Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


newbody last won the day on April 3 2007

newbody had the most liked content!


146 Excellent

1 Follower

  1. ok after todays hearing my case has been on hold scince 17th july 2007 when i attended a case hearing at southend court and they were told to pay up in 28 days or we would be attending a full case unfortunatley the stay came into effect before the time span run out . so with todays decison rang the court to ask for my case to re reactivted and move forward to which i was informed all cases are still stayed and will be until the judge has recevied further directions as to what to do from more senior judges. wheni tried to push the point of would that mean the case could be dissmissed she wouldnt allow herself to be forced into making an assertion in either direction. now my questions are these 1) if the case is dismissed by the judge out of hand what course of action is it i need to take to get my case back instated or is it a case of starting again 2) was todays judgement actually on the right/jurisdiction of OFT being able to investigate the charges for fairness not wheather the charges are a fair costasper liquidated damages
  2. Well not posted for a long time fed up of all this now to be honest but still log in from time to time to see what happening i am one of those who was due to be paid in july 07 and then got stayed so to make sure i am upto date on all the different happenings 1) andrew smith ruled current charges not penalties but are subject to ucctr 2) banks appealed 3) andrew smith then went on to rule that historical terms are generally subject to ucctr and not penalties (Except for a couple of banks) 4)banks appeal on current terms conditons was heard beggining of feb in appeal courts and they lost and basically refused right to appeal to house of lords 5)Banks requested to house of lords for right to appeal their right for an Appeal in the house of lords 6) this was granted and they now have until 15th april 2009 to have submissions into the house of lords for why they have the right to appeal 7)meantime the OFT have to employ more than one person half a day a week :lol: to now actually try and summatize what a fair charge would be for the banks to charge in these matters (and to alieviate the pressure on this poor person are reducing it down to just 3 of the banks infarstructure Question on point 3 as all my charges will come under historical terms due to the miracuriously coincidental JULY 07 rewrite of TOC's has this point been appealed by the banks if so what is the state of play and what are the next dates to watch out for in this part of the saga not trying to be smart mouthed or anything else In 06 when i started my claims i was very read up on here and other places for what was going on now i struggle to just keep abreast of what our next delay date is to be and exactly what the state of play is Thank you in advance for any responses to my post
  3. just read through some of judgement from justice smith and the bit i found funny was this amazing how the terms and conditions being used in the test case happened to be the ones released as cases went to stays and the OFT TEST CASE WAS ANNOUNCED as abbeys is near enough a complete re-write of what i was up until then
  4. was just checking out abbeys terms and conditions but as they havent changed them think i going to have to let the Stay go Was looking at maybe asking for it to be lifted if abbey had changed terms and conditions as they have shut my account so the oft case on new charging regime wouldnt be applicable to me as my account wasnt subject to new terms and conditions but they not changed them so cant do that one
  5. Probably become more active in 11 days when the 28 days Abbey were given are up
  6. like most from 17th would have expected to hear something but as havent awaiting the 28 days to run out and hope dudley sends it to trial and not a stay also dunno if anyone else got it but looks like abbey are changing terms and conditions got some in post this morning not read properly but looks like a different charging tarrif
  7. i'll bow you to judgement then GARYH it is the way i read it from the documentation i have read that it wasnt actually excluded but was viable if the parties in question would use compund interest in their daily bussiness then as such it is equitable for such to be used in our claims
  8. but alongside I think would go along way in showing that we should be awarded CI and not Simple interest
  9. the trouble is the claims settled prior were not by the courts decree but by way of goodwill i believe in which case no precedent is set as has now happened against CI under M&R but you can still argue for COMPOUNDED INTEREST in the stat 8% as Sec 69 does not rule it out as a possibility that small claims can award compound over simple interest even at 8% it can make a small difference
  10. Sorry couldnt help on this but there was some who didnt show but we wernt privy to why or if they had informed the courts prior to the event all i can say is that by sending the courts a letter stating that this is inconvieniant due to a holiday i am sure will suffice which is what you are doing so all the best with your claim
  11. Abbeys brief saying not having schedule charges is just another delay tatic their way of getting out of why it not settled yet as to what to take/do 1 Take a copy of statements and a schedule of charges(speadsheet) correct as of court date so when they say we not recieved them you can physically hand them over in the prescence of the judge 2 Make sure you understand the basic principle of why you are entitled to the charges back UTCCR-SOGA if not confident to quote/argue it write it on a sheet of paper and take it with you (from my experience yesterday this bit wasnt needed as it was taken for granted) 3 nothing else unless you have tried claiming for anything other than charges then take along things to help you argue your point on this 4 for your own peace of mind take along a folder with all correspondce that you have had with abbey in regards this but you wont need it Believe it is not as scary as you think Judge Dudley is a nice Gentleman (even if he didnt let me have my own way on CI but didnt expect to get that after recent events) and it is a very relaxed atmosphere
  12. aint it just but at least had ago would have been more peeved if i hadnt had tried and it turnt out to be successful still such is life and at least still looks like getting charges back which is what i was primairly after the rest was a bonus so means only 2 week in folrida instaed of a year lol And well done Voyager
  13. Mine was intact and it was at the allocation/case management hearing where judge dudley ruled out the CI element under M&R F&B so unfortunatley it wont get to a full hearing on that part
  14. M&R is dead read new way's for CI is being discussed here CI: mutuality is dead - long live unjust enrichment and here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/97691-contractual-interest-precedent-lost-new-post.html
  15. 28 days to pay or goes to trial judge reckons should be settled by then
  • Create New...