Lloyds victory in Birmingham - in perspective

[nevos]

You may appeal against a judgment in the small claims track only if the court made a mistake in law or there was a serious irregularity in the proceedings. If you want to appeal, you must file a notice of appeal within 21 days. A fee is payable although this could be waived in cases of financial hardship.

Posted this at the same time as legalpickle maybe this is not relevant ?

[Kenny Haymes]

Originally Posted by Mistermind

Hull court news update at bottom of posting #198, affecting 20 claimants.

Zootscoot on the case!

From a tactical viewpoint - and downsizing any dangers to the Claimants involved - and in the interests of the 'movement' en bloc - would it not be preferable/advisable for them to 'withdraw' their court claims and in so doing pre-empt any unjust or misguided decision ?

Then they, 'very simply', refer their claims to the appropriate Ombudsman, where, I understand, there has been 100% no-quibble refunds todate - because when the refund claims are before the Ombudsman the banks do not want to attempt to explain their charges !

In the most highly unlikely event that the Ombudsman route did not prove successful - the claimants 'still' have the option of re-issuing their court actions, as nothing would have been before the court at that time.

In the intervening period from their cases being withdrawn from Hull County Court or wherever, and being referred to the Ombudsman, and any unlikely need to return to court - there may well have been some more interesting, and properly just, well publicised court rulings 'in favour of consumer claimants' to which any future Hull claimants can 'then' constructively refer.

It was 'inadvisable' for the Berwick case to be appealed - despite the 'permission' so to do - and, far more effectively, it is instead being referred to the Ombudsman.

It must be surely the best route 'for all concerned' in these uncertain, if not 'strange' circumstances, in which they find themselves, for them to follow suit ?

Good luck !

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Its a good point Kenny & one that I have been contemplating but it should also be remembered that the Ombudsman has no remit when it comes to recovering interest even that interest which has been imposed directly as a result of the charges

This course of action will result in much lower settlement of claims

[Kenny Haymes]

Originally Posted by Pliny the Penuriosus

Its a good point Kenny & one that I have been contemplating but it should also be remembered that the Ombudsman has no remit when it comes to recovering interest even that interest which has been imposed directly as a result of the charges

This course of action will result in much lower settlement of claims

Yes, duly noted - and unfair, in my view that claimants should lose out in that way - howsoever, in the overall game plan it may be worth it - and, when a 'suitable case sets the 'just' consumer precedent - then maybe a smaller claim within the small claims court for the lost interest ?

Tactically - I have to say I sincerely believe that a tactical withdrawal and redirect to the Ombudsman in the short term is the most favourable option - at least it would usurp being sucked into still waters - that may run very deep !

[nevos]

If one withdraws a claim can you get the court fee back especially on the grounds that there is no chance or little chance of a fair hearing in Hull for example?

[Gez]

Kenny, the FOS may have always managed to get a refund, but very often people have only managed to get 40-60% of what they were due.
As I understand it, Mr Berwick will only be going through the FOS now because to appeal through the courts would mean he would have to use the same inadequate evidence he used first time around. If he now goes through the FOS, he can use a much better prepared case & should sail to victory with it.

[Kenny Haymes]

Originally Posted by Gez

Kenny, the FOS may have always managed to get a refund, but very often people have only managed to get 40-60% of what they were due.
As I understand it, Mr Berwick will only be going through the FOS now because to appeal through the courts would mean he would have to use the same inadequate evidence he used first time around. If he now goes through the FOS, he can use a much better prepared case & should sail to victory with it.

Sure thing Gez ! I agree, especially with the Berwick statement - please see my post # 169 & Mistermind # 170.

Whilst a 40-60% refund via the FOS may not be ideal, it does not 'close doors' - conversely, proceeding to what appears to be a 'pre-determined' strikeout, based on a flawed case from another county court - which said earlier, sadly, ill-prepared case - you and I, auntie & uncle, and the world & his wife 'know', (as does the judiciary), is totally irrelevant to what takes place elsewhere, and has absolutely no bearing whatsoever - but 'somebody' does think its relevant - 'if' it goes the wrong way, then the refund will be zero - and the consequences get much heavier, as the banks will milk it with both hands - and link it to their other alleged 'single' success, the Berwick case - whilst disregarding the £millions of refunds they have already made to overcharged customers !

There again, how well prepared, or otherwise are the claimants ? Are they up for an appeal if it goes pear-shaped at an early stage ? I really hope they are well clued up on their claim and litigation in general !

[petcat]

is it possible for the hull claimants to withdraw their claims and then reissue them at a differnt court? seems like somone (THE JUDGE) is trying to force them into a corner.

