H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***

[InformedSearcher]

These arguments are circular, though, Paul;

 

1) Bank charges are recognised as being unfair

2) Unfair claims brought by claimants

3) Banks panic and the OFT steps in to "protect" consumers

4) Claims stayed during the process

5) The OFT makes a right balls up and argues the wrong points

6) The Courts say that the OFT can't judge fairness, only the Courts can do that

7) Stays lifted

8) Return to 1)

 

Now, if the OFT cannot judge fairness and protect the consumer in a vicious market where the market itself rigs the situation in it's own favour, what use is the OFT?

 

Ashtray on a motorbike?

Chocolate fireguard?

Trying to knit fog?

 

This could go on.

 

If we get rid of the OFT, the savings may just cover the 8% interest I'll be claiming on my outstanding claims, now I'm back in the game and the time out has came to an end

 

 

Well with respect I'd question your listing:

1) They were, then where is that (currently)? Banks took from their customers sounds more correct and anyone who thnks otherwise needs to take medical.

3) The OFT NEVER jumped in to 'protect' customers. They found that the County Court system was blocked up! I've said before courts works on targets and of course that now questions the Supreme Court!

4) This might be so BUT why did it happen?

5) We only summised that AFTER the Supreme Court (debatable) ruling

7) Stays lifted but nothing

 

You know I have a friend of mine, a lady in her 60's and until I spoke to her considered as she'd never strayed into the 'charges' section that these (as she put it) 'sad moronic people should never have bank accounts'. Once I ran off a simple example of edited by banks as in charging £38 for a £2 overdraft error she looked at things differently.

 

Michael

Edited December 6, 2009 by HSBCrusher
please be careful of the words you use.

[gezwee]

Could always go for the collusion argument........ welfare state insists on bank account for receipt of benefits etc etc

 

My claim ran to 17 pages, if they avered 1 side of an argument i jumped to the next, DJ and respondent accepted so I don't see how it can be slung out just yet

[yourbank]

[/color]We could go round in circles for a long time here. You see, as far as I am aware, the previous judges based their decision on the law and on the EC directive from which it came. On that basis, I am fairly certain their decision was based on law. The fact that the upper ranks then turned on its head when it's the most convenient does make me wonder, yes.

It's about interpretation of the law and 4 Law Lords and Baroness Hale decided that the definition or meaning of 6.2(b) was being interpreted much more widely than it should have been.

I wish I could agree, but unfortunately, all I have ever seen in his posts have been of the "you're wrong, you're wrong" variety without ever coming up with anything in the way of an alternative. More recently, he has been saying things like "the penalty argument was so flawed that a 1st yr law student could have spotted it", which I am sure Justice McKay would have been delighted to hear as it was obvious that he firmly believed in the penalty argument. People like Mike Dailly, Marc Gander, Steven Hone and other students, practitioners and teachers of the law also quite obviously believed in its merit, so the gratuitous insults of these people after the event I can not see as constructive in any manner. And frankly, if we go down the conspiracy theory route, the "proven" argument about penalties is no less fishy than the failure of the OFT to pursue it.

Yet the issue is whether legal it is a penalty and Justice Smith in paragraphs 295-323 states that they are not much in the same way that Aequitas had argued the case or stated that in March 2007. We may not like every poster but we can agree, sometimes, in hindsight, that their view was correct and that our earlier derision of them was perhaps unfounded. That is my view based on the result of the first part of the OFT case.

 

why don't we wait and see what the lawyers working behind the scenes have to say in that respect?

Some what? :-?

There are lots of things being worked on behind the scenes and I am sure the QC Ray Cox would be looking to get a POC that will start the process again of letter then court action etc,etc,. My question is whether the judgement has left room for refunds and that is interesting to discuss as it is on many forums with some good, bad and interesting points of view.

Well, the fact that they narrowed down their test case to one narrow point of the UTCCR feels pretty erratic to me if they were determined to go all out and secure a win for the consumer. Of course, IF we think put-up job, then it's not erratic at all...

