Elliot v lloyds - the "test case" settled in full by Lloyds

[thunderpuss2k]

Oh dear me, another Judge referring to the Elliot v Lloyds case.

 

Think we need to come up with a masterplan to clear this once and for all. Suggestions?

[verity]

What I can't understand is why these judges don't know this case is settled. Doesn't someone in their office check?

[alanfromderby]

I think it is important to remember that we tend to find things out within minutes of them happening. District Judges will rely on court briefings, the grapevine, and the "quality" end of the media. Inevitably information takes a time to get through.

[moltonbrownqueen]

Hmmm. Maybe someone ought to send them a postcard with the site address on it and how to access the up to date info!!!!!

[Alleycat]

Its just soo daft though seeing as the Elliot case was settled, what nearly three weeks ago now?!

[elsinore]

John and Alleycat, Bankfodder has legged it until 6th August, so don't expect too much from him!!

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/announcement-bankfodder-unavailable.html

 

Elsinore

[Alleycat]

Thanks Elsinore for letting us know. I think I will ring the courts on Monday, see what they have to say and take it from there. Though even if they back down on the stay regarding the Elliot case, they have still ordered a stay in order for further dialogue with Barclays. I guess a call to Keith Jeremiah, Barclays solicitor will have to be made as well. My OH successfully negotiated a settlement with him recently and he seems quite a reasonable man so not too scary!!

[JonCris]

Hi

 

Sent this via email yesterday

 

Dear Sir/Madam

I am a member of a group of consumers who are being forced in most cases into taking legal action to recover bank charges which have been applied to our accounts unlawfully.

Although many of us have been forced to lodge money claims in the County Courts none of the banks have allowed the matter to reach a hearing as they would have to justify these charges which the OFT have also recently stated are unlawful.

I and many others consider the banks conduct to be an abuse of our judicial system as it appears it is quite blatantly being used by the banks as a tactic to put consumers off pursuing their legitimate rights in the full knowledge that if unsuccessful they will not allow these matters to come to trial anyway

Very recently a matter, namely Elliott - v- LBS was transferred to the Mercantile Court. This rightly caused many District Judges to stay proceedings in their courts until the higher court had made a determination on the matter.

However like all other cases the matter was settled pre-hearing by the bank in question some 3 weeks ago yet district judges appear to be still staying hearings in the mistaken belief that the matter has yet to be determined.

This is of course acting to the benefit of the banks but to the clear detriment of the ordinary consumer like me

Anyway before many more of us are put to the additional cost not to say time & trouble of applying to the courts to have the stay lifted is there any way in which you can bring the current situation to the urgent attention of the County Court Judges

Thank you in anticipation of your considerations

[Ihatebanks]

JonCrisHi

 

Sent this via email yesterday

 

 

Who did you send this to?

[JonCris]

Department for Constitutional Affairs HMCS

[amulrooney]

So how come I've got a letter this morning saying that my case is being stayed pending the outcome of the Elliot case? Do I just write back to the court saying that this case has already been settled?

[amulrooney]

Hi

 

Sent this via email yesterday

 

Dear Sir/Madam

I am a member of a group of consumers who are being forced in most cases into taking legal action to recover bank charges which have been applied to our accounts unlawfully.

Although many of us have been forced to lodge money claims in the County Courts none of the banks have allowed the matter to reach a hearing as they would have to justify these charges which the OFT have also recently stated are unlawful.

I and many others consider the banks conduct to be an abuse of our judicial system as it appears it is quite blatantly being used by the banks as a tactic to put consumers off pursuing their legitimate rights in the full knowledge that if unsuccessful they will not allow these matters to come to trial anyway

Very recently a matter, namely Elliott - v- LBS was transferred to the Mercantile Court. This rightly caused many District Judges to stay proceedings in their courts until the higher court had made a determination on the matter.

However like all other cases the matter was settled pre-hearing by the bank in question some 3 weeks ago yet district judges appear to be still staying hearings in the mistaken belief that the matter has yet to be determined.

This is of course acting to the benefit of the banks but to the clear detriment of the ordinary consumer like me

Anyway before many more of us are put to the additional cost not to say time & trouble of applying to the courts to have the stay lifted is there any way in which you can bring the current situation to the urgent attention of the County Court Judges

Thank you in anticipation of your considerations

 

Can I send something like this to Sheffield Court?

[stacymason]

I think if you ring the court first and see what they suggest.

[Alleycat]

I've posted on your other thread Alumrooney. I would suggest having a look for Bankfodder's draft in the templates section. You need to be very polite and don't blatantly say that are wrong, if writing to the judge. Things like I respectfully request etc!!

[Alleycat]

Interesting idea, Karnevil. Obviously they couldn't give any suggestions as to why the banks are taking it so far only to drop it, or really go too much into the wasting courts time etc, as I would assume that they could be done for libel. But could use some of the stats that Bankfodder has included in his piece to the courts to remove the stays still being ordered. There may also be an issue of confidentiality and data protection publishing stats that the individuals may not have given permission to use publicly.

 

Anyway, chattering rubbish and not making much sense, sorry!!

