The situation in Wales is a good example of this. There was a bulk hearing due in cardiff mid August, with 600 cases. All of these were stayed following the announcement of the test case. Now, all cases in Wales are also being sent there (without any explanation why), so there must now be tens of thousands of cases all in sacks in Cardiff. People who appeal stays are told that they will be looked at 'next week', which is the same story the court has ben saying since early August. Its a total shambles and an absolute disgrace when the court has been paid to provide a simple service that they are there to provide. Its also becoming clear from various courts that the volume of cases is being processed by staff not by the judges who are supposed to do this. So far there is no proof of this but if anyone gets any please be sure to post it as it is a clear breach of the regulations.

The test case is scheduled for Jan and Feb 2008. After that it usually takes several months before the final judgement is delivered. Then the fun really starts with appeals, and potentially these could drag on for years. All of the delays are stated to be till the conclusion of the test case, so all stayed cases will be held until all of this is completed, if it goes the way that the banks and the courts want it to.

The credit reference agencies are just posting what the banks tell them. If the court orders the default to be removed then Sainsbury's will have to notify the CRAs to change their records. You haven't given any detail about the default. To argue for the default to be removed you should be able to demonstrate that the total of penalty charges placed on the account before the date of the default exceeds the amount that the account was defaulted for. If it does not, then you do not have a sound argument for its removal as it was not wholly because of the penalties. Can you demonstrate this?

You still haven't explained what the hearing is for. Is this a directions hearing, or to consider a stay?

What have you been asked to turn up for?

Another stay was lifted in Torquay last week as well, on the grounds of hardship and the bank's failure to follow directions.

Gerty I can't comment definitively on this but you are bound to get a letter that confirms the outcome of the hearing. Often these are very superficial. I would wait a few days until you receive this. When you get this perhaps you could post the key wording here? If there is this ambiguity, I see no reason why you cannot request this clarification from the court afterwards. This is an extremely important point, and as you have effectively 'got one over' on the bank, it wouldn't surprise me if our friends had you marked for additional abuse in future. As well as protecting yourself here, this is important because other claimants who get this injunction would then be prepared to get the agreement clarified while they are still with the judge. I hope this helps. V3

Wilsikon Your details of how the bank has failed to comply with court requirements are very important here, but sadly in many cases the courts don't seem to take this seriously when considering stays. One of the problems with applying to prevent or lift stays is that people are using templates and complex legal arguments that are generally not working. In the few cases where the stay is blocked or lifted, this seems to be because the Claimant has severe hardship grounds and articulates these well. TBH, unless you can evidence severe hardship I see little evidence that any court is supporting Claimants at present. If you want some further guidance on the possible arguments and how to frame them please let me know.

Gerty Can you clarify the wording of the injunction please? If the judge has only placed a freeze on them while the test case is dragging on, they might be able to spring any charges on you afterwards. Ideally you should get wording that states that they cannot be applied for the duration of the test case, either during or subsequently. Unless this is the case, the bank could attack you on this in the future. Unless it is absolutely crystal clear in the wording of the injunction, perhaps the 4 of you should clarify this with the court? V.

car I know all about this one. Unfortunately I cannot post a link here as CAG will not permit reference to the site in question. However, the information is potentially helpful to members and should be shared. If you PM me I can provide details.

Look at this thread, post 365, which is updatd regularly http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cases-stayed-pending-oft/109936-find-out-here-if-19.html It looks like Horsham are staying everything while HH is still unclear. In practice, it is likely that your claim will be stayed, so prepare an individual appeal against this.

Sarah When the OFT ruled on credit charges last year it never said 12 pounds was a fair sum. It set this as a threshold, above which they would take action against the banks. In practice - typically - this means little as Egg charge 16 and nothing is done about it. It is still a mystery that 12 as the chosen figure, as this is still vastly above any real cost to the bank. If a cc account goes over the limit the computer just adds more money onto your debt - the cost is pence if that. When the banks state that the OFT set 12 as a fair amount they are lying. You should always hold out for the entire charge, less any genuine cost that they declare - which they will not do.

hedgey Please can you make the details available when you can for this one. My understanding is that all Welsh courts are operating a blanket stay regardless, so this is very encouraging. Also good for me because I actually live in the Welshpool catchment area, though normally file in South Wales where I work. If there is some hope at Welshpool then I can file future claims there instead V

hi goodgirl Another site was successful last week in getting a stay actually lifted. This was done by arguing the hardship grounds and special issues around the claim. As far as I am aware this is only the second time (since the announcement) that a stay has actually been lifted. There seems to be little chance of success unless the grounds are extremely strong, and argued in the right way. V

Karhuss Mercers are part of Barclays, so the debt has only moved offices, not been sold on to a debt collector. They are not too difficult to deal with - more hot air than enforcement action;), but still complain that it should not have been transferred.