Think about all the missed opportunities: They could have appealed the penalty aspect... and didn't.

In the cold light of day, it was either penalties or UTCCR and the penalty argument perhaps was a sideshow to the more important UTCCR argument.

They could have based the UTCCR case on many sections, instead of which confined themselves on s.6.

The amended POC's included UTCCR 5(1)

Even the lesser lawyerly amongst us (supposedly!), used s.5 in our POC, yet the OFT didn't???

The amended POC's clearly state in part 5 about UTCCR 1999 5(1) and 5(5) from October 2007.

Put it this way: I took the DWP to appeal on Thursday because they didn't deem my son disabled enough to qualify for the higher rate of mobility. Because he's autistic and is physically capable of walking and running, it was a really difficult case to convince the panel. I had 2 possible approaches: The "virtually unable to walk" one, and the "mental impairment" one.

Do you know what I did? I chose BOTH. I argued both and provided case law and examples for both. I gave the tribunal the opportunity that if they said no to one ground, they could always say yes to the other one. (and I can report that against overwhelming odds, I DID win)

I can only comment that I am pleased you won your case.

The OFT burnt their bridges and took one single narrow lane, and for my life, I can not understand why they did this.

I think they got moved into that by the banks defence specifically focusing on 6.2(b). Furthermore they did ask for a declaration under Reg 5.(1) which was denied and never appealed on by the banks.

Which is precisely what the OFT did, and that doesn't strike you as odd?

 

Well, there is that of course... What makes you think that the banks would be any keener to defend that argument now than they were 3 yrs ago?

The issue is no longer about COST or PRICE but would be about imbalance in a contract and that is where initially, I am concerned about how you argue that under all circumstances. Yes, I think you can argue it but with the cost of the service provided and the price potentially out then that is where my difficulty arrives.

It seems to me that this all stinks of damage limitation. The failure of the test case and the slant given by the media, following 2 years of stays, have made sure that the wind has been taken out of the bank charges revolt's sails, so to speak, and apart from us hardcore campaigners, the great consumer revolt is all but over.

If the test case has failed then Martin Lewis would not be getting campaigners together with a view to new POC's. Furthermore, there have been a lot of positives from the last 2 years so far from taking the wind out of our sails, many of us have kinda allowed the "I don't want an end to free banking" brigade, get their beef off their chest and as the great Mohammed Ali did to George Foreman, blow themselves out and we are now in the corner taking advice for the knockout blow. Not sure if Martin Lewis compares to Don King though

The banks couldn't want a better result. Even if a few of us still go against the banks on a one on one basis, it will be easy enough for them to pay out quietly... This kind of movement, once it loses its momentum, unfortunately can never pick up in quite the same way. We have been steamrolled, well and truly, make no mistake about it.

 

The fact that the banks would pay out swiftly would give more and more people the confidence to do that as the rolling snowball in 2006 became an avalanche originally.

As I said, discussion is good but if we aren't inputting into the whole process with ideas then I guess I'll go to where the action is and where the ideas are being discussed. Anyway, I guess we gotta wait for the learned QC and hope it works.

[caro]

I think it would be foolish to just wait for what the learned QC may or may not come up with YB, but if you think your time would be better served "where the action is", that's your choice YB. As you've pointed out, some people have urgent cases and some of these have court dates in the next few days and weeks, so we need to try and help them in any way we can. We have seen from the test case the problem relying on one avenue to find a solution.

 

It's throwing random ideas and thoughts around which very often helps to formulate a solid solution.

 

Horses for courses.

[kennyh]

posted earlier by srf

The UTCCR 1999 replace the 1994 Regulations of the same name. They derive from an EU Directive and apply only to consumer contracts (Reg 4). A term will be regarded as unfair under Reg 5 if:

 

• It has not been individually negotiated

  
  

• It is contrary to the requirement of good faith

  
  

• It causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer

  
  

• Sch 2 contains an indicative but not exhaustive list of what may be regarded as unfair

  
  

So do we go after them using a combi of the above (on as broad a reference as we can) and use SOGA for recovery of unreasonable costs?

