B U M P I'd really appreciate some advice on this one, as I don't want to miss out on negotiating a settlement...

Having thought about this now, I don't want to pursue this claim as I think it's on dodgy ground because of their responses. I now want to tie this together with my attempted default removal I've been pursuing with them - see here; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/data-protection-default-issues/99772-car2403-line-finance-ltd.html#post932318 So I was thinking of sending this; Any thoughts or other advice before I send this to them?

Hi Rocky and welcome to the forums. Please start your own thread in the same sub-forum, posting any wording of letters/actions you've taken to date and the replies you've had, so we can see give you detailed advice to your questions. Posting in another user's thread makes the forums complicated and generally means you won't get a swift response to your questions. Once you've created your thread, post a link in reply here and we'll see what we can do. Power to the people!

After reading a LOT about Default removal attempts, I've heard in other threads that o2 defaults are notoriously difficult to challenge as agreements with them aren't covered by the CCA and Data Protection Act in a way that makes it easy to get them removed. I had 2 accounts with o2 that ended up having defaults applied to my credit file. (1 of them isn't in my name, but for arguments sake, lets say it is so this doesn't get confusing!) On reading those other threads, most people suggest contacting o2 & the DCA (Wescot, in both of my cases) offering reduced settlement that is conditional on the default being removed. Clearly settling the account without asking for the default removal reduces the chances of getting the removal as there is no incentive to them. So, I've sent o2 this letter; I also cc'd Wescot and sent them this as a cover; In response to this, I've received 2 of these letters from Wescot - 1 for each account; My question is this - is the offer for reduced settlement conditional on default removal accepted? If it is, I will happily pay these amounts (thanks to some CAG Bank Charge reclaims!) to get these defaults off my credit file. Personally, I want to write to Wescot to say something along these lines; (I have the same letter drafted for the other account with the right settlement amount) If they haven't even considered removing the default they will just reply saying "no" and I'll have no chance to get it removed. If they have, then fine, all is well - but, if I send this I'm asking a question... if I don't I could challenge that by having my "request for settlement authorised", I could argue that they've "agreed" to remove these defaults on making these payments. Any advice?

Right - reply from OLF. (Eyes down, look in for a full house!) Now they have included a copy of the "statement of charges", showing some new entries where they've "written off" the charges - but, I'm still not understanding it despite asking for a detailed explanation?

Reply from FLA saying they've passed my complaint to OLF and I should wait up to 3 weeks for their response. Interestingly saying that I "may be able to" refer my complaint to the FSO if they are unable to resolve my complaint - which is what I wanted to do in the first place! Wonder what "may be able to" means? Hmmm... Still waiting on that inevitable reply from the ICO as per TheAnalyst - nothing yet, though...

PROBLEM! Or is it? I've just received the order from the Court; Now then... this clearly isn't what was discussed in Court; NW haven't entered any settlement discussions NW have applied for a stay until the TC is heard DJ has approved the stay until end of 10/2008 But - do I come clean and tell them, or hope that the shear volume of cases being heard/dealt with will mean this goes unnoticed? Is this wishful thinking?

Hi Sarah, If this is the case, go to Court and state your case for the hearing to go ahead as planned without a stay being applied - tell the Judge that the OFT have said that cases of financial hardships should not be stayed, but should be heard by the Court regardless of the test case. If they are having none of it and apply the stay, ask for leave to appeal anyway - leave may be refused, but you can escalate that if the need arises. Fight your corner, or they'll walk all over you though - you have plenty of support from this forum, so keep your chin up!

Jansus - short of proving financial hardship, you'll be hard pushed to avoid the stay I'm afraid. Althought, I've seen threads where hardship has been shown and the Bank even agreed that the stay shouldn't be applied, but the stay was granted regardless anyway! Most of this is under directions from more senior Judges. The only practical way you can avoid the stay is if the Bank hasn't made a formal application to the Court to have a stay applied - sadly though, thats probably not the case in your claim. Adam - those thoughts are valid, but probably won't be heard if you even get to see a Courtroom without having a stay applied beforehand - they are more relevant to the full hearing and probably won't effect the application of the stay. In fact, your statement of evidence probably already points towards these issues, so the Court has probably already seen them. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but looks like you're both going to have to await the outcome of the TC. (Like so many in your situation - including me!)

