Interestingly, there may be a way around "amending" your POC's

The way is to file "Additional Information" by sending copies to the Court and the Defendant that supports your claim including any additional LAws and evidence you will be relying on in Court.

This is assuming that your original POC's amount claimed is unchanged and you quote that in light of the SCoJ Judgement the points of Law have now been clarified. Certainly if you claimed the Penalty and UTCCR reg 5 and / or 6 in your original POC then this should all be that needs be done and no additional costs apart from postage to the Defendant and the Court.

I'm sure peeps can verify or flesh this out a little more?

BT are moving all their call-centres back to the UK.....

Nothing yet CARO but then again it's been Xmas and New Year so damn sure nothing has been coming out of the admin side ofthe Courts.

I think I'll be writing the Abbey to request their agreement to amend my POC's this coming week giving them a week or two to reply then writing to the Court to either extend my stay or unstay my claim.

Should give me a little breathing space in that period for anything to happen methinks?

TBH....I'm pretty sure the SCoJ had in mind insofar as Reg 5 being unfair is the fact that the minority are subsidising "free-banking" for the majority.

The Banks have already admitted that this is the case and as such is inherently unfair under 5 (1)

Please correct me......

Hi CARO....to elaborate then...

Taken from the BBC website today. Relevant section in RED bud....

Banks have won a partial victory against some credit card customers who have been trying to avoid their debts.

A judge at the High Court in Manchester has upheld that card companies need only provide a "reconstituted" copy of the original loan agreement.

It confirms that banks can still enforce debts even if the original agreement has been lost or destroyed.

The ruling may affect thousands of potential cases gathered by claims management companies.

"It seems to me to be likely that the number of challenges... will diminish significantly hereafter," said Judge David Waksman.

Banks sometimes have great difficulty in providing an exact copy of an original credit card agreement, such as a photocopied or scanned version, and at least one major bank is thought to have destroyed all its old credit card agreements.

Reconstitution

Under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA), lenders are obliged to supply a copy of their credit card or loan agreement to a borrower, if asked to do so, within 12 days.

The absence of a copy of a signed executed agreement is no evidence that such an agreement was not made

Judge Waksman

Some claims management companies and their solicitors have been trying to use the law to stop debts being enforced, possibly permanently, if the copy cannot be produced satisfactorily.

This has led to disputes between lenders and customers about what sort of copy is acceptable under the law.

Judge Waksman examined six test cases to decide this.

He said that the purpose of obliging lenders to provide a copy of the loan agreement, when asked, was not to prove that the agreement had been properly struck in the first place, but to provide the borrowers with information about the state of their account.

"The debtor has a legitimate interest in seeing a copy of the agreement he signed, not in the sense of proof of execution but as information," he said.

As such, he ruled that a reconstituted version of the agreement was perfectly acceptable.

The information in it could be drawn from other data held by the bank about their customers, and it could be recreated by drawing on the standard terms and conditions that the bank applied at the time.

Also, it was not necessary for the bank to examine the original signed agreement to do this, or even still to have it.

"A creditor can satisfy its duty... by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself," he said.

"The fact that the creditor no longer has the original executed agreement is not therefore, itself a bar to compliance [with the Act]," he added.

'Honest and accurate'

Judge Waksman did point out that the banks could not simply invent the loan agreement retrospectively to comply with the law.

"It must - of necessity - be based upon records held as to the debtor and the agreement he made," the judge said.

"That a creditor needs to take care when providing the copy is highlighted by the fact that it is implicit in its duty that it is an 'honest and accurate' copy," he added.

Judge Waksman rejected some arguments put forward by the banks, and supported some of those put forward of the claims management firms and their clients.

He ruled that:

• a copy of the loan agreement must contain the name and address of the borrower as it was at the time it was signed

• if an agreement has been subsequently varied by the lender, then the lender is obliged to supply a copy of both the original agreement as well as the current one.

