Jump to content

MissPhonic

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About MissPhonic

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Arses!! Just read the BBC News story and I quote: "Cases currently on hold in the county courts will stay on hold until the end of May, when the banks will decide whether they are going to appeal against the ruling." Bottom Burps! Vicki
  2. Morning all! Not been on here for a while since my case was stayed by the judge in August, but I'm digging out my paperwork, dusting it off and picking up where I left off - I think?! What does the verdict mean? What do I have to do now or will the court process get moving all by itself again? I would be grateful for any advice in idiot terms please! Vicki
  3. I did, it really has made me feel like there is some hope! Vicki
  4. Hi Lula, Thank you so much again for your swift reply! I presume you mean the thread " Application for Removal of a Stay on the Grounds of Hardship." I am reading and rereading it now to get it all clear, then I will get to work on my email, and post it on here when it's ready. Thanks again! Vicki
  5. Thanks for the email addys Lula, and thanks for your testification srfrench - I have a horrible feeling testification isn't even a word -well it is now! Anyhoo, I digress! Right, I emailed Inga and Ronan on 12/11/07: I am writing this email in regards to my claim against Abbey. I have received correspondence from Abbey stating that they will be asking for a stay on the case pending the outcome of the OFT test case. Since this letter, I have received and filed my allocation questionnaire. I have been informed that this is now with the judge and will be hearing from the courts soon. I have requested in my AQ that any claim for a stay be refused on the grounds of hardship. I have provided the courts with an income and expenditure breakdown and explained my case. After doing some research I believe that our case is strong enough for any claim for a stay to be refused. We are fully prepared to see this claim right through to the end but believe the quickest and easiest option for all involved would be to settle out of court. We would then of course drop any claim against Abbey and consider the case over. I would be grateful if you could look into our case and contact me back at your earliest convenience. I got an out of office reply from Inga and nowt from Ronan. In the meantime I got a General Form of Judgment or Order from the court, basically, the judge in his infinate wisdom has taken it upon himself to stay the claim without a hearing, pending judgment being delivered on the OFT case commencing 14th January 2007. I have 7 days to apply for it to be set aside, varied or stayed. Well, gutted wasn't the word! We desperatley need this money - it's our bloody money! Anyhoo, Just received an email from Ronan: "without prejudice" Dear MissPhonic, The contents of your email are noted. I can confirm that Abbey have not yet been served with a copy of your allocation questionnaire or any documents relating to hardship. If you wish to discuss the matter further then please call me on 020 775 64398. Additionally and/or alternatively, please provide me with any documentation which you claim puts forward your hardship for our consideration. Kind regards Ronan I neeeeeed help!! I need to know the right thing to say or do now to get him on side - or am I too late now the judge has stayed the case? Please please help, this email and Simons success have given me a light at the end of the tunnel, I just need a guiding hand to see me there! Vicki
  6. Massive massive congrats!!! I've been following your story and am chuffed to bits for you! Enjoy your money!! Vicki
  7. Lula I love you!:o I wasn't expecting anyone to answer that fast, it's been dead around here for ages! No I don't have any email addys. Thanks for the link too, will have a look. Vicki
  8. Right, Faxed over my AQ on 26th October, handed in hard copy and £35 fee in person on 29th October. Phoned the court today for an update, the lady said it was with the judge and I will hear from him soon but it could be up to 2 weeks:rolleyes: Still no word of a stay though! In my AQ I have stated hardship, I am on maternity pay, we are in a heap of debt and just not making ends meet. I included an income and expediture breakdown. Does anyone think it would be worthwhile emailing someone at Abbey, telling them the situation and seeing if they want to settle? Also, with the AQ I copied the draft directions from the AQ help page, what happens with these? Does the judge decide whether he wants to use them or should I have done something with these? Hope someone can help! Vicki
  9. Thank you so so much for your help Lula, it really is much appriciated!
  10. Thank you for your reply Lula:) I presume that I would need to word this in my own way and there is no rough template? I'm not very eloquent, esp with all this legal stuff! Would I have to enclose an income and expendature breakdown with the AQ or wait until i'm asked for it or the hearing? What about the Draft Order for Directions? Where does this fit in? Sorry!
  11. Hey all!! I've been posting on my thread but to deaf ears, I seem to be the only one talking to me! I need to get my AQ in by Friday but am stuck on the 'other information' box, I am following the step by step guide as I have been all along but I don't know exactly what to write? We are thinking of playing the hardship card as I am now on maternity pay and with 3 children and a mountain of debt we really are struggling at the moment. Do we mention this in this box or do we wait until they try to impose a stay? Please help!!! Thank you so much in advance! Vicki
  12. Would someone please cast an eye over my defence and let me know if it's all standard stuff? I'm feeling very overwhelmed with all this and have to have my AQ in this week! I did post in the GaryH thread but got no response there either!
  13. Received standard 'we will apply for a stay and OFT' jargon letter from Abbey yesterday dated 4th October 2007. Received notice from Lambeth CC (dated 9th October) that defence filed, including AQ to be completed and returned by 26th October 2007. Still no news from CC on a stay.
  14. Hi, I recieved the new defence, signed by Willem Basson, typed up in full in my thread (link below). #67. In all honesty, I'm feeling very overwhelmed by all of this. I'm reading and re-reading everything but find alot of it hard to understand! I received the standard 'We will apply for a stay / OFT test case' letter today, still not heard from the court yet though. Would someone mind looking at my thread and advising me of my options please. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/90560-missphonic-abbey.html Thank you in advance! Vicki