I have to agree - even the mention of the injunctions against the banks applying further charges and continuing to process data unlawfully is falling on deaf ears. The very discussion on injunctions was dismissed in my hearing because the Judge "didn't like infringing the freedoms of the parties to contract". He even went as far as saying that I should close my account with them if I didn't want to pay more charges. (Strange that as he awarded the case AGAINST the Bank in the end!)

Jomo, Sorry to scupper your thoughts - in a nice way, of course! Applying a stay to any claim, regardless of what it is for, is at the discretion of the Judge considering the application - there can only be a request to have the stay set aside if it wasn't heard as part of a hearing, (then it will be a request to set the order aside, rather than an appeal) or if the Judge has given leave to appeal his decision. In my claim with NatWest, I asked for leave to appeal at the hearing and was told that it is within the Judges' discretion to award the hearing and leave to appeal was therefore refused. I'm not sure if an appeal/request to set aside would work anyway - only cost you additional fees. (These £100, (appeal) or £35, (request to set aside) fees being unrecoverable, by the way!) Using the phone is fine, but you must document the conversation - name of person you're talking to, time of call, number called, etc - then follow up with a letter to the same effect to confirm anything agreed. I've used this method with GMAC with success and it saves you having to wait for their response by return. Bear in mind they have thousands of claims, so paperwork gets lost/forgotten about - a ringing phone will always be answered though!

