Lloyds case stayed in Wigan today

[Prouty99]

Just to inform anyone who may be in similar circumstances.....

 

I have a bank charge case against Lloyds on a credit card for charges totalling around £800 including interest which was stayed as a result of Liverpool county court apparently not accepting any more charge cases on 20th July 2007

 

The case was never assigned a reference number as it was never heard (which at the time i was miffed about as the credit card charges were a different kettle of fish and should have been dealt with)

 

In the meantime Lloyds started litigation against me as i owed them about £4000 in total on the card.

 

As a defence i started counter litigation against them for the mis-sold payment protection insurance on the card which totalled around £1800 which i lodged with the financial ombudsman.....

 

As a result of my two cases against them i asked for a stay to Lloyds case based on the fact that both cases are still being investigated and should i win both cases this will equal half of the alleged debt.

 

I was in Wigan county court where the stay hearing was heard this morning along with a barrister representing Lloyds.

 

The Lloyds guy was cock sure of himself that i wouldnt get a stay because half of the debt would still have to be paid even if i won both cases, but he let slip when he introduced himself pre hearing that he did not work for Lloyds or sechiari clark and mitchell, therefore when we went into the hearing i asked him whether he could prove who he was and if he could prove that he was acting on behalf of Lloyds.

 

Before the judge he could do neither and the judge gave him a kicking for it but amazingly let him continue to address the court ?????

 

Anyway, the upshot was that the judge did this so he could continue ripping into the barrister and picking holes in his case every five minutes telling the brief to sit down 4 times whilst addressing him, and telling him multiple times to stop addressing him as 'sir'.

 

In closing the judge told the barrister that the ombudsman has special powers to award a figure way in excess of the figure claimed and because of this fact the ombudsman result added to the sum for bank charges plus interest on both cases and costs may result in Lloyds ending up owing me considerably more than i owed them.

 

The judge allowed me an indefinite stay until both the OFT case is resolved AND the ombudsman case is resolved

 

Because the judge didn't have his machine at hand to produce the stay in writing there and then the barrister asked that the case against me be continued until the stay letter had reached me by post.

 

The judge looked over his desk disapprovingly and said;

 

"This case is stayed"

 

I have never been in court before but today has been quite entertaining and even though we all know that credit card charges should still be dealt with,in this particular case it worked in my advantage

 

Prouty

[nicsussex]

Excellent news - well done!

[Michael Browne]

Nothing like hearing a barrister getting a good thrashing to cheer us all up

[Prouty99]

I was convinced that if a barrister could not prove who he was or that he represented who he said he represented then the claimants case would be thrown out as i heard of a case in Luton where someone tried the same tactic and won his charges back as the court could not hear evidence from someone who could not prove he represented the claimant.

 

But what do i know.

 

Fact is that Sechiari Clark and Mitchell are based in London and declined to send one of their own to represent because of travel costs from London to Wigan (this is what the barrister told me) So they appointed a local solicitor to go to the hearing.

 

It costs 70 quid to send a rep by train from London maybe Lloyds just cant afford such expence with the credit crunch coming and all....

 

Prouty

[nicsussex]

 

Fact is that Sechiari Clark and Mitchell are based in London

 

Actually they are based in Brighton - but that is neither here nor there

[Prouty99]

Its probably closer to £90 to send a barrister from Brighton so because someone refused to shell out for travel they got a kicking in court and face a similar delay to see their money that they have screwed everyone else with due to the OFT delay....

 

Besides this the ombudsman fines whichever company that a complaint has been filed against as a matter of course (or so i believe), so i guess Lloyds are having a bad day.

 

It upsets me that any other joe in the street would end up fleeced where he may have otherwise have won if he had picked up a crash course from the folks of this site as i did before i attended today.

 

I think barristers are starting to get people to have a quick meeting before the hearing just so they can try to figure out if they have been pre coached by CAG before attending court cos they dont want to look like a fool before the judge.

 

The guy obviously thought i was an easy mark cos i represented myself, but more fool him i guess. How can a brief on a hundred quid an hour be tied in legal knots by a schmo that just walked in from the street ?

 

Oh well...

 

Prouty

[Aterlatus]

Damn Prouty that's one hell of a success story. Puts a nice silver lining on an otherwise cloudy day seeing Lloyds take one like that

 

I almost regret entering an agreement to pay off my overdraft now - should've asked them to pass it off to the solicitors. /evilgrin

[elsinore]

Well done Prouty and thanks for the graphic description of today's court proceedings. I wish I had known you were there, I would haved nipped down and sat in for a good laugh.

 

How can a brief on a hundred quid an hour be tied in legal knots by a schmo that just walked in from the street ?

 

Because he's an improperly briefed brief. They usually turn up with scant details of the case on one piece of A4 which has been faxed or emailed to them. They don't deserve to succeed.

 

Els

[Prouty99]

Thanks for the support, i'm sure that SC&M added to the barristers misery by kicking his ass as well when he contacted them with the result...

 

I phoned SC&M pre hearing (a few days earlier) to try to sort out a compromise deal but was told by them that they had no record of a case with bank charges or with the financial ombudsman, so i came to my senses and played along with them.

 

Pity i had a stack of letters proving that i had been in contact with Lloyds about the bank charges claim (and their multiple return correspondence with me) dating back to March 2007, and letters between the ombudsman and Lloyds concerning a PPI claim from the inception of the claim to the present day ongoing investigation.

 

I realised that if SC&M were in the dark then i could use this to my advantage by keeping the lights firmly switched off pre hearing...

 

I forwarded copies of all the paperwork to the court a week before the hearing but it seems that either the court didn't send a copy to SC&M or didn't have enough time to send it....,or maybe SC&M had copies but tried to act numb for some reason because they thought it may give them the edge for some reason.

 

I prefer to believe that Lloyds are such a big company with many different arms of their business that they lost the paperwork and as a result didn't brief their representatives (ie SC&M) who walked into court blind.

 

Either way i got the result i planned for.

 

I am a trade union convener in the biggest most anti union corporation in the world (who make Lloyds and SC&M look like pussycats), i am well versed in stealth and guile on a daily basis for the last 20 years. Looks like on this occasion my guerilla training has served me well.

 

The bigger the company the weaker and more incompetent it becomes.

 

Prouty