Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Sagaloo vs LloydsTSB * WON *


sagaloo
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6341 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Campaign to date:

 

6th June 2006: Preliminary letter sent to Service Recovery Centre, 125 Colmore Row, Birmingham, B3 3SF - requesting £2,156 plus £374.32 relating to interest on penalty charges for the period 1st July 2002 (period relates to availability of online statements).

 

8th June 2006: Send Data Protection Act request to Service Recovery Team in respect of period prior to July 2002, as well as a request for manual intervention. Included £10 fee.

 

9th June 2006: Receive standard template letter from Ms Musarat Siddique, including a standard response paragraph to a request I did not make in original preliminary letter.

 

9th June 2006: Send to Ms Musarat Siddique Letter Before Action requesting full refund of chargess within 14 days.

 

14th June 2006: Receive letter from Jamie O'Neill stating "This letter is the bank's final response", with option to contact Financial Ombudsman.

 

19th June 2006: Send Final Letter before action, maintaining original timetable set out in 1st Letter before action, dated 9th June 2006. Stated if refund was not received by Friday 23rd June 2006 then I would issue an online claim via www.moneyclaim.gov.uk on Monday 26th June 2006.

 

3rd July 2006: Received statements and notes on account re: DPA request. Interestingly, when my account was first set up, I received the odd unauthorised borrowing charge of £10 (significantly lower than current charges). In addition, 11 DDS were returned over a 3 month period - however, no charges appeared on my account.

 

3rd July 2006: Telephoned 0845 300 3000, (recorded call and told them I was recording) to ask whether I had picked up charges for the DDs at the start of my account. I was told to write to my branch for clarification.

 

3rd July 2006: Wrote to my branch requesting details of charges (which had not been disclosed as part of the DPA request) or alternatively an explanation as to why charges were not levied on my account late 2000/ early 2001 (which is when LLoyds appear to have been operating a different computing system).

 

Slight Setback:

I was unable to issue claim on Mon 26th June due to available funds being NIL. I had managed to keep my account penalty charge free for 6 months. However, a CSA payment was delayed by 2 days due to bank holiday which triggered charges of over £150 in May (the equivalent of almost 2/3 of the CSA payment!). This has snowballed into latest month and as a result the bank has returned 10 DDs in the last 2 weeks, so I am expecting to see a charge onto my account tomorrow for £350 re: penalty charges.

 

Tomorrow campaign restarted:

I intend to submit an online moneyclaim for just over £3,000. I will keep this thread updated with progress.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Looks like you've got things well in hand. Good luck! :D

reload vs Lloyds - £2703.11 Settlement Reached 14/07/06.

reload vs Lloyds Round 2 - Prelim sent 27/03/07. £435 owed.

reload vs Capital One - £456.57 Settlement Reached 14/07/06.

reload's mum vs Barclays - £745 owed. £375 partial settlement reached 17/10/06.

Lloyds Bank - The Template Response Letters!

 

Advice & opinions of reload are offered informally, without prejudice and without liability. Please use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4th July 2006: Independence Day and just got around to filing my online money claim: I will PM someone with claim details but haven't worked out how to do that yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

As you will see from this thread I submitted my online moneyclaim on the 4th July 2006.

 

Can someone just point me to another thread or confirm whether I need to send an amended version of Bankfodders letter re: stay, minus reference to the test case? Do I need to make the first move and contact SCM to discuss settlement?

 

In addition, in the intervening period I have incurred in the region of a further £1,000 of bank charges on my account - do I amend claim at this stage?

 

Recent events detailed below - any help would be gratefully received.

 

Many thanks.

 

24th July 2006 - deadline for Lloyds to file defence.

 

2nd August 2006 - defence served by Sechiari Clark & Mitchell.

 

4th August 2006 - I was advised defence had been filed and that proceedings were to be transferred from Northampton to Redditch County Court (local to me).

 

12th August 2006 - I return my AQ to Redditch CC (it was stamped with a deadline for return of AQ as 23 August 2006).

 

23rd August 2006 - Received covering letter from SCM confirming their AQ had been filed at Redditch County Court (copy of AQ attached to covering letter) - asked me to confirm receipt and to send a copy of my AQ back to them. SCM also specified in their AQ that they would not be available for a hearing date during the whole of September 2005.

31st August 2006 - I sent letter to SCM confirming receipt of copy of their AQ and sent them a copy of my AQ.