Hello everyone, NOTE: This post is the result of many hours searching through the forum threads on this subject - if I've missed anything, please post a reply and I will edit this opening post so the most correct information/advice appears at the top. (You will need to read the entire thread to understand the whole issue, however!) I'd also ask that you don't "state your case" on this thread - please start your own thread and make a post to this one with the link, which will make this easier to read. EVEN BIGGER NOTE - February 2010: There has been some very recent caselaw surrounding the challenging of Defaults (namely, challenging CCA agreements) that HAS NOT been included in this post from August 2007. I would SERIOUSLY advise you to start a thread, in the right place in the forum, BEFORE you begin following the advice below. That way, folk can direct you along as you go. One of these days, I'll get around to updating this with recent developments. (Fingers crossed...) After spending a LOT of time with other CAG-ers recently over the bank fee/charge issues, I'm now turning to look at the resultant "Default" issues that I've came across while doing it. (I have a personal interest, as you'll soon see from the links in my signature!) Now, excuse my frankness, but there is a lot of information/posts in the "Data Protection and Default Issues" forum (amongst others) regarding this issue - and I, for one, (and I know I'm not the only one, seeing posted replies to my threads) am confused by the amount of information. The aim of this post is to clarify all the other posts, so I suggest that we all work together to get this right as this will be the first place we can "direct" those new to the problem. (Also - if enough of you ask for it - I may even achieve my first "sticky status" post... which hasn't happened before! Woo hoo!) Background: The background to this is dead simple, really! Any company that has "charged" fees to your account/agreement, etc, can be pursued in a few ways to "reclaim" those fees if they are unreasonable. I won't spend longer on this issue, as there are far more detailed posts in the sticky/FAQ posts around in the relevant forums. Some of these companies have seen fit to terminate customer accounts/agreements and some, in doing so, have also deemed themselves to "have the power of a County Court Judge" and have recorded a "Default" against the customers credit file with one/all of the CRA's. (Credit Reference Agencies) Why is this such a problem? The Defaulted account will remain on your credit file (according to the CRA's, at least - more on this later) for 6 years and will effect any future credit applications you may choose to make. Companies that use these credit searches usually will either decline your application, or - in the case of the "sub-prime" market - (those that lend money to people with less than perfect credit histories) hike up your APR or add additional fees to accepting the application, because of this negative credit record. I don't believe this can be right - the accounts are, at least partially, based on illegal/unenforceable account fees/charges. So how can these companies get away with it? This brings me on to the challenges! Removal methods: Now, I'm not an expert on this issue, so I'll leave it to those more experienced to highlight the removal methods that we can use to get this situation sorted; Challenging the company using the Consumer Credit Act 1974; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/11659-how-get-your-default.html Challenging the company using the Data Protection Act 1984 (as amended); http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/24013-defaults-proposed-method-removal.html Using a combination of the CCA and the DPA (again, read both links above) Challenges: There are a few challenges to using the methods above that I have came across; (feel free to share yours in reply, referencing your thread) The company fails to supply some, or all the information required in your CCA request These companies seem to think that it's fine to ignore a legal request for information that you are entitled to under the Consumer Credit Agreement - they don't seem to care that this makes the debt unenforceable in certain circumstances, or that the Default that you can legally challenge doesn't live up to the legal standards laid down in Statute! Regulators that can't see the "big picture" and almost "refuse" to consider each other's opinions As the Data Protection Act (DPA) is enforced (outside of a Courtroom, that is) by the Information Commissioners Office, this office is unable to consider a company that has defaulted on a Consumer Credit Act request, as this is outside of their scope - they even state to "contact the Financial Ombudsman Service" in their responses! The Consumer Credit Act (CCA) is enforced (outside of a Courtroom, that is) by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS/FSO) - this office is unable to consider a company that has failed to satisfy the requirements of the DPA, as it is outside of their scope - they even state to "contact the ICO" in their responses! This rediculous situation leaves consumers with only 1 option - take a case to Court and **hope** that you can pursude the Judge that your opinion is right and this company is wrong in what they have done. Uncertainty over how long this information can be held for (processed) by each party There is no clear authority on how long "defaulted accounts" can be displayed on your credit file. (This also applies to payment/arrears history's, financial associations - and pretty much every bit of "data" that exists about you as an individual) The companies/CRA's claim they should process and display this information for a minimum of 6 years. This is again them making the rules up as they go along, as there is NO clear authority for this - some believe that this is a result of Money Laundering Legislation/Regulations