Just thought I would update you on what is happening in the Devon and Cornwall Courts. When it first became apparent that cases would be put on stay, I had a meeting with the Manager of Truro County Court to discuss it. She told me that all claims concerning banks would be pulled out and put in front of a judge before a stay was ordered. With the first batch of stays, a general form of judgment or order was issued worded as "Before Deputy District Judge Romary sitting at Truro County Court ...etc.". Then, from 20 August, the orders appeared worded as "Before A PROPER OFFICER sitting at Truro County Court ..." I queried this with the Manager of Truro County Court questioning whether "a proper officer" had the authority to issue stays. Her immediate response was, "That is a mistake, it should have said "Upon the direction of his honour District Judge Griggs ...". On the particular case that I queried, an amended order was issued. I then queried this pointing out that "upon the direction of" is not the same as "before". It implied that the judge had not read the papers. After 48 hours, I received a phone call from her saying that she had taken instructions from the judiciary and that everything was fine. "Before a proper officer" was fine because it was as a result of a direction from Justice Griggs. And it was true that cases were being stayed without the papers going before a judge. If I wanted to challenge this, I would have to make an application to have the stay lifted. (She then also told me that she would no longer communicate with me. I was not a claimant, and as I was not a solicitor, I could only get involved as a lay representative which would mean that I could only communicate with the court when the claimant was there in person. She had obviously decided that I was making her job too difficult with all my stroppy questions. Previous stroppy questions from me had included pointing out to her that the information letter that was being sent out with all stay orders did not even have the name of the statutory instrument right - it referred to the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999; it also had as the contact email address the previous court manager who retired 2 months ago - any email sent to him gets an auto reply telling you that he has retired.) My reading of the Civil Procedure Rules is that an officer of the court does not have the power to make these decisions. "CPR 3.3 (4) The court may make an order of its own initiative, without hearing the parties or giving them an opportunity to make representations." "Power of judge, Master or district judge to perform functions of the court CPR 2.4*** Where these Rules provide for the court to perform any act then, except where an enactment, rule or practice direction provides otherwise, that act may be performed – (a) in relation to proceedings in the High Court, by any judge, Master or district judge of that Court; and (b) in relation to proceedings in a county court, by any judge or district judge. Court staff 2.5*** (1) Where these Rules require or permit the court to perform an act of a formal or administrative character, that act may be performed by a court officer. (2) A requirement that a court officer carry out any act at the request of a party is subject to the payment of any fee required by a fees order for the carrying out of that act." The issuing of a stay is, surely, an act that should be performed by the judge under 2.4 (b) rather than being a formal or administrative act under 2.5 (1). I cannot see how a judge can delegate a decision about which cases should be stayed to an officer of the court. If I take a claim into the court and ask the officer if the claim looks OK to them, they refuse to tell me, saying that they are not legally qualified. But 10 minutes later a "proper officer' looks at it and decides that the legal issues in it are similar to those in the Commercial Court case and promptly put the claim on stay. Deeply depressing!

Would Brian Mullen please phone BBC2 Working Lunch ASAP - they want to talk to him about his victory over Lloyds. 9.30 a.m. Thursday 16 March Contact Pauline McDonagh on 0208 576 0914 Bob Egerton

See letter that I am sending to Nationwide: Mr Philip Williamson, Chief Executive Nationwide Building Society Nationwide House Pipers Way Swindon SN38 1NW PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL Dear Mr Williamson Ref: Gary Clay vs. Nationwide Building Society I am writing to ask you to cease the practice of imposing penalty charges on your customers when they breach their contracts with you. You should be aware by now that the contracts into which your company enters with your customers, both for current accounts and for credit cards, contain clauses that, if tested in the courts, would be found to be penalties and, therefore, not legally enforceable. The law on this subject is clear. Any clause that seeks to impose automatic damages on a party in breach of contract is only enforceable if it is construed as liquidated damages. If the sum of money set as payable is disproportionate to the loss likely to be sustained by the other party, then the clause is deemed to be a penalty and is, therefore, unenforceable. I will not bore you with a list of the cases that support this proposition, because I am sure that, by now, you will have been briefed on this subject by your legal advisers. I have held accounts with Nationwide for over 40 years. I have remained with Nationwide because it is still a mutual society and I believe that this is inherently a better business model than that of a typical bank plc. Therefore, it is particularly disappointing to find that Nationwide is applying unlawful charges in just the same way as the banks. Nationwide was due to face Mr Gary Clay in Hull County Court on 14 February to defend a claim made by Mr Clay for recovery of unlawful charges. You filed a detailed defence including a long witness statement. You had appointed solicitors. You had clearly incurred significant costs in preparing for the day in court. I have been involved in a consumer campaign for the past year against these type of charges and I booked a day off work and a night in the Travelodge Hull so that I could be with Mr Clay to assist him with his case. On 9 February, you totally capitulated and paid up rather than face Mr Clay in court. Your solicitor’s letter claimed “The cost to Nationwide of arranging representation at the hearing makes it uneconomic for us to continue to defend the claim. For this, and no other, reason I am instructed to settle your claim in full.” This is a preposterous statement. You had already incurred costs and the additional costs of appearing in court would have been relatively minor. I know that the reason that you did not go to court was because you feared that you would lose in open court and your whole charging structure would be blown out of the water; Mr Bacon, who wrote the letter, knows that this is the case; you know that this is the case. But you chose to sanction this letter to be written. I would expect that sort of unashamed hypocrisy from the chief executive of a plc answerable only to his shareholders. It is very sad, and doubly hypocritical when it comes from a man who said in an interview with Personnel Today just one month ago, “As a mutual organisation, our customers own us so we have a unique opportunity to say to them every day: 'I guarantee I only work for you, because we don't have shareholders’.” In a further act of spiteful vindictiveness, you have now given Mr Clay notice to close his account. You do not have the guts to fight your case in court, but you have all the courage of a playground bully who kicks the small kid when the teacher is not looking. Fortunately for your customers, you are answerable to them and you will be so at the society’s AGM. I look forward to seeing you then. That is of course is if you have not closed all my accounts by then and expelled me from your members’ club. Meanwhile, before the AGM, Nationwide will have been sued by other members over the same issue. No doubt you will adopt the same pathetic tactics of disputing the claims, saying you are going to defend the cases, then failing to turn up in court. If you have any conscience at all, now is the time to answer its call. Admit that the charging structure is wrong, change it, and recompense all of those members who have been disadvantaged by it. If you do so, you will earn the respect of your members and be a beacon of good practice in an industry that is generally institutionally dishonest. If you do not do so, the consumer campaign, plus the tardy OFT, will eventually bring about the overthrow of this unlawful system and you will be tarred with the same brush as all the banks. People will then ask, “what was the point of a mutual society, it is just as bad as all the other crooks?” Please do not insult my intelligence, nor dig your career into an even deeper hole, by replying to me and claiming that you are advised that your charges are lawful. Yours sincerely Bob Egerton

