I have an email from Plymouth county court which is based on a post her that they are staying cases for 12 months. That has been confirmed by them. I have heard that there are bulk cases being heard in Leeds in February 2010 I believe.
I have been sent a loverly letter from Lloyds TSB saying that they are now going to pursue me due to the bank charges I have not paid. This is despite the fact they already started persuing me ages ago..! They started before the case was heard and as per say 'concluded'. But as there is still grounds for appeal then surely it will drag on and on and on...so no need to pay until the bitter end...luckily for me I couldn't give a damn about credit and the likes of scores...
The main thing I want to say is that they are arguing about the wrong thing with me. I am sure there are shed loads of ppl in the same situ as I.
I asked for an overdraft with Lloyds TSB several times...they refused point blank every time. Then they decided to revoke their complimentary £10 overdraft facility kindly given to all csts just in case...this means they made my account only able to go to ZERO if I tried to make payments on my card, or what is the point of having a card if you can just go and take as much money as you like? Trouble is that if you top up your phone with any of the mobile providers they WILL allow you to top up £10 even if you don't have the money..? They won't let you put on £20 or any more so why do they let you put on £10? As I said I had been refused an overdraft SEVERAL times so how can they justify LETTING me go overdrawn when I used an electronic payment system (which they introduced to ensure security and balances not exceeding their limit)!?
If I had a direct debit(DD) then fair enough as it would have been my resposibility, but as I tried to make a one off payment I only see this as their premeditated negligence. If I had gone to the cash point and tried to get out a £10 note to go the the shop with then it would have been a refused request as I didn't have the money...but as it was on the phone and a debit payment they are claiming that they don't check payments under a certain amount for 72 hours...Now who is at fault here? Me for being a modern citizen adn using my electronic money system(card) to control my finances, or the bank for creating a system which in turn charges me for its own ability to let me go overdrawn....
Yes I agree it is their fault...but what do you do when you have tried every single communication method possible and even walked into the bank in person..?
I went into the bank in Fulham when this first happened and the manager of Lloyds TSB gave me a full refund and apologised. When it happened again they back tracked and claimed that the first refund was a good will gesture...how come this was not explained the first time? And how come it seems to ba different if you walk into a branch in London rather than the West Country..?
I would like to take them to court for this as it is a tottally different issue to the 'fairness'. Has anyone any ideas or friends who would like to make a joint case for this..?
email me @ email@example.com m
My stayed claim with HSBC, I have now heard from DG solicitors basically we won you lost ha ha ha....in the SC and that they have asked the Court to now dispense with the claim, well we will see as I am sure a solution will be found.
I have heard from the Court, following the end of the test case, regarding a claim I have against Abbey for bank charges. The order from the Court, dated 23rd January 2010, is as follows -
" Upon it appearing that this claim relates to bank charges, and it is or may be within the categories considered by the Supreme Court . . . . . .
It is ordered that
1. The claim be further stayed generally;
2. Either party may apply to remove the stay on application to the Court. Such an application may be made by way of a letter (accompanied by the appropriate court fee) and copied to the opposing party;
3. The application must state:
a. By reference to the decision of the Supreme Court the grounds upon which the application to remove the stay are based, and
b. Whether, and if so, what attempts have been made to settle the claim;
4. If no such application to remove the stay is made by 10 February 2010, the claim shall be struck out without further order.
This seems to me to be more or less the end of the road for this, and similar, claims!!!!!
Has anyone else recieved similar from the Court dealing with their claim? I'd be VERY grateful if anyone has any advice on what to do now.
There is no sign of any ammended POC's there yet though.
As regards my particular claim, I'm thinking of going down the route of applying to the Court to have the stay lifted, and asking for permission to ammend my Particulars of Claim.
However, I have to admit that I have a few concerns about this course of action, especially in light of the fact that the Govern Law Centre et al seem to be having significant problems in compiling a revised 'particulars of claim' - they have been promised within 2 weeks for the best part of 6 weeks now and still haven't appeared!
I'm concerned that if they don't appear within a very short time then the claim will be struck out, given that Ipswich county court have (unilaterally!) only given me till 10th Feb to apply to lift the stay. I'd feel far happier proceeding in this way if the new POC's were actually available. Does anyone happen to know if it is permissable to ask the Court to continue the stay beyond 10th Feb, pending the gathering and compilation of new evidence with specific reference to the UTCCR's and Consumer Credit Act 1974 which was not covered by 'The Test Case'?
I am also concerned that if only a few people proceed in this way, especially if the new POC's don't appear, there is a very real chance of having to face Abbey / Santander's top notch leagal seagulls in Court, which I don't actually relish doing, and if we loose, being ordered to pay the bank's huge legal costs. Does anyone have any views on that?
I've received a letter from Cardiff CC asking if I wish to continue with my claim against HSBC. I phoned court and they explained that HSBC have asked that the case be dismissed and that's why the court has written to me. I haven't heard anything about my Barclays claim yet, which means they haven't asked to have the case dismissed yet..............
Has anyone heard from a bank where the case is a debtor defending the bank's claim and claiming back charges as part of defence?
A bit old I know for a response but an old case of mine has raised its head again. Basically, my bank sued me for my overdraft after we had a disagreement in 2005. We corresponded for over a year but I could get anywhere with them. The correspondence went dead for a further year during which time the bank unknown to me bounced my direct debits twice a month for 4 months, charging £30 each time. At the start of 2007, they started a legal action against me to recover the overdraft which had grown due to the charges (I had moved banks in 2006).
Not only did I file a defence but I also countereclaimed for the charges. We went through the Court hoops (fast track) but 3 days after being served with the court's order to disclose documents etc, and eight months after the start of the OFT v The Banks case in 2007, the bank made a 'without notice application for a stay until the end of the OFT case.
Needless to say the court rolled over and granted the stay. I tried to get it lifted but all the Deputy District Judge would say when refusing my application was that 'it had come down from on high' that these cases were to be stayed. I just left the court in disgust.
Well, that was nearly four years ago and nearly two years since the Supreme Court gave its final judgement. To be fair, I had almost forgotten about the case but the bank have now written to me saying they will lift the stay on the grounds that following the Supreme Court's decison, I have no defence (wronlgi I might add).
Even if the bank win,I intend to continue my defence all the way using S140 of the Consumer Credit Act (Unfair relationships). I may end up in the Court of Appeal. Do you or any other Caggers know of any other cases where a defence/counterclaim has continued post the OFT decision?