that state information should be "held" (note, not "processed" or "displayed"!) for a period of 6 years after the account is closed. What seems to have happened is that "6 years" is now accepted as industry standard, (also note, not legally required!) so these companies are now refusing to remove this incorrect information until after it has expired beyond 6 years. Credit Reference Agencies (CRA's) that don't care about us individuals, as their "customers" are paying their wages - and some even have VERY close relationships with them! There are 3 main CRA's - CallCredit, Experian and Equifax. But - who are the "customers" of these Agencies, that are charged with keeping our information up to date and accurate? Well, you'd be right in thinking that "we" (the consumers) were their customers - but, sadly, you'd be wrong! The "customers" of these Agencies is actually the Companies that supply them with information, as they pay a fee (presumably - it's all very underhanded IMHO!) to access the information they hold and also share information about your account - including the fact it has been defaulted incorrectly/illegally - with them to share with their other "customers". This situation is ludicrous, as these CRA's always say "contact us to complain about your information being incorrect", but are notorious for saying "this is supplied by our customer as factual information - take your complaint up with them, not us". If you look really, really closely, you'll also see that some of the "Debt Collection Agencies" used in these cases are actually owned by the Credit Reference Agencies - or they have very close links to each other. (Members of the same "Group" of companies, etc) This sounds very much like a "cartel-affair" to me! So, how can you challenge these defaults? All this leaves those that haven't had companies "back down" when challenged with only 1 place to go to enforce your rights - and that is the inside of a County Courtroom! Taking a claim to Court: This is not only difficult because many people don't want to sit in front of a Judge to state their case, but there is also a distinct lack of legislation/case law and precedent that you can use in a legal argument based on enforcement of the CCA and DPA! This is a situation that these companies actually encourage, as they don't want to be bogged down with legal argument over a single account - but instead are only interested in making incorrect decisions about individuals on a mass basis, then refusing to state their case for doing so! (This sounds very like the "Illegal charges" issue that is currently ongoing, so hopefully this is going to gain the same momentum!) They actually discourage customers from going to Court by "making them believe" that they - not the Court system - are the ultimate authority on the application of English Law! They do this in such a way that **most** consumers would give up and go away with their tail between their legs - of course, us CAG-ers aren't **most** consumers, are we? (All say "yes, Chris!"...Sorry about that, but this post was getting a little serious and I think I lost the plot for a second!) Now, having said all that - remember that the law that related to illegal fees/charges has been around for over 200 years, but the Banks/Regulators don't recognise that it is "good law" and apply it in these instances? (This is a post on it's own, but basically the contractual law surrounding unenforceable penalties has been around for 2 centuries, but the Banks think they can act against it because it makes good "business sense" - and the regulator (the OFT) seems to agree with them!) Well, this is the same situation - you could argue that processing incorrect information about you is defamation of character! These legal principles have also been around - as "good law" - for centuries also! We should remember that when discussing this issue and not be blinkered into only thinking about the CCA and DPA. So, going to Court... We now need; Bullet-proof "Particulars of Claim" (POC) to issue our claims Some sound "follow up" that we can use in response to the Court process. (Allocation questionnaire responses, outline of Court Bundles, legal precedent for our claim and a statement of evidence that states the issue at hand and probably some of the issues encountered and discussed in this thread) The bottle to take the claim all the way, Win or Lose WARNING AND DISCLAIMER: These templates are intended as a guide only - I don't suggest you commence a claim based SOLELY on these templates, but this is a starting point! You should start your own thread relevant to your own individual circumstances, as each case has its own merits and pitfalls, where you can get specific advice from our resident experts! If you start a claim without doing this, please don't blame me or CAG if you don't get the outcome you want! Particulars of Claim: How's about this for POC to kick off the discussion? Follow up - Allocation questionnaire; There is already a VAST amount of information on the forums regarding AQ's and their uses - take a look, here, for example; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/11644-allocation-questionnaires-guide-completion.html#post90317 (Thanks to jonni2bad for the original post!) This is a WORK IN PROGRESS... feel free to contribute by posting in reply. Follow up - Statement of Evidence: This is a WORK IN PROGRESS... feel free to contribute by posting in reply.. I'm hoping that this post has grabbed your attention, especially if you are in this situation, as we need to work together to get this sorted out - safety in numbers! The aim of the post is to start pulling the "going to Court" information together and issue some claims to see where we get with this. If you have any of this already, or experience of a Court claim over the same issue, please share your experience - in your own thread, with a link posted here - and we'll get the ball rolling! Bring it on!