See letter that I am sending to Nationwide: Mr Philip Williamson, Chief Executive Nationwide Building Society Nationwide House Pipers Way Swindon SN38 1NW PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL Dear Mr Williamson Ref: Gary Clay vs. Nationwide Building Society I am writing to ask you to cease the practice of imposing penalty charges on your customers when they breach their contracts with you. You should be aware by now that the contracts into which your company enters with your customers, both for current accounts and for credit cards, contain clauses that, if tested in the courts, would be found to be penalties and, therefore, not legally enforceable. The law on this subject is clear. Any clause that seeks to impose automatic damages on a party in breach of contract is only enforceable if it is construed as liquidated damages. If the sum of money set as payable is disproportionate to the loss likely to be sustained by the other party, then the clause is deemed to be a penalty and is, therefore, unenforceable. I will not bore you with a list of the cases that support this proposition, because I am sure that, by now, you will have been briefed on this subject by your legal advisers. I have held accounts with Nationwide for over 40 years. I have remained with Nationwide because it is still a mutual society and I believe that this is inherently a better business model than that of a typical bank plc. Therefore, it is particularly disappointing to find that Nationwide is applying unlawful charges in just the same way as the banks. Nationwide was due to face Mr Gary Clay in Hull County Court on 14 February to defend a claim made by Mr Clay for recovery of unlawful charges. You filed a detailed defence including a long witness statement. You had appointed solicitors. You had clearly incurred significant costs in preparing for the day in court. I have been involved in a consumer campaign for the past year against these type of charges and I booked a day off work and a night in the Travelodge Hull so that I could be with Mr Clay to assist him with his case. On 9 February, you totally capitulated and paid up rather than face Mr Clay in court. Your solicitor’s letter claimed “The cost to Nationwide of arranging representation at the hearing makes it uneconomic for us to continue to defend the claim. For this, and no other, reason I am instructed to settle your claim in full.” This is a preposterous statement. You had already incurred costs and the additional costs of appearing in court would have been relatively minor. I know that the reason that you did not go to court was because you feared that you would lose in open court and your whole charging structure would be blown out of the water; Mr Bacon, who wrote the letter, knows that this is the case; you know that this is the case. But you chose to sanction this letter to be written. I would expect that sort of unashamed hypocrisy from the chief executive of a plc answerable only to his shareholders. It is very sad, and doubly hypocritical when it comes from a man who said in an interview with Personnel Today just one month ago, “As a mutual organisation, our customers own us so we have a unique opportunity to say to them every day: 'I guarantee I only work for you, because we don't have shareholders’.” In a further act of spiteful vindictiveness, you have now given Mr Clay notice to close his account. You do not have the guts to fight your case in court, but you have all the courage of a playground bully who kicks the small kid when the teacher is not looking. Fortunately for your customers, you are answerable to them and you will be so at the society’s AGM. I look forward to seeing you then. That is of course is if you have not closed all my accounts by then and expelled me from your members’ club. Meanwhile, before the AGM, Nationwide will have been sued by other members over the same issue. No doubt you will adopt the same pathetic tactics of disputing the claims, saying you are going to defend the cases, then failing to turn up in court. If you have any conscience at all, now is the time to answer its call. Admit that the charging structure is wrong, change it, and recompense all of those members who have been disadvantaged by it. If you do so, you will earn the respect of your members and be a beacon of good practice in an industry that is generally institutionally dishonest. If you do not do so, the consumer campaign, plus the tardy OFT, will eventually bring about the overthrow of this unlawful system and you will be tarred with the same brush as all the banks. People will then ask, “what was the point of a mutual society, it is just as bad as all the other crooks?” Please do not insult my intelligence, nor dig your career into an even deeper hole, by replying to me and claiming that you are advised that your charges are lawful. Yours sincerely Bob Egerton

Yes, of course I will post it on the forum. But I need jonnypoo to contact me to give me permission to use his case. Are his emails getting through?

Jonny I tried to send you an email but it seems to have been undeliverable. Did you get it? Can you please contact me so that we can put together a press release about your case. Great idea about standing outside the bank handing out letters. I am planning some similar direct action in a few weeks (after I have left my present job and I will have more time and no compunction about being seen doing it). Bob Egerton [email protected]