 

7th September 2006 received a Standard order for stay for settlement with consent of all the parties: "District Judge Nield orders claim stayed until 5th October 2006 to enable the parties to attempt settlement". (I have looked up some of the other threads regarding stays - no case was referred to just a date). It also says that on or before the 19th October 2006 one of 3 steps must be taken 1) claimant notiofy court of settlement: 2) extension requested; 3) file another AQ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sure they will settle before this point. Thats the judge putting a stay on your claim to give Lloyds more time to pay up as the judge clearly knows its not going as far as court.

  • Confused 1

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To change a claim it costs you £35. This amount isn't payable by the defendant so you won't get that back so i would wait and start another claim.

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sagaloo,

 

This is what you're after; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/17065-application-removal-stay.html

 

If the stay has been ordered to negotiate settlement, you should also contact SC&M and see what they've got to say - the onus is on them to offer you a settlement now, especially as it was them who asked for the extra time. You are by no means under any obligation to accept a reduced amount though, so I would'nt even consider that for one minute. This letter written by BF may be of use to you; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/3122-nationwide-first-lloyds-last-3.html#post214506.

 

Also, its correct that you can't now just increase your claim amount. You have 3 options with regard to the other £1000:

 

a) Apply to the court to amend your claim. This will cost you a non-refundable fee of £35;

 

b) Try to negotiate it in to this settlement if/when it comes. SC&M have shown a reluctance to do this of late though, and unfortunately they would not be obliged to. If the amount of your claim is offered unconditionally, you are obliged to accept;

 

c) Ensure you DO NOT sign a 'no future claims' condition in this settlement, then start the process again.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Gary

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary, thanks for taking the time to respond.

 

Given that SCM had indicated on their AQ that they were unavailable for court for the whole of September I am now not sure there would be any benefit in challenging the stay particularly as it does not refer to the outcome of a specific case. October 5th does not seem that long away now so perhaps I will work on the second link you provided and approach SCM re: settlement.

 

Do you or anybody else know which form I would use to amend the claim for the additional costs incurred after submission of original claim and would this delay the current claim any further? Given the amount of time being taken I am wondering whether the £35 fee would actually be a good investment as I would prefer to have the money in my pocket now rather than have to wait another 3-4 months for a new claim - although I guess the interest would be buidling up.

 

Any thoughts gratefully received.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree that in this case there is little point challenging the stay. It is ridiculous however, that SC&M should even ask for the extra month for 'negotiation' seeing as the bank would have issued its 'final response' weeks ago. It's just further proof of their utter disregard for the public - funded court system. But, as they have got their extra month, you can turn it to your advantage slightly by pressing them for a settlement and I would certainly contact them and see what they have to say.

 

On the subject of adding the extra charges, you will need to contact the court - most of them are extreamly helpful and should point you in the right direction. £35 definately does seem a small price to pay, both in terms of the extra £1000 and the time and hassle if you were to claim again after this one is resolved. I can't see how it would delay anything, as you're only amending the amount not the actual particulars - plus your on hold till October anyway. Here's the court service website; About HMCS, but as I said you'll probably be better of contacting the court directly and speaking to one of the staff.

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I contacted my local court a couple of days ago to find out about amending my claim to include additional costs incurred during the intervening period. I was told I would have to put a new claim in which might delay things further. I am not sure they knew what they were talking about so will need to investigate further.

 

Secondly, I have called SCM twice since I was sent notice of the stay (last time was a few days ago). They told me they couldn't tell me anything as they had not yet received instructions from their client (Lloyds).

 

Is there anything I should do between now and the 19th Oct (deadline given for a settlement to be achieved, extension requested or another AQ filed) the 5th Oct (stay deadline) has already passed.

 

Does anyone have any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To change the amount of your claim, you'll have to apply to amend your particulars. Here's the form you need, an N244: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n244_0400.pdf

 

I don't think there is much you can do now to hurry things up, just sit tight and wait for a court date.

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking of faxing this letter today to SCM which is an amended version of one on this site. Any comments?

 

To SCM:

 

I am very concerned that despite calling your office on two separate occasions in an attempt to comply with the court order issued by District Judge XXX dated Xth September 2006 to attempt settlement, you remain in a position where you are unable to enter into sincere dialogue with me because the defendant cannot be bothered to provide you with their instructions concerning this matter.