[JonCris]

It's not libel if I or anyone else have an honest belief in it's varacity. The fact is that is what they ARE doing & the evidence on this site alone is overwhelming. How else are the banks going to explain their conduct particularly as they are now acting in the face of the OFT findings.

 

The papers for example if they wanted to avoid any risk could ask the question "dear banker are you etc etc". There is no accusation but the thought is there is it not

 

The courts must get their act together & stop advancing the interests of big business.

 

Always be respectful to the court is good advice but I would temper it by reminding everyone these DG are part time solicitors who usually have a lousy private practice. If they didn't they wouldn't be able to devote any time to the job of judging. A little polite firmness doesn't go amiss

[paulwlton]

Am i right in saying the OFT have started their investagation into excessive bank charges, any news on when the findings will be announced, i'm hearing 6 months, any comments.

[mooreda]

not to sure - I know the principle of their outcome to the Credit Card were to be applied to bank charges as well

[paulwlton]

This is a seperate enquiry into bank charges, i think an announcment is due shortly from the OFT possibly in the next 2 weeks.

[alanfromderby]

I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that the announcement will be that they are going to investigate them. They would have a difficulty in making any proclamation without first seeking the views of the banks.

[robert and carol morgan]

hi people just two points regarding bank and credit card charges the wife had a phone call from tsb collections on friday(11/8/06)ref our excessive overdraft explained to them that the account is in dispute and about to serve court papers the response was ohh ok will make note on screen.

had a letter regarding my card charges on tsb platinum card their response was yes we are going to start charging £12.00 as per the oft but we dont agrre with them so no refunds unless you take us to court and let them decide soooo gues what

[JonCris]

Good.

Now join the campaign & write to the OFT not forgetting to include copies of any refusal letters from the money lenders.

 

It'll show the OFT just how important the banks think they are.......not

[moggy1968]

Every step puts more pressure on them all.

 

I think that the banks have now crossed the limit of what most people perceive as decency.

They have shown themsleves up as parasitic.

 

They are like jackals picking off the errant or vulnerable in society and falling upon them in a pack of savagery.

 

They are racketeers and if it was in wartime they would be taken out and shot for the damage which they do to famillies and individuals.

 

I think that they are in serious toruble and they don't know how to withdraw.

reducing their charges now is easy enough. What they can't face up to is the historical refunds, the removal of defaults, the compensation for the damage caused by those defaults and the defamation actions which if this Group has anything to do with it, will start arriving in their postbags in bulk.

 

I can tell you that the important objectives in this Consumer Action Group campaign is not only the return of the banks to the Rule of Law but also the dismantling of the iniquitous system of credit referencing and the establishment of a new, properly conducted, independent and correctly scrutinised system.

It is a fundamental travesty that the banks can be judge and jury in their own cause. How this was ever allowed to happen - and how they have continued to get away with it for so long is a mystery to me.

 

I have a friend from Finland. Apparantly there they only have 2 credit card companies and the rates are set by the government, sounds like an altogether better system to me if the companies can't keep their own house in order!

[normanpj]

Hi!

I note that SPML are listed here as paid up, what was this for if I may ask, I am in a position of being forced by the courts to pay some arrears at a very high monthly rate, do you think there is any hope for me

 

normanpj

[david.m]

My interpretation of this is that Mr Elliot took the same steps as the rest of us to recover his unlawful charges and it actually got to a hearing, Lloyds might have thought they could win on technicality’s, the Judge perhaps correctly suggested that the case was transferred to the Mercantile Court so that the matter could be resolved once and for all. Both parties have to agree to this for it to be transferred.

I would expect Lloyds to agree on the basis it had already gone to court and they would look stupid if they objected.

Panic obviously set in once they had realised the implications of such a case.

This could explain why it has been settled without the knowledge of the Elliots they probably just paid the money back into their account

 

I am aware both parties had to submit further details papers to the court if it has been settled surely Lloyds would have to advise the claimant in order to close the case?

 

I have a question though could a member get legal aid to fight a case in Mercantile Court

As I know if you are on Benefits you can get fees waived by the courts or does legal aid not apply to civil proceedings

 

And if your reading this Mr Elliot Bloody Well Done!!!!!!!!!!!

 

(after reading the thread upto your post IHB (upto the 40's) i have some confussion as reference was made to the fact the the elliots didnt know their claim had been settled)

forgive me if im being silly ,but surely, once the matter got to the court, mearly paying the money back into the account would not of settled the court claim until the elliots in this case, signed some form of legal paper of thier exeptance of the payment as full and final?.

 

so how could the elliots test case be settled without them knowing about it being so call settled?.

 

what im trying to get at is , if they or indeed anyone does not sign the paper, surely that means the case must proceed through the court to a concussion, or how can that be fair justice?.

 

if you see what i mean!.

 

[edit] i see later in the thread they did sign a confidentiality agreement at some point, but my question still stands, if they/anyone does not sign, does the case stop because some cash drops in your account?.

 

also if you were to refuse to sign any confidentiality agreement the banks put infront of you, has it been known or is it concevable that they would still take it out of court and have you sign a lesser paper?.

 

would you need to be a hardhead to refuse to sign anything to have the case pushed through?, and at that point have the banks falling over to try and offer you anything just to stop? the case.