Thread: Sarajane -v- Barclays @ Mercantile

Hi,

Well as Bankfodder has been kind enough to start a thread, here goes.

My case was kindly transferred to the Mercantile court at the local District Judges' own discretion this last week.

I wouldn't mind but it's only for £798, but with Bankfodder's help & Twinkle's support ( many thanks to you both ), I'll get thro' this.

Similar Threads:

• Vs Barclays in the Mercantile
• Liz v Barclays - Mercantile Court **WON**
• Lee v Barclays gone to Mercantile Coutt
• Sarajane v Barclays -Mercantile court allocation - then ***WON***

Tell us more!!!

Pete

Sorry for the delay Pete, early-ish night & out walking across Wye & North Downs today

Well, here's my thread so far

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...-barclays.html

As you can see, quite straightforward - no complications as Bankfodder says . I don't know where I'd be without his help .

Thanks.

As you say, no complications or pressure there then.

I am not impressed by this turn of events by the courts! Plays right into the banks hands IMO.

Pete

Originally Posted by feefofum

Hmm I'm not so sure it plays into the Banks hands, from what I've read the banks settle beforehand to stop any full disclosure etc.... However having filed my N1 against Barclays last week I'm worried I'll end up in the same boat too. Is it just cases against Barclays so far who seem to be taking this route?

I mean that it plays into the banks hands in the sense that other cases currently in the county court system will no doubt get stayed awaiting a verdict from the Mercantile Court (as a test case). The problem is that no verdict will ever be achieved because the banks will still eventually settle but it will become a constant drip-feed of cases going to the Mercantile court so there'll always be one "in the oven" upon which the lower courts will be waiting.

In a nutshell everyone will possibly have to wait much longer to get their refunds.

Pete

Hi Team.

By going down this route,it is the court system trying to get the 'Test Case' for the claims through,as all of these claims have clogged up the system.This move is not to the banks advantage,and i predict they will turn and run soon.You should get a payout out of court.If the bank goes to court,then Full Disclosure of the true costs to them will have to be presented.They won't want that to come out.Also the amount in question is a small claims issue,and you can't be expected to pay the other parties fees if you lose.Have a look at:

Sandy vs Gmac Rfc

Not sure how to link it on here yet,but it is interesting reading.

Hope this helps.

Ukaviator

Originally Posted by ukaviator

Hi Team.

By going down this route,it is the court system trying to get the 'Test Case' for the claims through,as all of these claims have clogged up the system.This move is not to the banks advantage,and i predict they will turn and run soon.You should get a payout out of court.If the bank goes to court,then Full Disclosure of the true costs to them will have to be presented.They won't want that to come out.Also the amount in question is a small claims issue,and you can't be expected to pay the other parties fees if you lose.Have a look at:

Sandy vs Gmac Rfc

Not sure how to link it on here yet,but it is interesting reading.

Hope this helps.

Ukaviator

I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise.

But my point is that thousand of other cases on the normal county court Small Claims Track will probably now be stayed awaiting a Mercantile Court verdict that will never happen. We all know that the longer a case takes the more claimants drop out of the loop so it is in that sense that this move plays into the banks hands.

Pete

Originally Posted by feefofum

Right, now I see your point.... if the claims are 'stayed' does this mean they're put to one side to be dealt with later? Can the courts legally do this and is they a time scale for claims to be 'stayed' before they have to b dealt with?

Personally I've filed my N1, I'm willing to wait for as long as it takes, it's costing Barclays daily interest after all!!

The court can "stay" a case for a number of reasons, one reason being that a case is already proceeding in a court of higher authority and a verdict in that case would set a precedent one way or the other. If a case in the mercantile Court got to a verdict then all the county courts would view that verdict as gospel truth, any cases then still going through the county court would almost automatically be granted the same way as the test case was.

There is no time limit - if the mercantile case took 5 years (OK, OK I know, unlikely in the extreme) then the county court cases would be stayed 5 years.

A few weeks back another case was referred to the Mercantile Court

Bank refunds put on ice by court | This is Money

and a lot of County Courts did stay all the other cases. The bank settled out of court (surprise, surprise) but it took ages (weeks) for that news to filter back down to the circuit judges - cases were still being stayed weeks afterwards.

Your case, as all the others will get sorted eventually but this puts an extra loop in the system.

Pete

Originally Posted by purp72

Hello - I have to agree with Pete on this. While it's not to the banks' advantage to go to hearing where there is full disclosure, I have no doubt that many proceedings will now be stayed following submission of AQ pending the hearing of a test case in the Mercantile Court. I think that it's highly unlikely that any test case will ever get to hearing - but in the meantime it will mean that all cases which have been stayed are effectively in "limbo". While cases are stayed, there is no reason for the banks to go out of their way to try to settle. If this is the case, then a new stage will be added to the process - applying to the court to overturn the stay.