Received the settlement/wasted costs order back saying I hadn't paid the fee of £35 for the Judge to consider it - I haven't bothered sending it back with the fee, as the costs were only £78 anyway. MCOL still have it showing as Acknowledged despite a Defence being entered by Halifax - I'm just going to remove the application for costs and send the order to withdraw the first claim. Just got round to sorting the second claim out now - £265.00 plus interest of £36 and Court fees, as I intend to kick this off now. Prem. letter off today.

I had an "interesting" time in Court yesterday over my claim against BB for charges; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclays-bank/93273-car2403-barclays-bank.html I'm still going after them for the Default now - wish I'd done it in the case, above, though for anyone wanting to start with charges/default removal combined. (Especially as I clearly had the Judge on my side!) I'll continue with this regardless though - they have until the end of next week to respond to the CCA request...

Hi Micky - I've been to Court over this today, looks like your claim will be stayed unless you convince the Judge otherwise - which I failed to do using the standard arguments in the objection letter on this site; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/93278-car2403-natwest.html#post1084765

Monty, have you started your own thread? Suggest you do so you get the right advice, in depth, outside of this thread.

Morpeth and Berwick County Court

In that case, I'll be taking this right the way to Court to enforce my rights - no legally binding contract, committing a criminal offence by not supplying the agreement, concealment of information by refusing to supply information requested, defamation of character by defaulting my credit file and resultant damages. Hmmm...

Guys, Morpeth and Berwick appears to have dropped off the list? (The Court is still there - I've just been! ) Anyway, they are applying stays where formal applications have been made and notice given to the Claimant - if this hasn't happened, and claims are in the next few days, they probably won't be stayed. Do you have a section for applying stays, but not applying them at the same time?

