Jump to content

jimclark

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. Can't contact audreygreeneyes at the moment. Can anyone advise why I should request a hearing on an N244 to remove a stay?
  2. Well folks, it does seem that the rejoicing was a bit premature! Phoned the court today and they said that DG's request for a stay had been upheld (until the outcome of the OFT case). Very disappointed - particularly bearing in mind Audregreeneyes hard work. Can't quite believe that even though they showed complete contempt for the court and failed to get their application for a stay in on time, they end up with a result. Guess I'll have to apply for a lifting of the stay.
  3. Yes, thanks, I will Audreygreeneyes!
  4. Hi Audreygreeneyes, Thanks for all your efforts on the personal claim. Didn't manage to get your final points in the letter to the court - but the bulk of it was included - fingers crossed!
  5. Hi Celicaman - HSBC playing hardball on the business account claim. Refuse to up their offer above the 40% previously offered. How is your business claim going? It looks as if I will have to put in a court claim on this one if I want the full amount. Are there any very recent success stories with HSBC on business claims?
  6. Oh, thanks. Audreygreeneyes just seen your response!
  7. Just noticed this in the pile of docs from DG. It says "Draft Order". Don't know whether this was issued by the Court or just drafted by DG in the hope that the Court would automatically date and stamp it. Have received nothing from the Court on this attempt to stay the order (and could they have done this by now since it was dated 24th?). Note date area is not filled out! IN THE COLCHESTER COUNTY COURT Claim No. BETWEEN:- XXXXXXX Claimant -and- HSBC BANK PLC Defendant DRAFT ORDER UPON HEARING the Claimant and hearing Counsel for the Defendant IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1.The order dated 25 July 2007 striking out the Defence and entering judgment for the Claimant be set aside. 2.The present proceedings be stayed pending the final determination (including, for the avoidance of doubt, any appeals) of the Commercial Court proceedings between the OFT and the Defendant (and seven others) comprised in Claim No. 2007 Folio 1186. 3.Both parties shall have liberty to apply. Dated this day of 2007
  8. Of course in the application to stay the Order, they do also mention the OFT thing (but should this be relevant, bearing in mind the strike out order had already been issued by the court?). They also say that "due to an administrative error, the deadline for compliance with the Directions Order was overlooked by the Defendant." The fact that they totally ignored all communications from me (and from the Court) is, of course, not mentioned! So, are they saying because of the large number of claimants out to attack HSBC, they find it impossible to keep up with the flood of claims and that is why they are late? Also, "the impact of this Directions Order is extremely onerous for the Defendant". It's a bit onerous for me too!!
  9. Well, was all the rejoicing all a bit premature! (or are DG just trying it on!). Just received an application from DG to have the court's order stayed. The order was issued by the court on 10th August. Now, they had 7 days to have the order stayed. Quoting the court order "Take notice that pursuant to Part 3.3(5) and (6) of the Civil Procedures Rules a party affected by this Order may apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed; such application to be made within seven days after the date on which it is served on the party making the application." But they didn't apply within the seven days! However, in their N244 Application Notice they say "The Strike Out Order, dated 25 July 2007 (but apparently - from the date in the top right hand corner of the Order) - issued by the Court on or about 10th August 2007, was served on the Defendant. To the best of my knowledge, the Defendant received the Strike Out Order on 14th August 2007 (although the document is not date stamped), and accordingly insofar as this application is made under CPR 3.3(5), I believe this application to be compliant with CPR 3.3(6)(b). The Defendant has sought to make this application as soon as practicable." Now, even if they did not receive the Strike Out Order until the 14th, they did not send their letter out to the Court until 24th August. So, it appears they missed out by 3 days. The big question is, how do I set about having the application, to stay the order, contested successfully?
  10. Yes, maybe I was being naïve, or hopeful (or both)! If their penalty charges had been on hold, this would prompt them to get into court with the OFT sooner, in the belief they would win. As it is, they are continuing to receive their unfair revenue stream.
  11. Maybe this has already been covered but, if all new claims against penalty charges are on hold whilst the OFT scenario plays itself out, then shouldn't all new penalty charges be on hold too?
  12. It's - Colchester County Court. Best of luck to all!
  13. Ref No? Do you mean court Claim number?
  14. Have contacted my county court with reference to my PERSONAL account claim. They say the judge has thrown out DGs defence and awarded me the full amount of my claim. Fingers crossed until I see the confirmation letter. Thanks to all who have contributed to my efforts. Once I receive a cheque I will send a contribution to CAG! I have noticed that since my claim HSBC have continued to pile on monthly penalty charges, though. Shall I just start a new claim or will this be on hold 'til the end of the OFT saga? In other words, can I tag on these new charges to the claim. HSBC say I will have to wait at least 12 months until the OFT thing is over and there is no point in writing in (but they would say that, wouldn't they!).
  15. Thanks Celicaman, Let's see how this one grabs them! Thank you for your letter dated xxxx, 2007. I believe that you may be confused over interest (at 8%) charged when this case goes to court, with interest when the account is in an overdrawn condition and the situation is exacerbated by your penalty charges. Reference to the case Halliday vs HBOS should clarify this for you (where the court decided that these charges were admissible). In addition, no claim has been made for other charges that you refer to in the second paragraph of your letter (facility fees, money transmission charges etc.). The charges that you have unlawfully applied are all covered in the spreadsheet supplied to you in my previous letter. You will appreciate that business account charges are not being tested in the OFT case, and therefore will not be affected by any stays or "waivers", since reference to The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 is not made. Furthermore, failure to satisfy my claim for a refund of your penalty charges in full will result in this case going to court, with the resultant 8% charges plus court filing fee added.
×
×
  • Create New...