Judge Waksman's rulings were welcomed by one of the biggest claims management companies, Cartel Client Review, which was involved in the Manchester hearings.

It said that the clarification of the law would "open the floodgates" to many more cases being put forward in 2010.

"Our experience shows that many banks and credit card companies have failed to instigate systems and procedures that allow them to comply with the requirements of the CCA and it is also clear that many agreements did not comply with the prescribed terms of the CCA, when the agreements were originally drafted," said Andrew Settle of Cartel's solicitors CCLS.

Fishing expeditions

Judge Waksman also ruled that failure to supply a copy did not, of itself, mean there was an unfair relationship between the lender and borrower under the CCA.

But he confirmed that if a lender could not supply a copy of the loan agreement, then this automatically prevented them from using the courts to chase a debt until such time as they could come up with a copy.

The judge went on to criticise some attempts by credit card customers to avoid repaying their debts by challenging their lender to produce a valid copy of their original loan agreement.

"Many claims now made under [the Act] may properly be regarded as unattractive and merely fishing for a case of unenforceability," he warned.

He went on to strike out claims from two individuals, pointing out that they had failed to supply any evidence at all that they had never signed their loan agreements in the first place.

"The absence of a copy of a signed executed agreement is no evidence that such an agreement was not made," ruled Judge Waksman.

ST

Yes they have to provide the T&C's in fact and honesty of the periods requested.

Failure to do so would see their defence fall apart as concealment!!!!

It appears to me that the Abbey "Penalty Charges" issue 2005 and before was NOT ruled on one way or the other?

God!...I wish this was clearer.

What about all the pre-2005 T&C's?

Ditto KEN

Hey!........it's a real disease and is incredibly debilitating

Um......on a little note of worry here.

I have just been on the phone with the wife of a friend who like me is in the process of claiming his charges back since 2006.

He was admitted this morning to hospital after an apparent failed suicide attempt and wanted me to assist in trying to get his mind into a more positive attitude. It really only became clear in the phone call how badly in debt they were despite the "help" of lessened re-payment terms from the Banks.

To say I'm unbelievably shocked is an understatement. I know you can't directly blame the Bank in this instance (in all fairness) but would feel it's their policies and attitude that have have led vulnerable people down this route.

Well I'm off to do my best for a friend.....

Well.........half to be expected really wasn't it?

I believe the OFT have now given the Consumer Groups carte blanche to return the fight where it should have continued in the first place. I strongly feel that flooding the Courts again will not only force the Banks hands but force a lame Government to pull it's finger out and instigate legislation immediately rather than having numerous inquiries and market studies before handing it across to the OFT, FSA FOS et al.....to totally cock-up through lack of funds / lack of knowledge / lack of power due to the inept handling of the regulations from the EU Courts.

On the other hand....why so many regulators?

Why can't they all be merged under one title / one roof and with funding from the Government direct with NO link to Govenment will. I would also propose that they staff themselves with some of the best legal financial talent out there to police it.

But....hey!....who's going to listen to a rant?

I'm now awaiting the opinion of the CAG mods and the docs from Cox QC to amend and re-initiate my claim. I'm furious of the regulatory bodies and this lame Government and I'l............sorry ranting again......

I agree, but here's hoping so eh?

Wait till tomorrow morning for the OFFICIAL announcement.

In the meantime all we are doing is supposing a doom and gloom scenario.

Sky may have been mis-quoting and if, IF, they are right, how do we know if the OFT have a sting announcement against the Banks?

My attitudes crossed as well.....

I have to admire CAR's optimism......keep taking the tranqs bud

I'm pretty sure it's the former Suze. The FOS isn't a legal body, therefore ANY decision they rule on isn't enforceable in Law. Only a Court can do that....

And a Market Sensitive one at that. Since the Banks "Won" (cough cough) that would be Market Sensitive as well and indeed the shares in the Banks bounced a little following the SCoJ Judgement.

