Thread: Stays still being ordered by the Courts

Hi all,

Thought I would post here as there seem to be an increasing amount of us with a variety of Banks who are receiving notices from the courts to advise that a stay has been ordered by the judge for several reasons.

The first reason being to await the decision of the Elliot v Lloyds TSB case. As I am sure many of you are aware, this case was settled over three weeks ago out of court prior to going to a hearing. It had been transferred from the county court to the Mercantile Court and was potentially going to be our first 'test case', hence the decision of some judges to await the outcome.

The second reason has been to allow both parties to enter into further discussion to try and reach a settlement without having to go to a hearing. A variety of timescales have been given ranging from 4 weeks or so to 6-8 weeks to negotiate.

I think it would be useful for us to collate our experiences and the best way to handle the situation here if that is okay as there are lots of individual threads in the different bank forums and so it is getting a little tricky to follow.

Now Bankfodder has put together a letter that can be sent to the judge to request that the stay be removed which is here. It *I think* is geared towards if there is a future 'test case' that our cases are being stayed because of, but I would assume it could be modified to take into consideration the current situation regarding the settled Elliot case.

Anyway, this is what I have done so far. I don't know if it was the right thing to do, so anyone reading this don't take it as gospel please!!

I got a notice from the Courts on Friday:-

District Judge Lawton orders that this claim be stayed until 14th September to enable the parties to attempt settlement.

It is ordered that this matter be stayed pending the decision in Elliot v Lloyds TSB.

I telephoned the court and advised them that the Elliot case had been settled out of court and so could the stay be lifted. I also said that I had already tried on numerous occasions to reach a settlement with no success. I was told to put this in writing to the Courts and they would make a decision in due course. I wrote the letter and hand delivered it yesterday. A copy is here in my thread. I was told that I should hear something within 5 to 10 days. I then telephoned Barclays solicitor and left a message advising him of the stay and could be contact me to discuss a settlement. So far no reply. If I do not hear anything from Keith by the weekend I will send a letter to advise them of the stay and to try and enter into further dialogue to attempt settlement.

I also thought it might be useful if we could have a list of those who have had stays ordered and the reasons for this. Also which courts is it that are still ordering them. From what I have seen on here it just seems to be the courts up north that are doing it. Bradford, Sheffield, Doncaster. If you want to add your details to the list either pm me the details or add them to this thread. I can then edit the post to include them. I have put those that I know about from this board on the list as well, though if you don't want to have yours included, let me know and I will take it off.

Similar Threads:

• courts ordered the claim is stayed!!!!????

Alleycat v Barclays. Pending Elliot case & to attempt settlement. Bradford CC.

Amulrooney v Barclays. Pending Elliot case. Sheffield CC.

John v Royal Bank of Scotland. Pending Elliot case. Sheffield CC(?).

Rachel2609 v Yorkshire Bank. To attempt settlement. Doncaster CC.

Hi Jasper

When did you get your notice through from the Courts? Was it after the Elliot case was settled? Also, what are you planning to do/have done?

Cheers,

Alley

Hi Jasper, thanks for replying! Unfortunately for you, I think the judge would not be happy if you reached an agreeable settlement and it was rejected in favour of court! You never know though, yours could be one of the first to get there!

Anyway, I had a letter back from the courts today regarding my stay. It basically reads:-

"With reference to your letter dated 24th July, which was referred to the District Judge and the following comments were made:

We now know that Elliot v Lloyds TSB has settled. The Designated Civil Judge for Bradford His Honour Judge Hawksworth QC is collating information as to other cases on this circuit which can be tied together and establish some uniformity of decision."

Sooo, anyone got any thoughts? No mention of staying to allow settlement, though by saying that he is looking into other similar cases he could be looking at how the banks have been manipulating and abusing the courts system.

[quote=lee6370]

Originally Posted by jasper

I'm now awaiting a settlement offer. It's almost a shame to get one. I'd really like it to go to court. What if i refused settlement and insisted it went to court, would the judge penalise me for not accepting a 100% settlement?

QUOTE]


Yes he would, if you have been offered settlement you should take it, otherwise you are wasting the courts time, he is not interested in the fact you want the bank to go to court and prove their charges are unlawful. Whatever you do, do not play with the courts.

Sorry for the temp hi-jack of this thread but I think it is important that people realise that if they are offered an unconditional settlement that they must accept it..

Anyone fancy putting money on the fiasco turning up in the next series of Judge John Deed?

On a more serious note, can we get a clarification on the settlement issue? I had been considering the possibility of turning down future offers to pay the whole thing without admission of liability (rather like a burglar knocking on your door saying you can have your TV back if you don't press charges), particularly since (in theory) I could let the case get to court, and get all my money and a judgement from the court saying they owe me the money. I would much rather get my £600 with an admission or judgement than £1200 without, especially after the way HSBC behaved with my last settlement. If they're going to do that again, all they're doing is effectively buying my obedience (something that tends not to be for sale).

hello there

thanks to alleycat for starting up this thread, i've found it very useful.

this is my first post on the site - i'm taking a claim against Barclays for £1957.10. yesterday i received a General Form of Judgement or Order which said the following:

Before DISTRICT JUDGE BEATTIE sitting at Bow county court, 96 Romford Road, Stratford, London, E15 4EG.

Upon the 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, varied or stayed within 7 days of receiving it

IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. This claim is stayed pending the decision of the London Mercatile Court in ELLIS-V-LLOYDS TSB.
2. If no request to restore is received by 23.07.07, the claim is struck out.

Dated 24 July 2006


has anyone else recieved a stay citing ellis -v- Lloyds tsb, or does anyone else know of this case?

also, i'm not enitirely sure i understand what point 2 means - can anyone elaborate this for me?

i phoned up the court and was told i had to send them the N244 form (see link below) with £35 if i wanted to remove this stay.

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/H...t_forms_id=484

i'm in the process of filling this out now and will send by recorded delivery tomorrow.

will keep you updated how it goes.

A suitably modified version of by grounds for removal should be sent to evry judge who orders a stay.
The grounds contains important information which will make them aware of the significance of what is happeing.

When you attempt to settle with the bank, always do it in writing. You must have good evidence that you have attempted to follow the court's direction.

reaching a settlement does not mean acceeting a reduced payment.

You can still attempt a settlement and insist on your entire payment.

Do not be confused into thinking that the courts are requiring you to give up your right to your money.
They are not.

This is not what it is about.

Your attempt at settlement should be this:

I am happy to pay what ever are the true costs of my contractual trangressions. Let me know what those true costs are and I shall reduce my claim accordingly.

Reaching a settlememt does no mean that the court is requiring you to haggle.

It merely means that the court is asking both sides to try an achieve justice between themselves.
Justice here means whatever decision the court itself would arrive at after hearing the parties.

PM me if you want help on this.

Just a quick q, will respond properly later (dd wants something, not sure what!), does it definately say Ellis v Lloyds and not Elliot??