[Bigmac versus]

[/color]We could go round in circles for a long time here. You see, as far as I am aware, the previous judges based their decision on the law and on the EC directive from which it came. On that basis, I am fairly certain their decision was based on law. The fact that the upper ranks then turned on its head when it's the most convenient

does make me wonder, yes

So we are led to believe all the other judges were SO WRONG in their findings, agree it stinks.

 

 

I wish I could agree, but unfortunately, all I have ever seen in his posts have been of the "you're wrong, you're wrong" variety without ever coming up with anything in the way of an alternative.

 

Yip he has never showed any signs of encouragement only negative vibes all the time, its such a pity he dosen't use his knowledge to benefit the cause. ;-)

 

Well, the fact that they narrowed down their test case to one narrow point of the UTCCR feels pretty erratic to me if they were determined to go all out and secure a win for the consumer. Of course, IF we think put-up job, then it's not erratic at all...

Think about all the missed opportunities: They could have appealed the penalty aspect... and didn't.

They could have based the UTCCR case on many sections, instead of which confined themselves on s.6.

 

Even the lesser lawyerly amongst us (supposedly!), used s.5 in our POC, yet the OFT didn't???

 

This is where im struggling also, it does come across very lack lustre.

Put it this way: I took the DWP to appeal on Thursday because they didn't deem my son disabled enough to qualify for the higher rate of mobility. Because he's autistic and is physically capable of walking and running, it was a really difficult case to convince the panel. I had 2 possible approaches: The "virtually unable to walk" one, and the "mental impairment" one.

Do you know what I did? I chose BOTH. I argued both and provided case law and examples for both. I gave the tribunal the opportunity that if they said no to one ground, they could always say yes to the other one. (and I can report that against overwhelming odds, I DID win)

 

CONGRATS

 

The OFT burnt their bridges and took one single narrow lane, and for my life, I can not understand why they did this.

 

Half hearted attempt made out as if to help the consumer when in reality the OFT and the FSA have done nothing to help protect consumers and infact have only assisted in helping the banks, shouldn't questions be aimed at the OFT if indeed their legal challenge was so poor, and if it was so poor then WHY did the original judge then the appeal judges agree with the OFT only for the Supreme Court to overturn and make the earlier judges look like 1st year law students and the OFT like idiots who couldn't pick their nose let alone the right sections to fight. Cant wait to hear what the OFT will do next eh. The whole thing stinks. Should have left it to the consumers.

 

It seems to me that this all stinks of damage limitation. The failure of the test case and the slant given by the media, following 2 years of stays, have made sure that the wind has been taken out of the bank charges revolt's sails, so to speak, and apart from us hardcore campaigners, the great consumer revolt is all but over. The banks couldn't want a better result. Even if a few of us still go against the banks on a one on one basis, it will be easy enough for them to pay out quietly... This kind of movement, once it loses its momentum, unfortunately can never pick up in quite the same way. We have been steamrolled, well and truly, make no mistake about it.

 

AGREE 100% WITH YOU ON THIS

[Bookworm]

Thanks, BM, always nice to hear from you.

 

Here's our next guessing competition:

The OFT are "considering their position" and will be releasing a statement soon to let us, the great unwashed, know what their next step will be.

 

Do we think they will:

 

a - fight on and go to the ECJ despite the SC telling them there is no point?

b - decide that it would be a waste of public resources and throw in the towel?

c - something else?

 

Answers on the back of a £10 note please, I will be counting your votes VERY carefully.

[HSBCrusher]

c.

 

although I hope its b so we can just get on with it.

[yourbank]

Even the lesser lawyerly amongst us (supposedly!), used s.5 in our POC, yet the OFT didn't???