So intriguingly, I wonder what the OFT will say (as if we didn't already know.

And that is supposed to give us all a clearer picture?

Basically I would like the OFT to stop fannying around and make an informed decision for once!!...and SOON at that!

I'm still awaiting information myself following a query after receiving notification that the OFT are to take it on rather than all of us peeps individually.

Still awaiting confirmation but all in it makes sense if the OFT carries on but with the input from all consumer groups such as CAG, L seagulls, MSE etc etc

Stay tuned as I feel this week it will all be made clearer.

Where has this been stated as "Official" please?

Unless you're a Labour MP who can't think into the future further than 10 mins and anything other than themselves? Rant over....blood pressure returning to normal

Well....I'm extremely impressed and inspired with much confidence. If this chap can't get the win for us then no-one can......

Raymond Cox QC

Call date

1982

Silk date

2002

Practice Areas

Raymond Cox has a wide practice focused on commercial disputes and regulation, with an emphasis on:

• banking and financial services
  
• reinsurance and insurance
  
• regulation relating to insurance and financial services
  
• professional negligence
  

Recommendations (Practitioners' Guides)

“a terrific advocate” with “finely balanced judgment”: Chambers Guide to the UK Legal Profession 2008.

“continues to impress the market” and “sources remark that his evident expertise is added to by the fact that he is “extremely easy to get on with”: Chambers, 2009.

“achieves results in an easy way”, Chambers 2006.

“knows the financial regulatory arena well”, Legal 500, 2009.

“is seen as having great acumen in retail banking issues, such as overdraft and credit card fees, and is not flashy, but very, very clever” Legal 500, 2007.

Recommended in banking and finance, and insurance, Chambers 2009, and banking and finance, insurance and reinsurance Legal 500, 2009.

Education

Mansfield College, Oxford University 1978-1981: BA Hons. Jurisprudence, First Class

Eldon Scholar, Oxford University

Arden Scholar, Gray's Inn

Appointments

Bencher of Gray's Inn, 2008

Professional Experience

Recent banking experience includes the administration of Awal Bank BSC, Icelandic bank deposits, the OFT credit card inquiry, the bank charges litigation, disputes relating to split capital bonds, and structured finance. Regulatory work spans all financial services, in particular banking and insurance (including s. 45 orders and s. 166 reviews), money laundering, POCA, documentary credits and bills. Insurance and reinsurance experience includes, the Kuwait Airways and Exxon recoveries, split capital investment trust market, the PA LMX market, film finance, the ERAS EIL pollution scheme, the Stetzel Thompson pool and the Weavers stamp companies. Professional negligence work ranges over all professions, including in particular bankers, barristers, solicitors, and construction professionals. Raymond Cox advises on matters in Singapore and has acted as an expert there.

Recent Practice

Banking and Financial Services

Recent practice includes:

• acting for the global administrators of Awal Bank in relation to recognition of the Bahrain administration in England under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006. Advising in relation to asset protection, recovery and freezing order proceedings in USA, Cayman, Guernsey, Saudi Arabia, UK and elsewhere, relating to Awal Bank, Saad Group. Al Gosaibi, and Al Sanea.
  
• acted for claimants on advance payment and performance bonds: Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v Banca Popolare dell'Alto Adige SPA [2009] EWHC 2410 (Comm);
  
• advising in relation to UK regulation of a 15 billion euro loan note programme.
  
• advising in relation to FSA regulation of loans containing ‘debt cancellation and suspension’ provisions, and contracts of insurance.
  
• acting in dispute between UK and US banks re CREST payments for eligible debt securities involving Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander
  
• advising depositors in relation to deposits in Landsbanki, Kaupthing and Glitnir Icelandic banks.
  
• advising in relation to operation of loan facilities by Kaupthing in administration.
  
• advising in relation to recovery of CHAPS payment made to Kaupthing before administration.
  
