UK]

Flower

try using one of the spreadsheets provided for the prupose of working out interest, it will estimate it for you.

And then you put in the rate of interest you ar charging the bank for taking your money unlawfully andit works that out too.

Please strat your own thread on the LBTSB forum and post your quesiotns in there.

HTH

glenn

[flower19]

Thanks

I am posting for the first time so I guess I must have posted in the incorrect place...sorry.

[Glenn UK]

Its no problem flower

Glenn

[sean1]

Hi,

I have received another letter from the court today: -

Upon the Courts own motion. The Court has made this order of it's own initiative without a hearing. If you object to the order, you must make an application to have it set aside, varied or stayed within 7 days of receiving it

IT IS ORDERED THAT
1/ The Defendant's defence be struck out, as per the order dated 17th Jan 07

2/ There be a judgement for the Claimant in the sum of £____ plus costs of £___, payable by the Defendant to the Claimant by 21st Feb 07.


All being well they will not contest the Courts order.

Regards
Sean.

[GuidoT]

This is what I like to see a nice robust judge, he just struck it out. This is textbook stuff.

You are now home and dry, very little Lloyds can do about that order. They can appeal, but that would be heard in the Court of Appeal and that would result in a precedent being set (win or loose) and that would bind the lower courts.

Lloyds have been avoiding county court trials for long enough, which do not bind any other courts, never the allowing something to go to the Court of Appeal.

[StoneLaughter]

You can bet that if they DID appeal, they would apply to have their disclosure made in private without the claimant being permitted to see it (which is within a Judge's power). HOWEVER, I bet the Judiciary are SO PEED OFF with the banks by now that they would order disclosure to be a matter of public record... and what's more I bet the banks know this.

They have REALLY shot themselves in both feet now...

[sheepshead]

Absolutely blinding result!!!! good on that Judge - lets hope all courts follow suit against all banks. Im drafting up an application to request summary judgement on my case in Bromley County court, their defence has been in 6 weeks and no hearing date in sight.

[mcuth]

Oh, that's just EXCELLENT Sean - congratulations

Cheers

Michael

[kazzaw]

Well done Sean!!

Look what I got today:

Before DISTRICT JUDGE sitting at Newark County court...................

EX PARTE and
Upon reading the Claimant's faxed letter dated 26 January 2007.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

There be Judgement for the Claimant in the sum requested - £246.34 payable in 14 days (i.e on or before 12 February 2007.)

Dated 29 January 2007