Jump to content

legalpickle

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    2,580
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by legalpickle

  1. Firstly, it is absolutely useless for us to continue to discuss this as the chances of what we think changing things are low. Next, "Lula". This was not passed with anything to do with banks directly. As I said above those people who cannot afford fees CAN get remissions or exemptions. So, this would definitely not be a way for the banks to intimidate those claimants. Furthermore, there is no way that new fees are going to be passed that require excessively more work for the Courts Service staff, and implementing a charging mechanism such as you have described below would do such. It would also mean that if the Claimant does not pay the fees the Court would still have no reasonable threats against the Claimant besides for the usual prosecution. In the current routes, if the Court dismisses the Claim, the Court isn't at a loss, and the Claimant is. I think you get the gist of what I'm saying.
  2. I just noticed "BankLover_not" above, so I am posting the same response here; "BankLover_not"; 1. I know a lot of people who were aware of the consultation. If you don't look you will never find. 2. If you really cannot afford the court fees then you should be able to get a remission or exemption. 3. You should ALWAYS consider the action you are taking before taking it. 4. The banks don't push for a full hearing, they drop out at the last minute, and then reimburse the court fees - if it gets to that stage. 5. It is only more expensive if it goes to hearing - fair's fair. For example; if I take a company to Court and they settle immediately, why should I have to lay out the same as somebody who takes 6 months through the court system and ends up in a hearing??? Under the new system if it is settled more than 28 days before the hearing, you end up spending £143 which is £77 cheaper than the old system. I think it's entirely fair. If you want to turn it political, then let's look at it this way. Some courts have been losing money because many people have hearings booked which are cancelled at the last minute and thus they have wasted a booked slot. They still have to pay the Judge's wages and the other cases get delayed. Now they will get paid by hearing as well, but they have lowered the fees for the jobs that are easier. The result will be more independent courts, less money invested into Civil cases by the Government, and more money for the NHS and good causes. Those people who honestly cannot afford the fees will end up getting fee remissions or taking loans for a few months from a friend. I think it's very fair and logical. legalpickle.
  3. "BankLover_not": Sorry for the delay in responding, I was away from my computer for a few days. 1. I know a lot of people who were aware of the consultation. If you don't look you will never find. 2. If you really cannot afford the court fees then you should be able to get a remission or exemption. 3. You should ALWAYS consider the action you are taking before taking it. 4. The banks don't push for a full hearing, they drop out at the last minute, and then reimburse the court fees - if it gets to that stage. 5. It is only more expensive if it goes to hearing - fair's fair. For example; if I take a company to Court and they settle immediately, why should I have to lay out the same as somebody who takes 6 months through the court system and ends up in a hearing??? Under the new system if it is settled more than 28 days before the hearing, you end up spending £143 which is £77 cheaper than the old system. I think it's entirely fair. If you want to turn it political, then let's look at it this way. Some courts have been losing money because many people have hearings booked which are cancelled at the last minute and thus they have wasted a booked slot. They still have to pay the Judge's wages and the other cases get delayed. Now they will get paid by hearing as well, but they have lowered the fees for the jobs that are easier. The result will be more independent courts, less money invested into Civil cases by the Government, and more money for the NHS and good causes. Those people who honestly cannot afford the fees will end up getting fee remissions or taking loans for a few months from a friend. I think it's very fair and very logical. legalpickle.
  4. "BankLover_not", 1. The AQ fee started and still does start from above £1,500. This fee has gone down to £35 for Small Claims. ====================================================== 2.1 On the claimant filing an allocation questionnaire; or —where the court dispenses with the need for an allocation questionnaire, within 14 days of the date of despatch of the notice of allocation to track; or—where the CPR or a Practice Direction provide for automatic allocation or provide that the rules on allocation shall not apply, within 28 days of the filing of the defence (or the filing of the last defence if there is more than one defendant), or within 28 days of the expiry of the time permitted for filing all defences if sooner: (a) if the case is on the small claims track and the claim exceeds £1,500£35 ====================================================== 2. So overall - IF the case proceeds to trial, BUT IF it doesn't then there is a reduction in fees. I don't think this can be classed as disgusting. HMCS ran a full consultation on this. The aim is to try and get rid of the stupid ones who settle a few minutes or a couple of days before the hearing when realistically they could settle a month or two before the hearing, that way the hearing date is available for other cases. The aim is to get rid of the cases that are anyway going to be settled before a hearing and thus don't warrant a hearing. legalpickle
  5. These are "trial" fees, which are charged when a date for hearing is given which is AFTER the AQ is filed. They are refunded or partially refunded if the claim is settled, depending on when it is settled and when the Court is notified. The reason is because of many parties settling 5 minutes before the hearing which is a clear abuse of Court time. Obviously the more your claim the more you have to spend, it's always been the same. For people who get settlements just after the AQ stage, it is a clear reduction in cost. I don't consider it "DISGUSTING", I consider it very reasonable. HMCS released a consultation about it, if "BankLover_not" thinks it was disgusting then this is sure one case where you should have remarked about it. It was made public enough!!!
  6. I filed 2 claims that both got stayed that have sweet F all to do with 2007 Folio 1196. 1 is a business claim thus is not covered by the UTCCR's and 1 is a claim against American Express for £58.08 of credit card charges and over £2k of damages for various other problems incurred. AND blood Manchester County Court stayed the cases. Applied for the stays to be removed. Will have to wait and see.