 

My understanding of a standard order for stay for settlement with consent of all the parties is an attempt to avoid litigation by entering into a sensible discussion in order to achieve a solution which would anticipate the decision of a court if the matter was actually heard. On this basis, I have attempted to contact you by phone to clarify the issues in an attempt to reconcile our areas of disagreement.

 

Unfortunately, on both of the occasions that I have called your staff, I have been unable to discuss my case because your firm is awaiting further instructions from your client (Lloyds TSB Bank plc).

 

On this basis, I will reconfirm my position so that your client can make an informed decision as to the action they intend to take prior to the deadline set by the courts of the 19th October 2006. I am sure you are already aware that the deadline for this claim being stayed expired on the 5th October 2006.

 

As you are already aware, my position is that I object to the charges made by Lloyds TSB Bank plc because I believe they represent penalty charges and exceed the actual costs of the banks actions.

 

Your client’s position is that they are not penalties but are fees levied for a contractual service which entitles your client to make a profit on such services.

 

My fallback position is that I do not accept that these charges are for a contractual service. Furthermore, I have already indicated to both your client and the court that if they are your client should only be entitled to charge a reasonable fee for such services.

 

On the subject of penalty charges, I accept without reservation your client’s right to recover its actual losses caused by any contractual breaches. However, I believe the level of penalty charges levied by your client significantly exceeds any costs that may be incurred by your client. Furthermore, your client’s defence that the charges are not penalties is surely an admission that they represent a profit-making opportunity.

 

On this basis I would be grateful if you would ask your client to produce evidence which shows the charges levied on my account are equivalent to the losses incurred by your client in respect of any breaches on my account. Should this information be forthcoming I would be happy to give up my claim or to amend it to represent the amount required by your client to cover its actual costs.

 

On the other hand, if the charges are deemed by the court to be contractual, my position is that the charges may only be levied at a reasonable rate. Section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 makes this clear. If your client continues with this position please provide supporting calculations to show how its rates are deemed reasonable.

 

I am sure that you are aware of the law relating to penalty charging and the extensive case law that has evolved as contractual parties have regularly attempted to disguise penalties as contractual services – a technique that the courts are fully aware of. Even the Office of Fair trading report issued earlier this year refers to the issue of penalty charges and stated that institutions should not attempt to disguise their penalties.

 

Accordingly, I would suggest that settlement could be easily reached if your client was to provide actual evidence of its costs. As a FTSE-100 organisation regulated by the Bank of England, the FSA and subject to UKLA listing rules concerning disclosure it should surely have the resources in place to have a good understanding of its cost base.

 

It goes without saying that the flood of litigation in this area is putting a heavy burden on private individuals as well as Her Majesty’s Courts Service. A reasonable inference of your client’s actions to date is that it is not serious about litigation and that your client is doing what it can to delay proceedings and wear out claimants.

 

I therefore look forward to receiving by return, evidence of your client’s costs so that this matter can be dealt with before the final deadline set by the court of the 19th October 2006. I would be grateful if you could ascertain your client’s instructions without further delay. In addition, I will be making enquires to the Law Society regarding policies relating to law firms taking on more case work than they appear to be able to handle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received no comments on letter to SCM so faxed and posted it on Wednesday (11th Oct).

 

Called SCM this morning to check correspondence was on my file. SCM confirmed the fax certainly was.

 

I asked whether they had contacted their client yet to obtain instructions.

 

SCM said "not yet - we can't take your post and prioritise it. I am sure you are aware that we are dealing with a large number of claims on this matter. The deadline for response is the 19th Oct and we will have asked our client for instructions before this date."

 

I told them that was next week and pointed out that when I appear before the judge I will highlight the fact that I have made several phone calls and entered into written correspondence in an attempt to settle and that it is Lloyds that are choosing not to take this matter seriously.

 

On a separate note (and mentioned in the final note of my letter) are there any guidelines issued e.g by the Law Society regarding the amount of case work a firm of solicitors can take on? I wonder whether it would be worth making the point that SCM appear to be taking more work on than their resources will allow them to deal with - just a thought!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Called SCM this afternoon to find out whether they had yet notified Lloyds of my recent correspondence and if any instructions had been given by Lloyds. I was told Mr Thomas was out of the office today and that the person answering my call couldn't access my file - pretty pathetic really!

