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

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

just read through some of judgement from justice smith and the bit i found funny was this

130. Abbey National plc was converted to a public company in 1989 and acquired in 2004 by Banco Santander, SA, Spain’s largest financial services group. It offers a range of different accounts to customers, and now has two main types of personal current account for new customers, the Abbey Current Account and the Basic Account. This judgment, as I explained at paragraph 37 above, is concerned only with the former, the account used by about 80% of Abbey’s personal current account customers. Accounts of this kind are opened by customers over the telephone, online or – most commonly – by completing an application form at a branch. However the account is opened, it is Abbey’s practice to provide the customer with three documents: a booklet called "Abbey Bank Account Terms and Conditions", a leaflet called "The Abbey Personal Current Account Key Features and Price List", and a User Guide. The current contractual documentation was introduced by Abbey last year, being sent to customers in late July and early August 2007 and coming into effect on 10 September 2007. (There have since been some immaterial revisions by way of up-dating, but I need not be concerned about them.)

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

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

Probably become more active in 11 days when the 28 days Abbey were given are up

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

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

Here you go, section 35A of the Supreme Court Act 1981;

 

 

The rate and period is discretionary, but it only provides for simple. Same as the County Courts Act.

but alongside

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] UKHL 12 (22 May 1996)

[1996] UKHL 12, [1996] 5 Bank LR 341, [1996] 2 All ER 961, [1996] 2 WLR 802

the supreme court act 1981 does not specifically exclude the award of compound interest in respect of common law claims Rather it recognizes that the court can award simple interest for such claims The equitable jurisdiction to award compound interest is still available in appropriate cases.

In two very strong disseting judgements Lords Goff and Woolf rejected the arguments of the majority They asserted that scince the policy of the law of restitution was to remove benifits from the defendant compound interest should available in respect of all restitutionary claims regardless of wheather they arise at law or in equity This argument can be illustrated by the following example

In the straightforward case where the claimant pays money to the defendant by mistake and the defendant is liable to repay that money, the liability arises from the moment the money is recieved by the defendant who has the use of it and so should pay the claimant for the value of that benifit This was accepted by all the judges in the case The difficulty relates to the valuation of this benifit. If the defendant was to borrow an equivilent amount of money from a financial instituiton he or she would be liable to pay compound interest to that institution It follows that the defendant has saved that amount of money and so this is the value of benifit which the defendant should restore to the claimant, in addition to the value of the money which the defendant recieved in the first place .

If it could be shown that had the defendant borrowed the equivilent amount of money the institution would only have paid simple interest it would be appropriate for the interest awarded to the claimant to be simple rather than compounded. Usually however the interest in commercial transactions will be compounded interest.

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

the supreme courts act 1981 does not specifically exclude the award of compound interest at common law claims Rather it recognises that the court can award simple interest and the courts have the right to award compound interest to appropriate claims It would be down to the defendant to prove if they had borrowed the same sum of money from another financial institution they would have only paid simple interest then it is only fair that the defendant pays simple interest not compound. However the interest awarded in commercial transactions would normally be compounded Sempra Metals Ltd Vs Irc2005 ewca civ 389, 2005 3 wlr 521 539 para 44 (Chadwick L.J)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paddy O'Moron

Hello again,

 

Beginning to sound like a broken record, BUT .....

 

.... surely there will be at least one Claimant who does not show up in court today? If you hear of anybody not turning up, could you let me know what the Court says? I can't make my hearing next week, and I want to let the court know in advance that I won't be there, so I need some idea as to the correct thing to say in a letter.

 

How about: "Dear Judge, sorry, but can't get to see you on the 27th. Off tanning my ass in Spain. Will get in touch when I return, so we can pick this case up from there. Regards, Paddy". Or words to that effect.

 

Well, thanks to the whelming amount of replies received, I have now drafted a letter to the Court myself, informing them that I shall not be able to attend. I intend to deliver this in person, along with enclosures tomorrow, as I work in Basildon.