  7. Manchester County Court (Crown Square) has said that it is staying ALL bank charges cases. It may be best for one to call the Court and ask for Case Management Section and ask regarding whether bank charges cases are being stayed. To the best of my knowledge A&L are not covered by the FSA waiver, but they are still staying claims against A&L. Crown Square & Deansgate have the same Judges as far as I am aware, so I believe that claims in Deansgate will also be stayed. They are also apparently staying claims for credit card charges and MEAF's.
  8. District Judge Ian Besford seems to be on the banks payroll!!! BBC NEWS | Business | More bank cases face strike out
  9. I wrote the below letter to District Judge Besford yesterday - regarding the Hull strike out orders - and sent it special delivery to the Court, BBC News & This Is Money. I have read a few people's posts who have said that Kevin Berwick's claim was the one without all the particulars. I did not understand it that way from the Judgement located here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_05_07_bank_charge.pdf. I'd appreciate it if any of the more experienced mods or admins can get back to me on this. The letter has been confirmed delivered according to Royal Mail's special delivery checker. The reference number for the one to the court is ZV505043911GB. Dear Judge Besford, I am writing as with regards to your decision last week to strike out several claims against banks for allegedly unlawful penalty charges. While I am not a legal expert, I am a trainee solicitor and do have some legal knowledge and have been looking into the bank charges for a while. I am also a Claimant against Lloyds TSB Bank PLC and assist others with their cases against banks and financial institutions. I would much appreciate it if you would look into my arguments for the benefit of these Claimants, and hope you will reconsider your decision. 1. I notice that you refer to the recent judgement by District Judge Cooke in Birmingham Civil Justice Centre. While the case of Mr. Berwick against Lloyds TSB Bank PLC may be relevant to the cases, the case of Mr. Haughton vs. Lloyds TSB Bank PLC is irrelevant as he did not sufficiently particularise the claim. 2. I notice according to the BBC News article, a copy of which I attach, that you state that the Claimants are unlikely to win due to the cases in Birmingham. I feel that this is an unfair argument as the definition of a legal precedent as generally accepted as a ruling by the High Court or Court of Appeals, yet not a County Court claim. 3. Even if the case in Birmingham could be construed as a legal precedent, I feel that it is negligent not to consider other cases that may be able to be construed as legal precedents. I attach articles from the BBC News website about prior strike off orders. 4. In the specific case of Mr. Berwick vs. Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, Mr. Berwick stated that he did not feel he was in breach of contract. Why he did that I cannot say, as I am not Mr. Berwick, however that legal argument is the basis of these cases. I consider that it is breach of contract, as the result is either a bounced cheque / direct debit or overdraft excess fees. A service would be one where the customer had a choice. In these cases the customer has no choice. 5. Lloyds TSB Bank PLC also claim in their defence’s that; a. The Claimant may at any time apply for an overdraft facility in branch, via telephone or internet banking. b. The Defendant advises the Claimant in advance of charges being applied to his account. I wish to argue with these statements which are false. a. I am aware from personal experience that one may not apply for an overdraft facility if he has applied already within the previous month or his account is with the referrals department, usually in cases of such litigation or disputes. b. In the event of bounced direct debits or cheques, quite often it is impossible to know when monies are cleared and to plan in advance for them to clear, thus the bank does not give advance notice to the Claimant before they have bounced a direct debit or cheque. 6. The Defendant never intends to show up at the hearings, thus is an abuse of process pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules 3.4(2)(a) as the Defendant is wasting the Judiciary’s time by filing a defence. I therefore request that you reconsider these cases; this request is made in the public’s best interests. While I have no legal right to demand such as I am not party to these cases, I trust that you as a member of the Judiciary see it fit to act in the best interests of the public. I am sending a copy of this letter and the attachments to BBC News and This Is Money. I feel that they have an interest in this due to their articles about your order. I would also much appreciate it if you could kindly forward a copy my letter on to the designated Civil Judge for the Humberside Group – His Honour Judge Roger Thorn, QC.
  10. This is not necessarily finance organizations. I also want copies of the documents that I allegedly signed on. Is this still the best route?
  11. I have read in lots of places about various things relating to not believing amounts of debt on a credit report or belief on a fraudulent insert on the credit report. I understand that the first move is to write to the Credit Reference Agency and ask them to remove it. I am trying to figure out what exactly to do when some records are refused to be removed. Basically, the first thing I want to do is somehow legally demand a full breakdown of the account and the total amount of alleged debt and copies of anything that I may have signed. I understand that there is a legal demand letter that can be written to each and every creditor, which is similar to the bank DPA/SAR letter but not the same and cheaper than the £10 it would cost me for each bank. If somebody could advise me on the exact routes for this process it would be much appreciated. Also, once that is done, I will probably need to dispute some of them as well. How do I take this further than the crappy Credit Reference Agencies that are about as responsible as the bloody banks are? Ta, legalpickle.
  12. I am unsure if this belongs in another forum, so mods/admins if it does, please move it and advise me as such. Thanks. I am aware that some people get mortgages in order to fund a business or clear debts, and then pay it off in payments. Some of those then get into the situation where they have the money to pay all of the mortgage off but get charged a percentage for an early redemption fee. After speaking to an IFA about this, we agreed that a suggestion would be that the person opens up another bank account, deposits all the money into it and changes it so that that bank account has one direct debit to clear the mortgage, you may even be able to get a higher rate of interest as only one payment is going out. That way; a) You don't pay any early redemption fees. b) You make interest. c) If you need some of the other money, and change your mind about clearing the mortgage off in one shot, you can. If anybody has any constructive criticism about this, I would be happy to hear about it.
  13. legalpickle

