court ordered claim cancelled

**jifjaf** · 29th June 2006 23:16

Hi all

not sure if this is the right place to post this, so applogies in advance if not

Can any one advise as to my next step?
I had started court proceedings against a company Clydesdale financial services which is part of barleys
I have had a credit agreement with them since 2002 and on checking my statements found that I had charges of over £400 for late payment charges. The charges are £22.50 for the first computer generated letter and then 14 days later a further £22.50 for c g letter this amounts to £45 monthly

I duly paid my court fees after unsuccessfully trying to communicate with the company
I had a date set by the court to hear the case 22 august
But today I received a letter from the court stating that:
Quote

Before district judge ******* sitting at Gloucester county court icon

Upon the courts own motion. The court has made this order of its own initiative without a hearing. If you object to the order, you must make an application to have it set aside or stayed within 7 days of receiving it
IT IS ORDERED THAT
The hearing on the 22nd August 2006 be vacated and the allocation to small claims track cancelled
The action be stayed until further order on the basis that there is likely to be a test case before a Higher
Court before the end of the year the result is likely to reduce the need and/or amount of litigation in these types of cases
Liberty to apply to remove stay
....

Do these mean that I have now lost me court fee as well?

Similar Threads:

**jonni2bad** · 30th June 2006 00:26

Hi jifjaf - the site team (and others) will need time to consider what this might mean for you personally and indeed on a wider scale.

We will get back to you.

Many thanks for posting (and welcome to the site)

**pauli** · 30th June 2006 00:37

Hi..as far as I know this is the first time this has happened..or certainly been reported on the forum. It is a very important development.

Coincidentally I was in the county court icon

today defending an application.The Claimant is a Credit Card Company. The application was thrown out on a technicality but part of my defence related to the inclusion of unlawful charges in the judgement sum.

The Judge in an aside commented on the dramatic increase in claims of this kind through the County Court system. It is clearly becoming problematic and putting a strain on their workload.

She also said that there was to be a test case in the Mercantile Court that would hopefully set a precedent avoiding the necessity of court action in the future. As outlined in your order she said such action if confirmed would require all pending cases to be stayed until such time as the higher court made its ruling.

Have other forum users come across this in the last few days..it is something that needs to be taken in to account in the advice being given to new cliamants.

How widespread is this ?

**Seminole** · 30th June 2006 00:43

Did she say who was bringing the test case?

**pauli** · 30th June 2006 00:50

Hi again..sorry but I did not answer the question you asked.

The "stay" simply puts the application on hold. Presumably once the higher court makes its decision the legality or otherwise of penalty charges will be determined once and for all. A decision that supports the OFT's ruling would presumably result in the Banks paying up on the initial request in legitimate cases.

I presume stayed cases icon

would be decided and costs awarded once the case law setting the precedent is determined. If anybody knows any different let us know. This should become a very active thread.

**pauli** · 30th June 2006 00:53

there was no mention of who was bringing the case and she would not be pressed.

I did try!

**Seminole** · 30th June 2006 00:54

If this is correct then one has to wonder who is bringing the test case. A quick look on the court service website shows that Mercantile court cases are automatically assigned to the multi-track.

Presumably if cases are to be stayed that must also apply to any case being brought by a bank in which it is seeking to recover monies from someone which include potentially unlawful charges.

**pauli** · 30th June 2006 01:02

Presumably if cases are to be stayed that must also apply to any case being brought by a bank in which it is seeking to recover monies from someone which include potentially unlawful charges.[/QUOTE]

yes this is what began to interest icon

me at the time. If a defence includes a part admission in respect of the disputed charges etc it should also be stayed automatically?

I guess that might reduce the workload more dramatically than they might have imagined..certainly at Northampton!

**Karnevil** · 30th June 2006 01:02

Would this mean there is now an order for all cases involving penalty charges to be stayed until the test case has been heard and a ruling made ? or would this be a coincidence that these two judges are of the opinion there is a test case due ?

I know its too early to say, but would we possibly be looking at holding off on filing claims for the moment ?

**pauli** · 30th June 2006 01:04

I suspect it is unlikely to be a coincidence..which is why a coordinated response is essential..bankfodder whats your view?

**Seminole** · 30th June 2006 01:05

Originally Posted by karnevil

Would this mean there is now an order for all cases involving penalty charges to be stayed until the test case has been heard and a ruling made ? or would this be a coincidence that these two judges are of the opinion there is a test case due ?

I know its too early to say, but would we possibly be looking at holding off on filing claims for the moment ?

No, I don't think it works like that. We should be able to start to clarify things in the morning.

**Hedgehog** · 30th June 2006 01:09

Thats just typical.... I am all fired up to take both banks to court!
thought it was too good to be true!

Zooman · 30th June 2006 01:17

It's only a case in a higher court, will probably go in our favor.

**sazz** · 30th June 2006 01:18

Interesting...

**MARTIN3030** · 30th June 2006 01:24

I was wondering if this might happen in fact a few of us were talking about it in the pub.

Basically if an order came from the top,and the reasons given that it was causing the court system a lot of problems then is it not to be expected that they would see a test case higher up as a means to contain for the moment what they see as a stampede?

We also discussed that in the quiet corridors of power there will have been lots of discussions going on over Gin and tonics/whisky.
We are talking of some pretty powerful people here who are probably seething at seeing their feathers ruffled....not to mention their dividends from their shareholdings facing a dip.............

**Seminole** · 30th June 2006 01:32

If there is any underlying move to stay claims, it puzzles me why it didn't happen when Stephen brought his "wunch" claim. One might be a little suspicious that that wasn't the sort of claim that the powers that be wanted to go forward as a test case.

I've seen test cases used (on a much smaller scale) with tame litigants to examine a point of law. Who wants to bet that the disclosure in any test case here wouldn't cover the sort of ground that we might want it to cover?

**Hedgehog** · 30th June 2006 01:34

But if its a test case.. surely they should allow some publicity to ensure a fair representation....

**Seminole** · 30th June 2006 01:37

Originally Posted by Hedgehog

But if its a test case.. surely they should allow some publicity to ensure a fair representation....

Sorry, I've joined in the speculation over something that we know very little about and may not amount to much anyway. Even if it does, it's by no means the end of the story,

**MARTIN3030** · 30th June 2006 01:39

Sorry should have added that I am not making any suggestion that any individual/individuals may have a vested interest icon

in stopping claims for the moment.Nor am I suggesting they may be using positions of authority/influence on those who may be connected to the financial institutions at the centre of the penalty charges cases,to advocate stays of execution on current claims.

Just to make that clear I would never say such a thing.

**Seminole** · 30th June 2006 01:41

I suppose that the other aspect of this matter is that if the cases are being stayed because the legality of these charges is in doubt, then the banks should volutarily refrain from levying any further charges pending the outcome of the case. Yeah, right.

Thread: court ordered claim cancelled

Thread Tools

court ordered claim cancelled

Re: court ordered claim cancelled

Re: court ordered claim cancelled

Re: court ordered claim cancelled

Re: court ordered claim cancelled

Re: court ordered claim cancelled

Re: court ordered claim cancelled

Re: court ordered claim cancelled

Re: court ordered claim cancelled

Re: court ordered claim cancelled

Re: court ordered claim cancelled

Re: court ordered claim cancelled

Re: court ordered claim cancelled

Re: court ordered claim cancelled

Re: court ordered claim cancelled

Re: court ordered claim cancelled

Re: court ordered claim cancelled

Re: court ordered claim cancelled

Re: court ordered claim cancelled

Re: court ordered claim cancelled