 

It seems that of the many hundreds of claimants whose cases are being heard in Southend in the recent past, I shall be the only person who cannot make the hearing. Therefore there is no point in reproducing my Letter to the Court here. However, if you are in the same position as me - ie you booked a holiday weeks ago, in the belief that it would be on Abbey (ie you would have got your refund by now) - let me know, and I'll send you a copy of the letter. It was drafted with the help of a friend who is in the legal profession.

 

P O'M

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

My meeting is on 25th July - can someone please give me a list of exactly what I need to take and where to find it, I keep going round and round in circles and I would like to turn up fully prepared but just keep getting confused with what is relevant to me?

 

I didn't send any of my letters enclosing schedles by recorded delivery just normal post, but assume Abbey have received them as they have prepared defence, corresponded with me re them and have never claimed not to have received them despite me referring to them in the letters. I haven't sent a copy of the letters to the court at all, thought Abbey would have enclosed a copy - bit paniced now - should I do this urgently? HELP

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

LOL @ Newbody

 

i know lifes a bitch isnt it,

 

Glenn

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

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

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

28 days to pay or goes to trial judge reckons should be settled by then

wasnt a surprise to me either but as case had been geared to it had to continue through with it

Can definetley claim CI at unauthorised rate under M&R F&B is definetley dead The CI element of my claim was thrown out today on that argument as the Judge put it the term is not in the contract so you cannot do it to them but they can to you as it is in the contract

hi one and all finally home at last gotta love the train system

heres how allocation/case management went

in to see judge

judge abbeys position on Newbodys case

slightly different we would like the CI 28.7% element thrown out now as Newbody has applied for it under Mutuality and Recipitory/ Fairness and Balance etc

Judge asked my opinion tried to use utccr as argument no Go

Judge explained as it is not in contract you have not a leg to stand on under this Argument

Point to abbey

Asked abbey in regards Settlement You guessed no schedule charges

Showed judge 4 copies that have been passed onto abbey from myself to abbey

and he also pointed out he also has 2 copies of it himself

Point me

On compound interest instead of Simple interest on sec 69 8% argue it out at trial if it comes to that

Draw

final result

Abbey told to settle in 28 days or we off to trial

My thoughts the Judge is a nice chap on our side I believe but think he is fed up hearing the same thing time and time again and just wants to see a test case bought to end it all

So here's to the 28 days and hopefully settlement for us all if not see some of you again in 28 days time

YEah i had read that post before going but unfortunatley had geared my N1 and AQ back in march april for the M&R F&B arguments i too had Sec 69 as my alternative and i can not say for definite but i think this helped the judge in dismissing my claim for CI

As i think from what was said he saw it as chancing my arm for the 28.7% but knowing that i am only really entitled to 8%

so was a bit l8 in the day for me on this one but at least still have the hope of maybe getting the sec 69 compounded

hi one and all finally home at last gotta love the train system

well as most said was a pretty uneventful day

ok my case

in to see judge

judge abbeys position on Newbodys case

slightly different we would like the CI 28.7% element thrown out now as Newbody has applied for it under Mutuality and Recipitory/ Fairness and Balance etc

Judge asked my opinion tried to use utccr as argument no Go

Judge explained as it is not in contract you have not a leg to stand on under this Argument

Point to abbey

Asked abbey in regards Settlement You guessed no schedule charges

Showed judge 4 copies that have been passed onto abbey from myself to abbey

and he also pointed out he also has 2 copies of it himself

Point me

On compound interest instead of Simple interest on sec 69 8% argue it out at trial if it comes to that

Draw

final result

Abbey told to settle in 28 days or we off to trial

My thoughts the Judge is a nice chap on our side I believe but think he is fed up hearing the same thing time and time again and just wants to see a test case bought ot end it all

So here's to the 28 days and hopefully settlement for us all if not see some of you again in 28 days time

hello again mrs newbody here newbody just phoned any1 who hasnt left yet bring copy of statements and list of charges ie spreadsheet as abbey solicitor claiming not recieved paperwork and if u want proof u sent it

this is newbs missus he phoned he now there hes the idiot in shirt trousers and denim jacket

and good luck every1 from me

Thank you and off to catch a train to southend i go

well paper work in order for the morning i hope here we go see you all the morrow

link to sale of goods act

Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982