Jump to content

Varangian3

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Varangian3

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. You still haven't explained what the hearing is for. Is this a directions hearing, or to consider a stay?
  5. Another stay was lifted in Torquay last week as well, on the grounds of hardship and the bank's failure to follow directions.
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. nat This is very interesting. Please can you supply any more details on this one?
  16. Hole in one Buzz Quite apart from being a monumental injustice, its a complete shambles across the nation. Staff at the courts are not being given any credible guidance and are being put in the front line of massive (and inevitable) consumer complaint. Whilst I have nothing but disgust for the way that the courts are supporting the banks profiteering and profiting themselves at our expense, I feel sorry for the shabby way that their staff are being used in this pathetic and incompetent way.
  17. TB Can you share any more info on the reasons for this please? This sounds very interesting and most unusual.
  18. Lacey It seems that lifting stays is very difficult because the courts are determined to support the banks now every inch of the way. There is a formal CAG guide to this, but I posted the info below on a thread recently in answer to a similar question. I hope this helps. I've been studying this intently for weeks, and basically the shotgun approach of appealing all stays does not work. Common sense arguments about injustice and human rights have been brushed away with this conspiracy of the test case - of which the courts are a part now. The only chance IMO is to focus a succinct application around your personal case and circumstances. 1 Are there special circs about your case? Close to judgement, bank failed to send papers, used delaying tactics etc. Stuff that argues why your case should really be over now anyway. Dish the dirt on the bank. 2 Your hardship. This is the subject of much debate, because like most stuff around the test case nothing is clear, so the courts stay everything (even credit cards), the banks win and we lose. You need to stress particularly if you receive benefits and whether the bank has been taking these. What debts do you have - especially priority ones like arrears of mortgage, utilities, income tax, council tax etc. 3 Threat of further problems. If you don't get your money back will there be mega grief, possibly leading to bailiffs, repossession, court claim against you, defaults etc. These are very strong grounds if you can show them. 4 Also stress the hardship of having forked out for claims and now finding that this money will not be returned for at least a year. This is small point, but very symbolic of the injustice, particularly where you paid it before the test case was announced and paid it in good faith believing that the court would deliver the service it was paid for. I hope these points help. I would appreciate any feedback from members on these observations, or suggestions for amendment. Varangian
  19. Daily over the limit fees are all reclaimable as they are pure penalties. the bank is not providing any service in this case, just adding £4.50 to your overlimit every day by an automated system. The title and nature of charges does vary across banks and you have not said which bank this is (this is the Welcome Forum anyway). To get the best advice start a thread in the relevant bank forum - there it will be read by all the people who have experience of dealing with that bank.
  20. Advice Quality Unit, Charges Section Third Floor Brunswick Point Wade Lane LEEDS LS2 8NQ Contact details are given in the contact details thread, which is a sticky at the top of the Yorkshire Bank forum. Listed there as Clydesdale Bank as the parent company.
  21. Ricky Don't ever do this. If they go for a CCJ that will be to pave the way so that they can get a Charging Order placed on your property, meaning that if you sell your house they can get full payment from the proceeds, regardless of how little they paid for the debt. To get these things through the court they will try to claim that you have been uncooperative, and in my case the courts accepted this without a shred of real evidence. This is why you must always deal in writing and never on the phone. Always pay something each month, even if this is a token £10. Keep records of everything and make sure that you have clear documentary proof that you have corresponded and that you have maintained regular payments. This will be powerful evidence if they ever take you through the courts. Hope this helps V.
  22. The charging order is registered with the Land Registry - it does not appear on CRA files, where you will find only details of the CCJ and also a default that may have preceded it and will appear as if it is a separate issue. You can add explanatory info to CRA entries and you should always do this where you are dealing with the likes if DCAs and their dishonest and unfair parctices. Access to the charging order would come through a Land Registry search. The whole idea is that you cannot sell the house without this debt being cleared in the process. V.
  23. Oscar I've been studying this intently for weeks, and basically the shotgun approach of appealing all stays does not work. Common sense arguments about injustice and human rights have been brushed away with this conspiracy of the test case - of which the courts are a part now. The only chance IMO is to focus a succinct application around your personal case and circumstances. 1 Are there special circs about your case? Close to judgement, bank failed to send papers, used delaying tactics etc. Stuff that argues why your case should really be over now anyway. 2 Your hardship. This is the subject of much debate, because like most stuff around the test case nothing is clear, so the courts stay everything (even credit cards), the banks win and we lose. You need to stress particularly if you receive benefits and whether the bank has been taking these. What debts do you have - especially priority ones like arrears of mortgage, utilities, income tax, council tax etc. 3 Threat of further problems. If you don't get your money back will here be mega grief, possibly leading to bailiffs, repossession, court claim against you, defaults etc. These are very strong grounds if you can show them. 4 Also stress the hardship of having forked out for claims and now finding that this money will not be returned for at least a year. This is small point, but very symbolic of the injustice, particularly where you paid it before the test case was announced and paid it in good faith believing that the court would deliver the service it was paid for. I hope these points help. I would appreciate any feedback from members on these observations, or suggestions for amendment. Varangian
  24. I was at Newport (Gwent) County Court today to file an AQ. There is now a blanket stay in place, and the staff didn't like being told that the Master of the Rolls had not given such authority to District Judges. Noone in the office has a clue about credit cards or other claims that are outside the remit of the test case. They took my £100 of course!
×
×
  • Create New...