    idea...

    Please delete post. Obviously nobody was interested, so removed text
  14. please delete thread & posts
  15. please delete thread & posts
  16. please delete thread & posts
  17. please delete thread & posts
  18. It means that the mods/admin are considering it and will let everybody know in due course.
  19. I recommend that people take the banks to court, I don't understand why people will settle for less than they are due! If you can't afford court costs, view my post earlier in this thread which shows how to deal with it.
  20. I believe that if a few of us get together we can make a properly thought out petition with the legal arguments. The problem with the No. 10 petition website is that it limits the amount you can write, I would be happy as a web programmer to set up a petition on one of my sites if somebody could help with the exact text. Further, people would have to submit their e-mail addresses and postal addresses to prevent double signing. Also, who exactly the petition should go to would be interesting, so far I have this; Financial Services Authority (FSA) Office of Fair Trading (OFT) Information Commissioners Office (ICO) Prime Ministers Office (PMO) Lord Chancellors Office Prime Ministers Strategy Unit Department of Trade & Industry (DTi) Department for Communities & Local Government Department for Education & Skills (DfES) Department of Health (DoH) Deputy Prime Ministers Office HM Treasury Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) Government Legal System (GLS) The British Monarchy The United Kingdom Parliament The Scottish Parliament The Scottish Executive The National Assembly for Wales The Northern Ireland Assembly Why so many office you ask? Besides for the more the merrier, the drastic amount of debt people are put in affects a large part of these offices, it causes less earnings, therefore less taxes from the average citizen, it also means more benefits, less money invested in childrens and adults education by the person/parents themselves, less money invested in healthcare, needing more free prescriptions, causing more money to be spent on trying to solve depression, less money onto private healthcare (I myself managed to pay for a private consultants appointment from one set of bank charges refunded, which took me off from the NHS waiting time of 6 months for such a consultant - specialist spinal surgeon, during which time I would have become sicker), causing more deaths and suicides, causing more poverty and ASBO's and we could go on and on and on. While some of these offices could not regulate or propose such changes to the law, their lobbying can definitely help. I know my post is long, but all responses would be appreciated, this is just a starting list.
  21. If you can't afford the court costs, you may be able to get remission or not have to pay the costs at all, visit: EX160 http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/GetForm.do?court_forms_id=168 EX160A http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/GetLeaflet.do?court_leaflets_id=172 The latter is an explanation and the former is the actual form.
  22. Hi, I have to file a case against first direct on Thursday in County Court. My question is who do I file it against? a) HSBC Bank PLC t/a first direct b) first direct c) HSBC Bank PLC And which address should it be sent to HSBC's head office or first direct in Leeds? Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...