• acting for bank in dispute relating to trading in reverse knock-in foreign currency options (FSA classification and conduct of business issues).
  
• advising in relation to Ancillary Bank set off rights (pre and post insolvency) where there is a syndicated loan, intercreditor agreement, flawed asset account, debenture and set-off and netting agreement.
  
• advising re UK regulation of securitised mortgage investment vehicle.
  
• acting for corporate finance house in relation to dispute with execution agent re settlement for certificated and uncertificated shares under the LSE and CREST rules.
  
• advising financial institution in relation to contracts for differences and establishment, regulated activities and financial promotions under the FSMA.
  
• advising major exchange in relation to regulation of £200m insurance/guarantee cover.
  
• acting for a major bank in relation to FSA credit card charge investigation.
  
• advising investment manager in relation to client and funds handling obligations under FSMA and Handbook.
  
• advising a building society in relation to an FSA “assets requirement” notice under s.45, and money laundering.
  
• advising in relation to Regulatory Transactions Committee of the FSA hearing and s.166 review (report by skilled person) for multinational financial institution.
  
• acting in relation to various default bank charge hearings and regulatory matters.
  
• advising in relation to breaches of regulation by an IFA in relation to contracts for differences.
  
• advising European bank re liability for forged transfers from Singapore branch.
  

Insurance and Reinsurance, including arbitration

Recent practice includes:

• advising insurers in relation to FSA regulation of contracts of insurance and ‘debt cancellation and suspension’ contracts.
  
• advising on claims co-operation in relation to a banker’s blanket bond negligence claim for up to $850m.
  
• advising Lloyd’s broker in relation to regulation of mortgage intermediary business and policy wording, and client funds.
  
• advising on a business interruption and property damage cover - inwards insurance and outwards reinsurance claims of over £150m arising from nuclear plant shutdown.
  
• acting in relation to arbitration proceedings relating to Exxon and Kuwait spiral recoveries.
  
• advising on an arbitration in Belgium as to the terms of a retrocession agreement.
  
• advising major exchange in relation to regulation of £200m insurance/guarantee cover.
  
• advising re bankers blanket bond coverage of claims arising from dishonest employee.
  
• Sphere Drake Insurance v Stirling Cooke Brown Reinsurance Brokers – various court and arbitration proceedings in relation to the Personal Accident retrocessional LMX market.
  
• Split Capital Investment Trusts (zeros) – advising on various insurance claims arising from the collapse of the zeros market and regulation.
  
• acting in relation to numerous film finance litigation and arbitration proceedings relating to ‘gap’ insurance policies covering losses made in financing films.
  
• pensions mis-selling claims – advising on various insurance claims.
  
• advising in relation to title insurance.
  

Professional Negligence

Recent experience includes:

• advising in relation to the liability of an IFA in respect of contracts for differences.
  
• acting on a claim against bank advisers, architects and engineers re property subsidence and lack of insurance.
  
• Comunica v BDO Binder Hamlyn – acting for claimant in an audit negligence case.
  
• John Mowlem Construction plc v NF Jones & Co– solicitors’ negligence action relating to advice about professional indemnity insurance.
  
• AXA v MSL–series of claims against centralised mortgage administrators.
  
• Astra v Stoy Hayward and Paine Webber – claim of negligence against a merchant bank solicitors and accountants relating to a take-over.
  

Other commercial

Recent practice includes:

• Freezing orders in UK and Cayman in relation to Awal Bank BSC.
  
• Societe Generale v Goldas advising on freezing injunction proceedings in relation to missing consignments of gold valued at US$500m.
  
• ENKA v Banco Popolare: acting in challenge to English court jurisdiction, raising articles 27 and 28, Brussels I Regulation (lis pendens), in relation to London proceedings on demand guarantee and Italian proceedings for order for non payment.
  
• proceedings to obtain order under European Enforcement Order regulation 2004
  
• advising on break up of international joint venture for hotels.
  
• acting on break up of US/UK solicitor partnership.
  