 

4 The 1999 Regulations apply in relation to terms in contracts concluded between a seller or a supplier and a consumer (Regulation 4(1)).

5 Regulation 5(1) provides: “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.” Regulation 5(5) provides that Schedule 2 to the 1999 Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.

6 Regulation 8(1) provides that an unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.

3

Regulation 8(2) provides that the contract shall continue to bind the parties if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term.

7 The only material exception to the applicability of the test of fairness set out in 1999 Regulations is contained in Regulation 6(2) relating to what are called, for short, “core terms”:

“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”.

Terms and conditions of the Banks

 

The high court and appeal court refused to make a declaration on 5 which was requested by the banks in the event 6(2) didn't apply.

[car2403]

Thanks, BM, always nice to hear from you.

 

Here's our next guessing competition:

The OFT are "considering their position" and will be releasing a statement soon to let us, the great unwashed, know what their next step will be.

 

Do we think they will:

 

a - fight on and go to the ECJ despite the SC telling them there is no point?

b - decide that it would be a waste of public resources and throw in the towel?

c - something else?

 

Answers on the back of a £10 note please, I will be counting your votes VERY carefully.

 

It shouldn't be a, as the Directive is even more (delibrately!) wide ranging then our regulations enshrining them in to UK Law.

 

B is a distinct possibility, but it really depends if it's the same team that was originally advising them on the 1st Test Case. If I were the OFT, I'd be seeking alternative representation in either case.

 

c is probably more realistic. Let's hope the conspiracy theorists abound a few months ago, who were saying we were going to win this first stage and that the OFT would have "done a deal" with the Banks on the future of charges, (me included) were right, and something that favours the consumer comes about as a result. I always think the historical application of charges was going to be a major hurdle, so I'm fully expecting the OFT to soothe their bloody nose and let the Courts sort that debarcle out on a one-by-one basis. (Suggested by the Appeal Judgment)

 

What's a £10 note? I haven't seen any of those since I paid £3.5k in Bank charges...

[kennyh]

Originally posted by OFT POC

6 Regulation 8(1) provides that an unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.

 

Are we not going back to deciding on whats not fair (ie bank's level of charges)?

[car2403]

Originally posted by OFT POC

 

Are we not going back to deciding on whats not fair (ie bank's level of charges)?

 

I don't think to, KH - or at least I hope not.

 

I think it's more about the overall contract and the unfair "relationship" created that allows the Bank to alter the level of charges applied, unilaterally, without even engaging the consumer, plus the fact that the Banks have rigged the market of PCA's to mean that you no longer have a choice of where to bank, based on those charges being applied.

 

I think if we were to focus too much on the fairness of the charges, themselves, we'd be falling in to the trap that the OFT found themselves in - up S Creek without a paddle...

[woodwa5]

Is there any hope for those of us who have Nat West charges between 2001 & 2003. I seem to remember something from earlier in the test case to suggest that they may be considered as penalties?

[srfrench]

:DIn Reg 5 Sch 2 provides instances for support....

 

 

SCHEDULE 2

Regulation 5(5)

INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR

1. Terms which have the object or effect of– (a)

excluding or limiting the legal liability of a seller or supplier in the event of the death of a consumer or personal injury to the latter resulting from an act or omission of that seller or supplier;

 

(b)

inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer vis-à-vis the seller or supplier or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the seller or supplier of any of the contractual obligations, including the option of offsetting a debt owed to the seller or supplier against any claim which the consumer may have against him;

 

©

making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone;

 

(d)

permitting the seller or supplier to retain sums paid by the consumer where the latter decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the seller or supplier where the latter is the party cancelling the contract;

 

(e)

requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

 

(f)

authorising the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer, or permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for services not yet supplied by him where it is the seller or supplier himself who dissolves the contract;

 

(g)

enabling the seller or supplier to terminate a contract of indeterminate duration without reasonable notice except where there are serious grounds for doing so;