[Gez]

Sure, I hope this anomaly has made everyone see the importance of being prepared. There are a few threads out there now dealing with helping out those in Hull. I think as long as the judge accepts their appeal to continue & they have prepared properly, then victory should be almost assured.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the FOS were refusing to take on any claims until the OFT report was published. Is that right?

Anyway, regardless, I agree that for the individual claimants the first priority should be to go for whatever gives them the best chance of success & if that means the FOS or even Judge Judy then so be it.
What I don't like is the idea of running away from court when you know you are 100% in the right and have easily the best chance of success at a hearing.

My hope is that this particular judge will respond to those who are appealing to continue their case & say "ok on you go & I'll hear the case if there is no settlement". We just need one of them to make it to the hearing. Its still almost a given that the bankers won't turn up so he would have to hear the case in much the same way as Berwick Vs Lloyds & hear the case solely on the evidence & arguments presented by the claimant. Hopefully a claimant who is properly prepared..

[Mistermind]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk....php?f=51&a=94

Trust everyone has seen this BankFodder announcement on the Hull Strikeouts? First posted on 4th June 2007, read by 1,608 members so far.

[Vital Spark]

Good one BF. Hope you find all relevant claimants.

[MoneyKing]

Hey!

Look at this:-

BBC NEWS | Business | Couple recover £25,000 from bank

Lol.......I really am dumbstruck by these banks!

This is just so silly...how can you just payout 25K and call it goodwill, since it is not viable to go to court....umm are the banks legal team working for free,if not then banks are pumping a lot into wasted efforts......shocking!

They know it is unlawful and they will do everything in their power to hide it...maybe I should try caliming a 500K just for fun and see if they "settle" that one lol...................... .......only kidding

[TECHSPEC]

There as been a change of direction lately, with more people being told to go to the FOS , instead of court, as nobody as lost yet.

Will according to this, the couple lost when they went through the FOS.

[JonCris]

Of course they did as have many others. The courts often disregard their findings.
In one recent case of critical illness insurance the insurer refused cover on the basis of something in the claimants medical records even though the non disclosed illness had absolutely nothing to do with the claimants current illness.

The Ombudsman found in favour of the insurer but the court sure didn't. Whilst the judge didn't critize the Ombudsman directly his verdict in favour of the claimant & his remarks about the insurer will have left them in no doubt as to his opinion of their appalling conduct.

He was of course referring to their habit, in the event of a claim, of trawling through a claimants records in the hope of finding ANYTHING even if unrelated & repudiating liabilty for non disclosure.

The FSO like the other so called regulators is merely a sop set up to give the gullible public the impression that these industries are ACTUALY regulated.

Their complete & utter failure to act on behalf of the consumer has finally exposed them for what they are........useless

[nevos]

Hi JonCris, hope your well. Isn't all typical of take the consumers money for little or nothing in return.

There are a lot of what if's in the Hull Judges decision, I can imagine some folk will drop their claims due to the stupidity IMO of one Judge, I ask myself why, he wants to take it out on 20 claimants and not haul Lloyds Bank up to justify the penalty charges. Hull court became self funding I wonder if this was some kind of economic decision.

The courts could support a decision by the FSO as a reason to strike out a claim given the attitude of the judge in Hull.

[Nicky29]

Hi,

Just an update on where I'm at with my case against Lloyds TSB for £480... I've now had a date for a preliminary hearing at Huddersfield CC on 18th July - I didn't get an allocation questionnaire prior to this nor have I been asked to pay a fee for it, is this normal? And is it normal to have a preliminary hearing??

Anyway, I've read all the strong advice and harsh words for people about taking this seriously, which I am! I've been preparing the court bundle which I got from your wonderful site but don't have a copy of my original T&C. Neither am I likely to get it as mine was a student account with TSB before they merged with Lloyds. For this reason, I doubt the bank will have a copy of it either...

Given that they've won another case due to poor preparation I'm determined to avoid this and have some questions for you experts...

1. Do I need the T&C as a matter of urgency? Will the case fail without it? and does anyone have said version?

2. I haven't been asked to send a court bundle prior to the preliminary hearing. Do I need to do this or wait for next stage?

3. What should I expect at this preliminary hearing?

I'm not expecting them to offer a settlement as although my account with them is still live, I transferred all my banking to First Direct 9 months ago. It's now, in effect, just an empty dead account which won't inspire them to keep my goodwill or my custom...

Hope you can advise me on this.

Cheers

[Vital Spark]

Don't worry about having taken your banking away. I don't think the banks settling out of court has to do with anything other than that they know they are in the wrong coupled with them not being too keen on a judgement given against them, therby setting predence.

I am under the impression that BF wants the Terms and Conditions to help the appeals of those who have had their cases judged against and for those who are having their cases thrown out of court: but only small court.

You go for it, Nicky and GOOD L