Well, that's it - I've had my day in Court with both Barclays and NatWest! Sorry in advance for the lengthy post, but this will be critical information for those that have hearings in the next few days... On arriving at the Court, NatWest's solicitor asked for a "word in private" - "here we go...", I thought! He was a really nice chap (but they all are, aren't they!) who said that they had already applied for a stay last week, so the Judge would probably just approve his application "on the nod". You should have seen his face when I spoke up and said, "ah, but are you aware that I will be arguing against the application" - priceless! I showed him the application rejection letter I sent off last week and he admitted that this was the best argument against the stay application that he'd seen! (1-0 to us CAG'ers, then!) On coming out of a side room, I could see the Barclays solicitor "working the room" with the other Barclays claimants - saying pretty much the same thing as the NatWest bod did. Again another priceless look on her face when I pulled out the stay objection letter that she hadn't seen. (2-0 to the CAG!) There were loads of other claimants there for their claim hearings as well - 3 x Barclays, (1 being mine) 1 x Natwest (my claim) and 3 x Abbey. The first one in was an Abbey one - set up for a full 60 min trial for some reason, but the woman that was claiming hadn't sent in her supporting evidence/bundle in time, as directed by the Court. As there was no formal application from Abbey to stay and the Judge wouldn't hear the case without the supporting statements/evidence, the case was adjourned until the next available hearing date. He did say that this would probably be next week, as so many claims were being stayed anyway and hearing dates vacated as a result - the problem being is that this gives Abbey enough time to make the formal application for a stay, so this one is effectively knocked on the head until the outcome of the OFT TC is known. The rest were all dealt with by the Judge together - (I think he was planning on going home early!) which was really good, because the other claimants didn't really seem that keen on being in court anyway! He got us all in the courtroom, with the relevant solicitors in tow, and asked if everyone was up to date with what was happening - he explained it all anyway, as some of them weren't aware of the Test Case that has been agreed. He went on to say that each of the solicitors in attendance were "probably going to apply" for a stay today - to which they all nodded. (A bit like those Churchill insurance adverts, where the Dog nods - "oh, yes!" they all said!) He also said that, apart from my NatWest claim, the Court hadn't received confirmation of any applications for a stay, so he was going to deal with the applications as new evidence/requests as we (the claimants) hadn't had any notice. He then went on to say what the stay was, the effect it had, etc - he then adjourned the hearing for 20 mins for us to decide what to do. The question he asked was, "will you agree to the application of the stay?". After the 20 minutes were up, he pulled us all back in and, one by one, he asked us for our responses - "no", "no", "no", "no", "no"... we all said. "Very well, I'll have to turn the application for a stay to one side as no formal application has been made where the claimant has been given notice - and a "no notice" application requires the consent of each claimant", he said! EXCELLENT NEWS! He also refused to allow the Banks leave to apply to appeal his decision! Then came the biggy - he looked at the 3 solicitors and said, "do you have instructions from your Clients to defend these claims, as I fully intend to hear these claims this afternoon as listed?". They all asked for an adjourment to take orders, which he turned down as they "should have came prepared for a full hearing". They all said that they had instructions to apply for an appeal, but had been instructed to NOT defend the claims if the stays were turned down and the hearings went ahead. So, out we all trot again and are called in one at a time for the hearings - (this is also what I later found out that happened in the others); Second hearing was mine with NatWest - the Judge said that, as I had notice of the formal application being made, he had no choice but to approve the stay. I said that I wanted to object to this, handing him a copy of the objection letter. He read this and said "you offer some good objections, but I'm afraid I've already read this letter before - which website have you got this from?". Of course I replied CAG, to which he gave a smile. (Obviously aware of this site! 3-0 to CAG!) He went on to apply the stay anyway - (3-1 to CAG!) NW's solicitor had some arguments with him as he wanted to know what the terms of the stay order would be - "the terms will be any that I wish to apply, Mr Hall" he said, "I'm sure you've seen these orders before - if you haven't call me on Monday and I will fax you a copy, if you want a copy?". He did say that it would be applied until end of 10/2008, or Judgement being entered in the Test Case, or the expiration date of any leave to appeal that may have been granted. Shame that the formal application wasn't a few days later, as the Judge hadn't been passed my objection letter before the hearing, or I would have won! (They had a sign on the wall saying they were 5 days behind with their paperwork - and I sent it 5 working ways ago!) Oh well, just have to wait for the outcome of the TC for the NW claim... Third hearing was adjourned as the claimant hadn't sent in her bundle as ordered, just turned up to Court with it on the day. Fourth hearing adjourned because this claimant had sent his bundle in, but the Court couldn't find it! Turns out that he sent it to Northampton County Court as he issued via MCOL and hadn't realised that the Bundle had to go to Morpeth! (Despite the Courts directions!) Interestingly, the hearing was adjourned for 30 minutes while the Usher dashed madly to the phone to call Northampton to see if they had received it - they hadn't, so the hearing was adjourned to the next hearing date. (Again giving the bank more time to make their formal application) Fifth hearing was mine with Barclays - I went in, sat down and the Judge immediately said that I was one of the "most prepared litigants" he has ever came across in his career. (4-1 to CAG!) He then checked the bundle for the Statement of Charges and stuck out the first charge as it was more than 6 years old when the claim was issued. (I hadn't noticed this, despite this amount of preparation!) He was satisfied with my arguments and statement of charges, so turned to the bank's solicitor and asked where their Defence Bundle was - the solicitor cheekily turned around and said that no bundle had been sent in but a Defence had been entered and that the case was similar to the TC, so shouldn't be heard. The Judge was having none of this and said he had already refused the application for a stay, refused the application for leave to appeal that decision and was now hearing the case - he said "why has an organisation as big as Barclays not fully prepared for THIS case and submitted legal argument in defence?". The Solictor, after struggling to find a suitable response, admitted that this was the first he had heard of the claim and couldn't dispute it at all. This really p'd the Judge off, so he put up his hand and said "Enough! I don't know how many times I've case managed claims against these banks only to have them settled before coming to trial, or, even worse, go to trial without someone appearing and having Judgement entered in default after the defence is stuck out - the first time the bank chooses to appear before me, in any court, they haven't submitted a defence and admit to doing it in plain faced cheek?". He immediately stuck out their defence and awarded Judgement by Default to me! Wahey, I've WON! £880 all-in-all. Sixth hearing was won with Judgement in Default for the same reasons as my NatWest claim. Seventh hearing was adjouned as the claimant hadn't sent in a Statement of Charges - and the Judge said that the Court wouldn't perform the admin task of listing all the charges on one page by looking through the statements that he had submitted. (Bank will apply for a stay in the meantime, of course) So, I won the Barclays one immediately and the NatWest claim has been stayed. Some REALLY important advice that I can give to anyone claiming or about to start to, though, is; (all this appears elsewhere on the site, but I've put it here for clarity anyway) - Make sure you comply with ALL directions sent to you by the Court. Not doing so will result in your claim being delayed, or worse, stuck out, and gives the other side the competitive edge. - When sending in your Bundles, make sure you either use recorded delivery and check it's being received, or pop the bundle in to the Court yourself. (And get a receipt from the counter!) - Make sure you know where to send your claim information! (Don't send it to the wrong Court!) - Make sure your bundle includes a statement of charges. (It MUST show interest on each charge as well, if you're claiming it!) The Judge was clearly on one here, though - even referring to months and months of cases that he's had where the Bank hasn't cooperated fully. He even quoted this as a reason for refusing applications and entering judgements, because of the "contempt shown by the Banks". I think he even enjoyed the experience, as he was smiling throughout the whole thing! I'm really pleasantly suprised at the Barclays outcome!