 

I am going to fax asking for SCM to confirm they have contacted Lloyds to obtain instructions - my stay for settlement was stayed until the 5th October and both parties need to have done something before the 19th October.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just seen Freebird's thread saying Mr Thomas is out again today,

 

Having just faxed SCM a copy of the letter to the court manager asking for my correspondence to be brought to the attention of the District Judge I thought I would call SCM (10.05am).

 

Today a lady took my ref number and asked how she could help. I told her that was strange as when I called yesterday I was told Mr Thomas was the only person who could talk to me.

 

I asked her to confirm that correspondence I had sent last week had been passed to their client. She came back and said it had but that they were still waiting for their client's instructions.

 

I pointed out the deadline was tomorrow. She told me that was when the stay ran out and that it would be for me to take further action as I was the claimant - they didn't have to do anything.

 

I asked if I could speak to Mr Thomas she said no, she had spoken with him and there was nothing more to add. She confirmed she had my fax sent this morning and said she would send it on to client. I said I would call back to check. She said there was no point and I would be wasting my time. I said there was every point as last week it had taken them at least 3 days to pass correspondence to client to my knowledge.

 

She confirmed her name was MISS LEWIS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is very interesting sagaloo.

 

I too have an 'order for stay for settlement' which is stayed untill the 24th and by the 7/11 action must be taken. However according to your conversation with SCM it's a waste of time.

 

I will keep a close eye on this case. Do any moderators have any comments and/or suggestions on this matter?

 

Good luck and keep going btw Sagaloo :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoke to SCM this morning who confirmed they had passed my latest letter to client. They also confirmed that they had not received any instructions from their client and that it would be best for me just to wait to hear from them rather than call!!!!!! I pointed out that today was the last deadline for action re: the stay. They didn't seem bothered.

 

Called the court - they said because I had sent letter in yesterday I had shown that I had done all that I could do and that it would be put before the Judge.

 

Bad news is they don't have a judge in until Tuesday next week and they also have a backlog so I might hear something in just over a week!

 

I said did I need to send anything else in and she said no it would be up to the judge to decide what course of action.

 

I am still tempted to send another letter to the Court explaining that I had contacted SCM on deadline date and that they claim they have still not received instructions despite their request on the AQ to defer a month to attempt settlement. I think I will also point out that when being asked for hearing dates they are striking 2 months out at a time as not being available and I believe that this is just an abuse of process.

 

Does anybody have any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Faxed this to SCM this evening and put original in post:

 

Dear Sirs

 

Please can you provide a written explanation as to why Sechiari, Clark & Mitchell on behalf of your client (Lloyds TSB Bank plc) completed the Allocation Questionnaire on the XX August 2006 requesting further action in respect of this claim to be postponed for one month so that settlement could be attempted.

 

In the intervening 58 days at no point has your client attempted to enter into any type of dialogue, despite my repeated phone calls, subsequent letter dated XXth October 2006 and copy correspondence sent yesterday to XXXX County Court with a request to bring to the attention of the District Judge the way in which your client is choosing to deal with this matter.

 

I can only infer that the way in which this claim has been handled by your client is a clear abuse of process. On this basis, I believe a clear written explanation as to why 58 days have passed without your client attempting settlement would assist the District Judge in deciding upon the next course of action in this case. I therefore look forward to receiving a full response to this letter so that I may pass it on to the Court Manager for inclusion in my claim file.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to PM you this but too long, here you go...

 

 

THIS IS THE LETTER I ADDED MY PERSONAL SITUATION AT THE TOP, I HAVEN'T HAD CHANCE TO ADD UP ACCURATE NUMBER IETHER YET SO DON'T SEND IT WITH OUT CHECKING..

Lloyds TSB Bank, requested in their Allocation Questionnaire that they would be unavailable to attend Court, during the whole month of October to enable settlement negotiations. I wrote to Sechiari Clark & Mitchell and copied in Lloyds Tsb and Liverpool County Court, to initiate negotiations and suggest settlement. After following this letter up with several telephone calls a Mr. Thomas from Sechiari Clark & Mitchell eventually informed me that they had received my letter and that they were sending me a letter on 12th October 2006, which I still have not received. I have telephoned his office several time today and left messages to no avail. Therefore I respectfully request that the stay which has been ordered on my claim be removed.

 

 

Human rights

It interferes with my rights under the European Convention on Human Rights directly and as enacted in the Human Rights Act 1998.

Art.6 1. of the Convention provides that “In the determination of his civil rights … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.”