This is the position that I (and a few others) are in with the Cardiff county court at the moment. As soon as the stay was ordered, I have no doubt that my file went right to the bottom of the pile at my bank's solicitors - until the test-case in Cardiff is heard/settled, I really have no bargaining strength. Stadium_arcadium has applied to overturn her stay (not sure whether just by letter or using correct form) but the court has indicated informally that she will need to wait until the outcome of the Cardiff test case. Even when this particular test case is settled, I suspect that the courts will merely pick another case (and another and so on) as a test case.

I guess we all need to remember that patience is a virtue....

Purp72

We need to keep an eye on happenings.

If a few of these "test cases" get taken to the brink and then settled out of court by the banks then we need to be letting the courts know this. The banks cannot be allowed to abuse the court system in such a way.

There must be some form of procedure for dealing with this, I'll do some research.

Is it possible to bring a private prosecution for Contempt of Court or something similar?

Pete

Have rang & spoke to Listings dept at Mercantile again & spoke to Dan Pope.

Under the Commercial Court Guide http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/docs/guide.pdf

under section M2.3, as I am a litigant in person, it is upto the defence to supply all paperwork that the court will require.

I am going to fax Mr Jeremiah to point this out & hopefully invoke panick on their part & then send a copy of letter & fax receipt to Court, as my proof.

This only is because we've got to the Mercantile.

Thanks file_wizard, this is what he meant by getting all the pleas in..

Never got to fax letter to Mr J. He has just rang me.

Awaiting confirmation email now

Awww, go on, SJ, on tenterhooks here!!!!

All bets are open, Ladies & Gentlemen, on the content of the e-mail... I pick "F&F settlement!"

Rightio

Bankfodder helped me draft me final letter to Mr J.

Before I formally accept you offer, it occurs to me that as this case has been allocated to the multi track that I am also entitled to recover my costs of preperation.
You have not mentioned this to me despite the fact that under Section M of the Commercial Court Guide, it is clear that as a professional lawyer you have a duty to consider and to inform me as to my interests in the case, even if this puts you at some disadvantage. This is becuase I am acting as a litigant in person, as you well know.
I believe that I am entitled to my reasonably costs of preperation of the case and that the official rate maybe £9.25 per hour.
Please will you let me know if this is the case. My conservative estimate of my time since I started to begin my claim against Barclays Bank PLC is that I have spent at least 25 hours in reading, preperation and writing and most recently, preparing for Mondays Mercantile hearing which you have abandoned.
If you can assure me that I have no such entitlement to costs, then I accept the offer that you proposed to me. On the other hand, if I do have such an entitlement then I require that you add the approved hourly rate for 25 hours to the settlement figure.
I would also warn you that I shall make this rate and your duty to advise litigants in person, to all the other claimants whose cases have also been transferred to the multi track.
Even if I am wrong, I would be gratefull if you would let me know which of the Civil Proceedure rules deals with this matter. I believe that it will contained in CPR48 and PD48.

Just waiting to hear back now.

Originally Posted by Bookworm

Awww, go on, SJ, on tenterhooks here!!!!

All bets are open, Ladies & Gentlemen, on the content of the e-mail... I pick "F&F settlement!"

this is what he offered

I refer to our telephone conversation today.
As you will have seen from our Defence, we consider that your claim lacks merit and that it will fail. In particular, we disagree with your legal analysis that the charges levied to your account with Barclays amount to penalty clauses and are unfair. We do, however, recognise that the sum at issue between us is relatively modest and as such, it is not cost effective for either party to take this matter to trial. Therefore, in order to avoid the inevitable time and cost associated with pursuing the claim to trial, we agreed to settle your claim upon payment of the charges applied to your account, together with statutory interest and costs totalling £819.00, subject to the terms set out in this letter.
The offer to pay £819.00 is in Full and final settlement of your claim and is strictly without any admission of liability on our part.
If you agree to the terms of this letter, please respond by return email, whereupon I will pass on the instruction for the payment to be made to your account. You will also need to notify theMedway and Mercantile Courts, in writing, that you have discontinued your claim against us. Please forward a copy of your letter to the Court when you return a signed copy of this letter to us.
Should you decide to reject this offer, then we reserve the right to disclose this letter to the court.
I look forward to hearing from you.

I would also warn you that I shall make this rate and your duty to advise litigants in person, to all the other claimants whose cases have also been transferred to the multi track.

There's words missing there, luv.
=> I shall make this information available about this rate and your duty ... etc... surely?