  15. Hi all! Thanks for your replies! Still not heard from the court but with the postal strikes I doubt I will for a while - I recieved a letter today postmarked 3/10/07 so so the backlog must be massive:( How's the move going Dee? I presume you're out of London now - i'm lost out of London! Hope your lot are all better now Jo! I have no scanner so I've typed up the defence - took all day with a very active 5 month old bouncing all over me! It's still all babble to me though:( Is it standard? Defence. Introduction. In this defence: 1.1 References to paragraph numbers are, save where otherwise indicated, references to paragraph numbers of the particulars of claim. 1.2 The defendant’s accounts Conditions will be referred to as “the Conditions”. 1.3 References to an “unauthorised” overdraft are to an overdraft permitted by the defendant without prior application and arrangement under clause 6.1 of the conditions. 2. It is admitted that the claimant held the following account with the defendant, account number to be particularised (“the Account”). It is admitted and averred that the contractual provisions between the Claimant and the Defendant in relation to the Account are set out in the Conditions. 3. It is denied that those charges payable and that the rate of interest applicable upon a customer going into unauthorised overdraft or exceeding an authorised overdraft constitute a penalty at common law. It is denied that those charges and that interest are payable on a breach of contract. 4. The true position is as follows: 4.1 Each and every payment instruction presented by or on behalf of the Claimant to the Defendant which would, if honoured, take the Account into unauthorised overdraft or beyond an authorised overdraft, constituted a request (in law, an offer) by the Claimant to the Defendant for a loan of the requisite amount on the terms set put in the conditions (alternatively on the Defendant’s usual terms as to such overdrafts as at the date of the payment instruction in question). 4.2 The defendant was free to accept or reject each such request. 4.3 If the defendant honoured the payment instruction in question, the Defendant thereby accepted the Claimant’s offer. 4.4 Accordingly, the Claimant became bound to pay interest and charges in relation to that loan at the stipulated rate. 4.5 That liability does not, at common law, constitute a penalty. 5. It is denied (if it be alleged) that, on a proper construction, clause 6.3 of the Conditions provides that a customer going into unauthorised overdraft or exceeding an authorised overdraft constitutes a breach of contract (for which the customer is liable to pay damages). It is averred that clause 6.3 of the Conditions operates as a trigger to bring into effect certain other provisions of the Conditions. 6. It is denied that those charges payable upon the Defendant dishonouring a payment instruction presented by the Claimant by reason of the state of the Account (namely that had the Defendant honoured the instruction in question, it would have taken the Account into unauthorised overdraft or beyond an authorised overdraft) constitute a penalty at common law. Such charges are not payable on a breach of contract. They are, by clause 6.4 of the Conditions, a fee. 7. The Defendant understands the Claimant’s allegation to be that the fees and interest payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and fees in respect of the dishonouring of payment instruction are not binding on the Claimant by reason of regulation 8(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (“the 1999 Regulations”). 8. The Regulations, by regulation 1, came into force on 1 October 1999 and are of no application to any event occurring before that date. 9. Regulation 6(2) of the 1999 Regulations provides that: “In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate – (a) to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract, or (b) to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange,” 10. The fees and interest payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and fees in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions are: (i) set out in plain intelligible language in the conditions, and (ii) amount to the “price or remuneration” in respect of that provision of such overdraft or such dishonouring. 11. Accordingly, by regulation 6(2) of the 1999 Regulations, the provisions of the Conditions as to the fees and interest delete as appropriate payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions are not liable to assessed for fairness under those regulations. 12. It is denied that paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 to the 1999 Regulations is applicable. As pleaded above, the fees and interest payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and fees in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions are not payable on a breach of contract by the Claimant. 13. Alternatively, if (contrary to the Defendants primary case pleaded above), the provisions of the Conditions as to the fees and interest payable in respect of and unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and fees in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions fall to be assessed for fairness under the 1999 Regulations, the defendant’s case is as follows: (a) Regulation 5(1) of the 1999 Regulations provides that: “A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.” (b) Regulation 6(1) of the 1999 Regulations provides (so far as presently relevant) that: “…the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract….” © It is denied that the conditions breach that provision of the 1999 Regulations. In particular, (i) the Defendants charges and interest rates are published and provided to its customers from time to time and are expressed in clear language; (ii) the incurring of charges and interest rates in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft beyond that agreed and fees in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions is a result of the Claimants actions; and (iii) the Defendant’s charges and interest rates are not, in the circumstances, excessive in relation to the value of the services provided in relation thereto. (d) The Defendant reserves the right to plead further in this regard on the provision of gull and proper particulars of the basis on which the Claimant contends that the Conditions contravene regulation 5(1) of the 1999 Regulations. 14. Save as expressly pleaded to above, each and every allegation contained in the Particulars of Claim is denied as if the same were individually traversed.
×
×
  • Create New...