Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***
NEWS RELEASE FROM BOB EGERTON (BOB THE BANKBUSTER)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 11 January 2008
OFT/BANKS TEST CASE TO BE HELD IN SMALL ROOM - OFT SPOKESMAN "DID NOT REALISE" ROOM ONLY BIG ENOUGH FOR 6 MEMBERS OF PUBLIC
Next Wednesday 16 January, the OFT and Britain's high street banks are due to meet in a High Court battle which will decide whether or not the banks are operating an unlawful charging regime. The case is of great public interest as it could result in the banks having to repay £20 billion or more to about 10 million customers. It has now been revealed that the case will be heard in a room at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in Fleet Street and that there will be space for precisely 11 members of the press and the public. A spokesperson for the centre said that entry will be on a first come first served basis but that the space will be divided roughly equally between the press and the public; and passes will be issued separately for morning and afternoon sessions. This means that, at most, 6 members of the public will be able to attend and no-one will be able to attend a full day. It will be impossible, therefore, for any one person to obtain a complete picture of the proceedings. It will also mean that many newspaper and television/radio reporters will excluded.
A spokesperson for the OFT claimed today that he "did not realise that the room would only hold this number of people".
Bob Egerton, bank charges campaigner, said, "This case is a great embarrassment to the OFT. It has exposed the institutional weakness within the OFT where it is effective at curbing unlawful behaviour by small businesses, but it does not have the stomach for a fight against the big corporations like the banks. By holding the case in such a small room, no member of the public will be able to sit through the whole case; and much of Britain's media will be excluded. The OFT is no doubt hoping that the case will receive little press coverage and that it will all quietly fizzle out. However, I and the many other campaigners will ensure that this issue does not die. We will continue to fight the banks over this issue whatever the outcome of a meeting in a tiny room in London."
In order to bring to the attetion on the media about the unfairness of having limited space for public and press, Penfold has come up with an e-mail which needs to be sent by as many people to the press.
That’s a start others can add on this thread…Do we want to do this straight away or wait until the Petition is online???
Prabs (Penfold)
Originally Posted by Penfold92
something like tjhis should be easy enough for everyone to send off...
Dear Sir or Madam,
I would like you to be aware of something that came to my attention yesterday that gives me great concern. It has come to my attention that even though this Court case was due to be heard at the High Court it is in fact being held at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in Fleet Street and that there will be space for precisely 11 members of the press and the public. A spokesperson for the centre said that entry will be on a first come first served basis but that the space will be divided roughly equally between the press and the public; and passes will be issued separately for morning and afternoon sessions. This means that, at most, 6 members of the public will be able to attend and no-one will be able to attend a full day. It will be impossible, therefore, for any one person to obtain a complete picture of the proceedings. It will also mean that many newspaper and television/radio reporters will excluded.
A spokesperson for the OFT claimed today that he "did not realise that the room would only hold this number of people".
As a Press Member with National Reach I hope you will investigate this matter further and publish your findings? It is important that we all ensure Justice will prevail. Since no one person or the media will get the full picture, will the public's interest will be upheld? Surely you appreciate that this matter concerns the majority of people in this Country and is a National Issue. There will be others emailing to express their concerns as we are all concerned that this could be construed as almost behind “closed doors” and therefore potentially not in the interest of the General Public.
Yours faithfully,
If you think my post was helpful, please feel free to click my scales
I think if the press read sites like Penalty Charges which is Stephen Hone's site they would have been aware of the change in venue on THURSDAY when he posted it on his site. Do you not visit other sites for information?
I cant believe they actually expect us to believe they did not know where this case was going to be held until the very last minute and also stating that not one person of the public or press will be able to verify the true picture of events from beginning to end due to the size of the room.
I believe this a stitch up! The banks have no intention of revealing anything and I for one dont believe the outcome is not going to be for good of the customers who have lost £££'s but for the good of the banks and institutions and alike.
What can I say, the Ombudsman put out a "stay" on all cases when they could have should been heard and now we are not even going to get the true picture of events!!