Well, that's it - I've had my day in Court with both Barclays and NatWest! Sorry in advance for the lengthy post, but this will be critical information for those that have hearings in the next few days... On arriving at the Court, NatWest's solicitor asked for a "word in private" - "here we go...", I thought! He was a really nice chap (but they all are, aren't they!) who said that they had already applied for a stay last week, so the Judge would probably just approve his application "on the nod". You should have seen his face when I spoke up and said, "ah, but are you aware that I will be arguing against the application" - priceless! I showed him the application rejection letter I sent off last week and he admitted that this was the best argument against the stay application that he'd seen! (1-0 to us CAG'ers, then!) On coming out of a side room, I could see the Barclays solicitor "working the room" with the other Barclays claimants - saying pretty much the same thing as the NatWest bod did. Again another priceless look on her face when I pulled out the stay objection letter that she hadn't seen. (2-0 to the CAG!) There were loads of other claimants there for their claim hearings as well - 3 x Barclays, (1 being mine) 1 x Natwest (my claim) and 3 x Abbey. The first one in was an Abbey one - set up for a full 60 min trial for some reason, but the woman that was claiming hadn't sent in her supporting evidence/bundle in time, as directed by the Court. As there was no formal application from Abbey to stay and the Judge wouldn't hear the case without the supporting statements/evidence, the case was adjourned until the next available hearing date. He did say that this would probably be next week, as so many claims were being stayed anyway and hearing dates vacated as a result - the problem being is that this gives Abbey enough time to make the formal application for a stay, so this one is effectively knocked on the head until the outcome of the OFT TC is known. The rest were all dealt with by the Judge together - (I think he was planning on going home early!) which was really good, because the other claimants didn't really seem that keen on being in court anyway! He got us all in the courtroom, with the relevant solicitors in tow, and asked if everyone was up to date with what was happening - he explained it all anyway, as some of them weren't aware of the Test Case that has been agreed. He went on to say that each of the solicitors in attendance were "probably going to apply" for a stay today - to which they all nodded. (A bit like those Churchill insurance adverts, where the Dog nods - "oh, yes!" they all said!) He also said that, apart from my NatWest claim, the Court hadn't received confirmation of any applications for a stay, so he was going to deal with the applications as new evidence/requests as we (the claimants) hadn't had any notice. He then went on to say what the stay was, the effect it had, etc - he then adjourned the hearing for 20 mins for us to decide what to do. The question he asked was, "will you agree to the application of the stay?". After the 20 minutes were up, he pulled us all back in and, one by one, he asked us for our responses - "no", "no", "no", "no", "no"... we all said. "Very well, I'll have to turn the application for a stay to one side as no formal application has been made where the claimant has been given notice - and a "no notice" application requires the consent of each claimant", he said! EXCELLENT NEWS! He also refused to allow the Banks leave to apply to appeal his decision! Then came the biggy - he looked at the 3 solicitors and said, "do you have instructions from your Clients to defend these claims, as I fully intend to hear these claims this afternoon as listed?". They all asked for an adjourment to take orders, which he turned down as they "should have came prepared for a full hearing". They all said that they had instructions to apply for an appeal, but had been instructed to NOT defend the claims if the stays were turned down and the hearings went ahead. So, out we all trot again and are called in one at a time for the hearings - (this is also what I later found out that happened in the others); Second hearing was mine with NatWest - the Judge said that, as I had notice of the formal application being made, he had no choice but to approve the stay. I said that I wanted to object to this, handing him a copy of the objection letter. He read this and said "you offer some good objections, but I'm afraid I've already read this letter before - which website have you got this from?". Of course I replied CAG, to which he gave a smile. (Obviously aware of this site! 3-0 to CAG!) He went on to apply the stay anyway - (3-1 to CAG!) NW's solicitor had some arguments with him as he wanted to know what the terms of the stay order would be - "the terms will be any that I wish to apply, Mr Hall" he said, "I'm sure you've seen these orders before - if you haven't call me on Monday and I will fax you a copy, if you want a copy?". He did say that it would be applied until end of 10/2008, or Judgement being entered in the Test Case, or the expiration date of any leave to appeal that may have been granted. Shame that the formal application wasn't a few days later, as the Judge hadn't been passed my objection letter before the hearing, or I would have won! (They had a sign on the wall saying they were 5 days behind with their paperwork - and I sent it 5 working ways ago!) Oh well, just have to wait for the outcome of the TC for the NW claim... Third hearing was adjourned as the claimant hadn't sent in her bundle as ordered, just turned up to Court with it on the day. Fourth hearing adjourned because this claimant had sent his bundle in, but the Court couldn't find it! Turns out that he sent it to Northampton County Court as he issued via MCOL and hadn't realised that the Bundle had to go to Morpeth! (Despite the Courts directions!) Interestingly, the hearing was adjourned for 30 minutes while the Usher dashed madly to the phone to call Northampton to see if they had received it - they hadn't, so the hearing was adjourned to the next hearing date. (Again giving the bank more time to make their formal application) Fifth hearing was mine with Barclays - I went in, sat down and the Judge immediately said that I was one of the "most prepared litigants" he has ever came across in his career. (4-1 to CAG!) He then checked the bundle for the Statement of Charges and stuck out the first charge as it was more than 6 years old when the claim was issued. (I hadn't noticed this, despite this amount of preparation!) He was satisfied with my arguments and statement of charges, so turned to the bank's solicitor and asked where their Defence Bundle was - the solicitor cheekily turned around and said that no bundle had been sent in but a Defence had been entered and that the case was similar to the TC, so shouldn't be heard. The Judge was having none of this and said he had already refused the application for a stay, refused the application for leave to appeal that decision and was now hearing the case - he said "why has an organisation as big as Barclays not fully prepared for THIS case and submitted legal argument in defence?". The Solictor, after struggling to find a suitable response, admitted that this was the first he had heard of the claim and couldn't dispute it at all. This really p'd the Judge off, so he put up his hand and said "Enough! I don't know how many times I've case managed claims against these banks only to have them settled before coming to trial, or, even worse, go to trial without someone appearing and having Judgement entered in default after the defence is stuck out - the first time the bank chooses to appear before me, in any court, they haven't submitted a defence and admit to doing it in plain faced cheek?". He immediately stuck out their defence and awarded Judgement by Default to me! Wahey, I've WON! £880 all-in-all. Sixth hearing was won with Judgement in Default for the same reasons as my NatWest claim. Seventh hearing was adjouned as the claimant hadn't sent in a Statement of Charges - and the Judge said that the Court wouldn't perform the admin task of listing all the charges on one page by looking through the statements that he had submitted. (Bank will apply for a stay in the meantime, of course) So, I won the Barclays one immediately and the NatWest claim has been stayed. Some REALLY important advice that I can give to anyone claiming or about to start to, though, is; (all this appears elsewhere on the site, but I've put it here for clarity anyway) - Make sure you comply with ALL directions sent to you by the Court. Not doing so will result in your claim being delayed, or worse, stuck out, and gives the other side the competitive edge. - When sending in your Bundles, make sure you either use recorded delivery and check it's being received, or pop the bundle in to the Court yourself. (And get a receipt from the counter!) - Make sure you know where to send your claim information! (Don't send it to the wrong Court!) - Make sure your bundle includes a statement of charges. (It MUST show interest on each charge as well, if you're claiming it!) The Judge was clearly on one here, though - even referring to months and months of cases that he's had where the Bank hasn't cooperated fully. He even quoted this as a reason for refusing applications and entering judgements, because of the "contempt shown by the Banks". I think he even enjoyed the experience, as he was smiling throughout the whole thing! I'm really pleasantly suprised at the Barclays outcome!