 

(h)

automatically extending a contract of fixed duration where the consumer does not indicate otherwise, when the deadline fixed for the consumer to express his desire not to extend the contract is unreasonably early;

 

(i)

irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;

 

(j)

enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;

 

(k)

enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided;

 

(l)

providing for the price of goods to be determined at the time of delivery or allowing a seller of goods or supplier of services to increase their price without in both cases giving the consumer the corresponding right to cancel the contract if the final price is too high in relation to the price agreed when the contract was concluded;

 

(m)

giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract;

 

(n)

limiting the seller’s or supplier’s obligation to respect commitments undertaken by his agents or making his commitments subject to compliance with a particular formality;

 

(o)

obliging the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his;

 

(p)

giving the seller or supplier the possibility of transferring his rights and obligations under the contract, where this may serve to reduce the guarantees for the consumer, without the latter’s agreement;

 

(q)

excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract.

 

 

 

e is a good one.......

[car2403]

This from the original CAG bundle statement of evidence;

 

Further, under the UTCCR:

 

"5. - (1) 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.

 

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

 

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

 

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was."

 

Schedule 2 also includes such clauses (to define examples of unfair clauses) as:

 

"(i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;

 

(j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;

 

(m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract."

 

The defendant is a multi-national corporation. The term regarding charges was inserted unilaterally in contract. The contract was pre and mass produced and I had no opportunity to negotiate the clause, or indeed any of the contract.

 

[yourbank]

Is there any hope for those of us who have Nat West charges between 2001 & 2003. I seem to remember something from earlier in the test case to suggest that they may be considered as penalties?

Have we got the specific charging terms themselves and the wording of them on the forum? (anyone got a link to a post perhaps with them on?)

The NatWest charges were incapable of not being penal so it means that one or more of those terms could be penal but the question is which ones?

[yourbank]

This from the original CAG bundle statement of evidence;

Car with regards to (j) the original directive from 1993 states this:

 

"2. Scope of subparagraphs (g), (j) and (l)

(a) Subparagraph (g) is without hindrance to terms by which a supplier of financial services reserves the right to terminate unilaterally a contract of indeterminate duration without notice where there is a valid reason, provided that the supplier is required to inform the other contracting party or parties thereof immediately.

(b) Subparagraph (j) is without hindrance to terms under which a supplier of financial services reserves the right to alter the rate of interest payable by the consumer or due to the latter, or the amount of other charges for financial services without notice where there is a valid reason, provided that the supplier is required to inform the other contracting party or parties thereof at the earliest opportunity and that the latter are free to dissolve the contract immediately.

Subparagraph (j) is also without hindrance to terms under which a seller or supplier reserves the right to alter unilaterally the conditions of a contract of indeterminate duration, provided that he is required to inform the consumer with reasonable notice and that the consumer is free to dissolve the contract.

© Subparagraphs (g), (j) and (l) do not apply to:

- transactions in transferable securities, financial instruments and other products or services where the price is linked to fluctuations in a stock exchange quotation or index or a financial market rate that the seller or supplier does not control;

- contracts for the purchase or sale of foreign currency, traveller's cheques or international money orders denominated in foreign currency;

(d) Subparagraph (l) is without hindrance to price-indexation clauses, where lawful, provided that the method by which prices vary is explicitly described."

 

 

Source: EUR-Lex - 31993L0013 - EN

 

 

The above is from the original directive.

[ncf355]

ncf355 you said in a previous post (above) that a few more years waiting doesnt bother you. What made you changed your mind?

 

 

As I said in the quote, for me, not so fussed but for others.........

 

That was obvious in the quote you made, surely?

 

All the OFT seems to have done is disorganised the inebriation in the ale producing building

 

(and thats being very kind)

[car2403]

Car with regards to (j) the original directive from 1993 states this:

 

"2. Scope of subparagraphs (g), (j) and (l)

(a) Subparagraph (g) is without hindrance to terms by which a supplier of financial services reserves the right to terminate unilaterally a contract of indeterminate duration without notice where there is a valid reason, provided that the supplier is required to inform the other contracting party or parties thereof immediately.