 

The Overriding Objective

It is submitted that the Overriding Objective requires that my case is allowed to proceed speedily so that a just settlement may be obtained by the parties to this case. There is no complicated issue of law. The common law relating to contractual penalties is settled law since the late 1800s and has been reinforced as recently as the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 which itself is the result of a European directive.

 

Lloyds TSB Bank

 

The defendants Lloyds TSB Bank have already settled 22 or more similar cases.

In the attached list of cases, the court will see that Lloyds were defendants in 22 cases. In most of these Lloyds actually filed defences and actually returned their allocation questionnaire, obliging the claimant to do the same. However, in every one of these cases, Lloyds bank settled the matter before the hearing.

In 2004 the head of personal banking of Lloyds TSB Bank Peter MacNamara stated in a radio 4 interview that Lloyds was making big profits out of its default charges and that this money was being used to find free banking for its customers. The Claimant can supply a copy of this recording of the court wishes.

 

 

Other cases

It is true that there are currently many other cases which are litigating on the same issue of contractual penalties. However the court may be unaware that not a single case so far has gone to a hearing.

Attached to this application is a sample list of 223( check this figure as I havn’t added them all up yet ) cases complete with county court reference numbers (Annexe 2) - of which the claimant is aware and which have been started since February of 2006. All of them have been settled before hearing.

Many of them have even received default judgments against the defendant banks in question which has then been set aside on application by that bank and then which has been settled by that bank rather than go to court.

In two cases the court has even ordered standard disclosure against defendant banks but those banks have then gone on to settle rather than reveal the details of its contractual penalties.

It is submitted that the predicted test case is most unlikely to go to a hearing and that it will be settled out of court and therefore produce no useful decision from a higher court.

It is further submitted that the defendant in the instant case has no intention of going to a hearing.

It is submitted that the pattern of cases settled so far suggests very strongly that the banks are merely using the justice system as a publicly funded means of intimidating their customers and dissuading them from pursuing their legitimate Right.

It is submitted that this is abusive of the justice system and of the public resource.

 

 

Balance of convenience

The sum claimed is insignificant to the bank but it is a significant sum to me. Further more although a stay prevents me from recovering my money, the defendant bank is not prevented from levying its charges or interest on debt comprised of those charges so the order of the court has the effect of favouring a powerful and well-resourced institution and does not place any restriction on their continued application of penalties which I say are unlawful.

Further, many banks are now routinely closing the accounts of their customers who commence claims against them. This amounts to a sanction for seeking a ruling from the justice system and as such is a basic denial of citizenship. I will remain at risk of such action despite the fact that my remedy has been placed on an indeterminate hold.

Additionally, the defendant remains at liberty to enter my name on the default register which it and other banks routinely do in respect of unlawful penalties which are unpaid by their customers. The banks have direct and privileged access to this register. They have no need to obtain a County Court judgment before they may enter a default on the register. This default remains on the register for 6 years and causes enormous damage to reputations. Were my name to be entered on the default register I would find it impossible to get credit or a mortgage and I would have to pay higher fees for any credit which I did manage to obtain.

It is submitted that a stay may potentially mean great difficulty for me and yet be insignificant for the defendant bank. In fact a stay is supportive of the banks litigation strategy which is to take the claimant to the door of the court and then to settle the claim.

 

The Status Quo

The stay does not maintain the status quo. As submitted above, a stay favours the bank by preventing the claimant’s pursuit of his legitimate remedy without placing any restriction upon the banks activities which the claimant submits are unlawful and/or retaliatory.

 

Test Case

It is agreed that a case in which the issues were fully argued would be of enormous benefit. However, as has been explained above, the banks so far have settled every one of the 223 example cases and it is clear that it is their abusive litigation strategy which is responsible for the problem of the large number of cases being started against them. Every one of the cases settled so far has presented an opportunity to settle the common issue of contractual penalties. Despite their massive resources and access to high level expertise the defendants have declined to allow the issue to be decided.

My case presents another opportunity for the question to be definitively settled as should the defendants lose, they have the resources to continue the matter through the appeals process and through the court hierarchy.

It is respectfully submitted that the court’s order to stay the claim creates more uncertainty and more difficulty.

It is respectfully submitted that if the predicted test case referred to by the district judge in his order, was actually in the course of a trial at the present moment so that it was more certain that the matter would be tried and that a decision would be likely to be reached, then there would be good grounds for staying all similar actions including my own.