My complaint form simply states; Along with all the documentation I've sent them, which is linked above. Nothing special really - a bit concerned at your response as that may happen to me though? I'm querying the "default" and not the signed agreement, (although that is implied in the letter/complaint, I suppose) though, so that that may be the difference.

Surprise, surprise! Both the Information Commissioners Office and the FSO have mucked up my complaints - again! Information Commissioners Office; "We haven't received your additional supporting evidence - please resubmit these for us to consider your complaint". Really? So how do you have the complaint form, because they were all submitted as a .zip file. (1... 2... 3... I'm still counting to calm down!) I've re-submitted what they want and won't hold my breath on a reply. FSO; Done exactly the same as they did here; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/98728-car2403-line-finance-ltd.html#post955916 So I'm starting from scratch with the FLA, who - incidentally - are totally confused as well, as they've mixed up my "charges" complaint with my "default removal" complaint that has now been started as a Court claim. Letter off the them to tell them of their mix up anyway. Maybe I need to complaint about these regulators? I feel this will end up in the Courts as well, as it shouldn't be this hard to complaint to the official regulators!

Off to (Morpeth and Berwick) Court in a tick, for what it's worth! I'm ready to tell my story, if they bother to listen and fight my corner over a stay. I'll post back as soon as I get a chance either way.

Off to (Morpeth and Berwick) Court in a tick, for what it's worth! I'm ready to tell my story, if they bother to listen and fight my corner over a stay. I'll post back as soon as I get a chance either way.