• acting for a Singapore buyer of a missing shipment of mobile phones, in relation to claims for conspiracy, breach of trust and damages.
  
• Gemini Investments v Botolph - acting for sellers of property in relation to freezing injunction proceedings arising from apparently fraudulent rent guarantees amounting to over £50m.
  
• R v Leaf, advising on civil law aspects of criminal proceedings for tax fraud which involved fraudulently reclaiming £55m of corporation tax on the basis of losses made on loans and transactions between a group of companies.
  
• Cronos Containers NV v Palatin – claim in respect of international fraud and constructive trust against a bank.
  
• British Sugar v Babbini– jurisdiction under Brussels Convention.
  
• Knauf (UK) v British Gypsum– major industry-wide dispute relating to defects in plaster or plasterboard.
  
• Instance v Denny – worldwide injunction against use of without prejudice documents.
  

Reported Cases

Recent cases include:

Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v Banca Popolare dell'Alto Adige SPA [2009] EWHC 2410 (Comm)

Film Finances Inc v The Royal Bank of Scotland [2007] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 382

British Sugar v Fratelli Babbini [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Law Reports 332

Sphere Drake Insurance v Stirling Cooke Brown Reinsurance Brokers Ltd. and others [2003] Lloyd’s Law Reports IR 525

John Mowlem Construction v Neil F Jones [2003] EWHC 2894 (TCC);

Instance v Denny [2000] FSR 869

DSG Retail v QBE International Insurance [1999] Lloyd’s Rep. IR 263

Publications

Law of Bank Payments(2004, 3rd ed.) joint editor with Michael Brindle QC, (Sweet & Maxwell)

Private International Law of Reinsurance and Insurance, December 2006, Informa (LLP) with Louise Merrett and Marcus Smith

Commercial Court Procedure 2001, general editor with Stephen Moriarty QC, (2000, Sweet & Maxwell)

Contributor to Professional Negligence and Liability (LLP 2000), edited by Mark Simpson QC

Joint editor of Regulatory part of Encyclopaedia of Insurance Law(ed. Prof John Birds, Sweet and Maxwell, 2006)

Recent articles include:

• "Banking and Payment Services regime", In House Lawyer magazine, September 2009
  
• "The Banking Code 2008", Law Soc. Gazette, 24 April 2008
  
• “Election Time?”, Insurance & Reinsurance Law Briefing (I. & R.L.B. 2008, 137/138(Apr), 1–5, (Kosmar Villa Holidays v Trustees of Syndicate 1243 [2008] EWCA Civ 147 (CA))
  

I think you may be right about this CARO.

Either way as soon as I hear or receive anything from the Court or Abbey, I'll post it up in full it's full technicolour horror

Elsewhere in the forums it seems Lloyds are being asked to negotiate a settlement with Claimants and vice versa by the Courts. If no success by late Feb then they are being listed as to either be struck out or for the parties to apply to unstay the claim.

Excellent CARO.....always looking out for the others, that's why you're so popular

I do remeber receiving a Court Order when they were stayed, since then I've mislaid it.

However, looking back through my thread I see it says that the stay willbe in place until (Ithink) early 2008 regardless following the cessation of the High Court Test Case.

We all know the history of the Test Case now and was lead to believe that the stay remained until the FINAL Judgement in the Test CAse though I can't remeber receiving anything else.

That's why I phoned the Court to find out the status of my stayed claim.

My other claim was struck out in my local Court but I got that re-instated stating that the Test Case was still in progress. Success This is only at the stage that needs a defence filing from the Banks.

This claim as you know has gone past the AQ and Pre-Trial Hearing stage and was just awaiting final instaructions for exchange of docs and a Court Date. I think in all honesty, we may see no further AQ's but a Witness Satement and Document exchange and Court Dates.

Slightly off topic here YB....but I love the way you can't get the price argument out of your head. Solution......try a hypnotist