However, it is respectfully submitted that none of this is at all clear and on the evidence of all of the cases conducted so far it is submitted that the predicted test case is most unlikely to be heard at all.

 

The OFT and their powers under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 gives the power to the Office of Fair Trading to seek injunctions to prevent the use of unfair terms in consumer contracts. More than that, the UTCCR specifically prevents the private citizen from pursuing this remedy on his own behalf.

The OFT conducted a 2 year investigation of the contractual charges regime. They received a great deal of confidential evidence from the banks.

The OFT has already announced that it considers that the contractual penalty charge regimes of these financial institutions are unfair.

It is not at all clear why the OFT has not now proceeded to seek injunctions in the face of the banks’ refusals to comply. This is particularly serious when the Regulations have prevented the citizen from doing so.

However, it is submitted that the issue of a test case and the definitive settling of the banks’ penalty charging system is a matter to be borne by the OFT or some other public body who are tasked and resourced to deal with this matter. It is not a burden to be suffered by the private citizen and in particular by myself in the instant case.

 

In the alternative

If the court decides not to accede to my request to remove the stay I respectfully request that the court issues the following injunctions:

 

That the defendant bank is prevented from applying further penalty charges to my account until the final settlement of the matter.

That the defendant is prevented from applying interest charges to any outstanding amounts which are comprised of penalties until the settlement of the matter

That the defendant is prevented from closing my account

That the defendant is prevented from making any entry on its own systems or from communicating any similar information to any third party about any matter insofar as it relates to penalty charges until the final settlement of the matter.

That the defendant remove any derogatory entry on its own records insofar as it relates to penalty charges. (The Court has the power to do this under the Data Protection Act 199:cool:

That the defendant arranges the removal of entries from the records of any third parties to whom it has previously communicated information insofar as it relates to penalty charges. (The Court has the power to do this under the Data protection Act 1998.)

 

That these injunctions remain in place until the settlement of my claim

That should my claim proceed to a hearing that a decision should be made at the hearing as to whether these injunctions should be made permanent

That if the matter should not proceed to a hearing because the defendant decides to settle outside court, that these injunctions should become permanent.

 

 

Additional orders

If the court does accede to my request for a removal of stay then I respectfully request that the case be allocated to the small claims track but that the defendant be ordered to make standard disclosure.

It is submitted that an order for standard disclosure will assist greatly in bring these and other similar claims to a speedy and just conclusion.

The matter is suitable for the Small Claims Track as it involves no issue of law – the law is well established. It only involves questions of fact – in particular the true costs of the banks default charges system. The OFT has already formed its conclusion about this. Standard disclosure will put the matter beyond doubt. As I rely upon the bank as my fiduciary it is clear that they have a duty to act in utmost good faith in relation to their conduct of their contract with me. I submit that they do not act in good faith in relation to me or their other customers in the matter of penalty charges

 

 

 

bit long winded but says it all really......

1/6/06 request charges

16/6/06 received charges

18/6/06 first request for refund

3/7/06 "No" letter from bank

13/7/06 LBA

7/08/06 handed claim to court

10/8/06 court stamped as date of issue

24/8/06 deemed to be served

25/8/06 Sechiari filed acknowledgement of service

6/9/06 defence served

9/9/06 copy of defence and AQ received by me

25/9/06 deadline for AQ submission

25/9/06 call Sechiari confirm safe receipt of my AQ

26/9/06 received copy AQ from Sechiari

29/9/06 letter to SCM to say "you want 1 month to settle, so settle"

18/10/06 after "strained communications"and how !

verbal offer of full settlement with conditions

communications rejecting conditions from me

5/11/06 received letter offering settlement with conditions

7/11/06 sent fax rejecting conditions etc

14/11/06 unconditional settlement in bank and how !;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contacted SCM this afternoon. Conversation was slightly different to previous conversations. i gave reference number and was asked how far my claim had progressed. I said the stay had run out last week. She then asked me which Court it was being handled by (I have never been asked this question before!) She then told me she would get my file (although still don't believe she got it as I was only on hold for seconds!)

 

She then told me that the firm was due to meet with the client this week to discuss my case - however, she couldn't confirm exactly when this was going to happen!!!

 

I am not sure whether this is progress, wondered whether anybody on a similar timescale to me had received a similar response?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...