We as a customer could have and should have had our chances in court and the banks should have been made to reveal their true costs incurred,
that this matter would have been resolved after all not one of the banks intended to argue their case and now they are behind closed doors with limited reporting details of the case.
Oh my how they are all rubbing their hands with glee!!!!!
Im surprised that anyboby is actually surprised.
Money talks at every level.
And with this cartel standing to lose so much, just lift up the edge of your carpet.
.
I Wish you everything you wish yourself.
.
NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.
Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.
Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full
Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full
Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.
Thanks guys, I have just sent all mine off to the above newspaper links. If I think of anymore I will copy them in too. Fingers crossed something will happen in our favour.
28-05-2007--Received Schedule of Charges.
03-06-2007--Prelim sent.
12-06-2007--Reply - Thanks but charges lawful!
19-06-2007--Sent L.B.A. & Schedule of Charges
NOTHING RECEIVED AFTER 14 DAYS
05-07-2007--Phoned Halifax to discuss account. Still standing by charges.
13-07-2007--Filed N1 in Hull Court
20-07-2007--Halifax deemed served.
25-07-2007--Received offer £280 as Full and Final settlement.
27-07-2007--Sent rejection letter recorded delivery
03-08-2007--Rang Hull Court, nothing received from Halifax
04-08-2007--Sent Pre Judgement letter.
10-08-2007--Defence received from Halifax
13-08-2007--Judgement Request sent
24-08-2007--Claim stayed at Hull Court
31-08-2007--Applied for stay to be lifted
12-10-2007--Hearing for removal of stay on 31/10
31-10-2007--Removal of Stay struck out
I would have thought that with the money that is involved in this case they could have used Wembley Stadium instead of a little room holding just 11 people at the I.D.R.C.........SELV....
Thats the very reason that they have wangled this.
They REALLY dont want to go public.
Its an absolute disgrace, but not one that surprises me.
.
I Wish you everything you wish yourself.
.
NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.
Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.
Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full
Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full
Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.
Emails have gone to everyone of those bar the Sun.
Thanks for the template and all of the addresses, hopefully it'll make a few people think about looking into it.
Cheers,
KA
Prelim letter received by Barclays: 26/03/07
**************no reply***************
LBA received by Barclays: 10/04/07
**************no reply***************
N1 filed at court: 25/04/07 N1 received by Barclays: 04/05/07 Offer of £1,885.00: 04/05/07 (turned down) Offer rejection received by B'clays: 08/05/07 Barclays Acknowledge Claim: 11/05/07 Barclays Defence Filed: 18/05/07
missed most of it but apparently Martin Lewis was doing a good job of bringing this to everyones attention ( well those who listen to radio two) by quite rightly having a good rant and rave about this
jan
Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus
[IMG]http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif
offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed
"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery
OH, What a surprise !!!!!!!!!!!!!
They have spent an estimated £1million each in preperation for this case.
Nothing like forward planning then.....
.
I Wish you everything you wish yourself.
.
NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.
Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.
Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full
Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full
Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.
The trial Judge for the test case cannot be expected to force a jury into returning a verdict JUST because there is an OFT test case, that he has been given to handle, can he?
This will all be concluded by men with a funny handshake.
.
I Wish you everything you wish yourself.
.
NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.
Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.
Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full
Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full
Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.
H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***
as it could result in the banks having to repay £20 billion or more to about 10 million customers. It has now been revealed that the case will be heard in a room at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in Fleet Street and that there will be space for precisely 11 members of the press and the public. A spokesperson for the centre said that entry will be on a first come first served basis but that the space will be divided roughly equally between the press and the public; and passes will be issued separately for morning and afternoon sessions. This means that, at most, 6 members of the public will be able to attend and no-one will be able to attend a full day. It will be impossible, therefore, for any one person to obtain a complete picture of the proceedings. It will also mean that many newspaper and television/radio reporters will excluded.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Penfold92
If you think my post was helpful, please feel free to click my scales 