(b) Subparagraph (j) is without hindrance to terms under which a supplier of financial services reserves the right to alter the rate of interest payable by the consumer or due to the latter, or the amount of other charges for financial services without notice where there is a valid reason, provided that the supplier is required to inform the other contracting party or parties thereof at the earliest opportunity and that the latter are free to dissolve the contract immediately.

Subparagraph (j) is also without hindrance to terms under which a seller or supplier reserves the right to alter unilaterally the conditions of a contract of indeterminate duration, provided that he is required to inform the consumer with reasonable notice and that the consumer is free to dissolve the contract.

© Subparagraphs (g), (j) and (l) do not apply to:

- transactions in transferable securities, financial instruments and other products or services where the price is linked to fluctuations in a stock exchange quotation or index or a financial market rate that the seller or supplier does not control;

- contracts for the purchase or sale of foreign currency, traveller's cheques or international money orders denominated in foreign currency;

(d) Subparagraph (l) is without hindrance to price-indexation clauses, where lawful, provided that the method by which prices vary is explicitly described."

 

 

Source: EUR-Lex - 31993L0013 - EN

 

 

The above is from the original directive.

 

Yes. I'd have to check, but I think the regs have been paraphrased, rather than laying them out completely. As I said, this is from the original POC templates, so was just pointing folk in the right direction on interpretation. Interestingly, my POC seems to have overlooked sub-paragraph (e), which I agree seems to be relevant.

[EricTheRed]

Just a briefy...again....

 

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

The UTCCR 1999 replace the 1994 Regulations of the same name. They derive from an EU Directive and apply only to consumer contracts (Reg 4). A term will be regarded as unfair under Reg 5 if:

• It has not been individually negotiated

  
  

• It is contrary to the requirement of good faith

  
  

• It causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer

  
  

• Sch 2 contains an indicative but not exhaustive list of what may be regarded as unfair

  
  

Reg 6 the fairness of a term shall be assessed with reference to:

• The nature of the goods and services

  
  

• All circumstances attending to the conclusion of the contract

  
  

Where the term is clear the fairness of the term can not relate to

• the definition of the subject matter of the contract or
  
• the adequacy of the price or remuneration
  

See also:

Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank

[2001] UKHL 52

Case summary

Reg 8 If a term is found to be unfair it is not binding on the consumer. The rest of the contract remains valid

Further reading:

 

Law Commission Report - Unfair Terms in Contracts 2005

 

Quality. Well said.

[berrylover]

Without having to trawl through 200+ pages, has anything been decided on what to do next. My two cases are at the moment stayed. Is the best thing to do to leave things until either

 

a. There is something from the QC about changing the POC

 

or

 

b. The courts unstay the claims

 

Or should I be doing anything specifically now.

[kennyh]

Never mind 200+ pages - just scroll back over 3 or 4 and you should (coupled with what's actually written on the court stay notification) have a reasonable idea how to proceed if you must.

[the_shadow]

Never mind 200+ pages - just scroll back over 3 or 4 and you should (coupled with what's actually written on the court stay notification) have a reasonable idea how to proceed if you must.

 

Yep agree, the court stay notification is the key bit of info... claimants MUST adhere to the instructions on the stay.

 

I feel one of the lucky ones in that I have 3 months to let the court know how I wish to proceed.

 

S.

[kennyh]

Jeez - I know variety is supposed to be the spice of life but I've stay conditions ranging from 28 days to 3 months to no limit! I have to buy another b****y calender

[MATTYFEZ]

So if like myself, we just have a stay which stated 'until conclusion of the test case' without a specific time limit, does this mean the courts will wait for an OFT response, or am I in immediate risk of the court/bank dismissing my case?