Stays still being ordered by the Courts

[JonCris]

Do we know that for certain?

 

I seem to recall either BF or Dave saying they had spoken to the reporter who said they had & of course it would not be unusual for someone NOT from this site to do so

[Mrgreengenes]

I remember reading that one of our moderators won her case despite refusing the confidentiality agreement. I may be wrong but I think it was mjanet. I have tried searching for the post but realised it would take me forever.

 

 

 

Don't let the fatherless chillen get ya!

[JonCris]

Yes I understand a number of members have been asked to sign con agreements, have refused & still received full settlement.

 

The money lenders don't want to go to court but they will try anything to lower the impact on them. Refusal followed by half offer followed by full offer but with conditions (dont tell anyone) to full pay without conditions when you refuse anything less

[elsinore]

I remember reading that one of our moderators won her case despite refusing the confidentiality agreement. I may be wrong but I think it was mjanet. I have tried searching for the post but realised it would take me forever

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/1777-mjanet-lloyds-unconditionally.html?highlight=mjanet

 

It's a cracking read!

 

Elsinore

[paulwlton]

Sent a letter into court, hand delivered Thursday 10, just received reply dated 15, it says the judge has removed the stay.

[JonCris]

Excellent Paul Did you use the site ltr by BF If not can you post the letter you used so I can put in my own templates library if you don't mind

[paulwlton]

This is it.

 

I respectfully request that these stays be removed for two reasons.

 

 

Firstly, the case you have referred to was settled several weeks ago pre-Court with Lloyds TSB agreeing to pay the full outstanding amount to the Elliot family, therefore I believe it is no longer relevant to my case.

 

 

Secondly, whilst I will continue to attempt to reach an agreeable settlement with Barclays, I have so far been unsuccessful. I have made numerous attempts to enter into meaningful dialogue with the Bank who continue to refuse to negotiate. Whilst I have received an offer of partial settlement as a gesture of goodwill, there has been no admittance of liability or any offers of the full amount outstanding.

 

 

Further, I understand that there are many similar cases, litigating on the same issue of contractual penalties. However the Court may be unaware that not one of these has so far gone to a hearing. Whilst the Banks are filing defences, they are regularly settling pre-hearing. In many other cases, the defendant Banks are even receiving default judgements against them which are being set aside on application by the Bank and which are subsequently being settled prior to a Court hearing. In two cases, the Court has even ordered standard disclosure against the defendant Banks but those Banks have gone on to settle rather than reveal the details of its contractual penalties. I believe that I will not reach an adequate agreement with Barclays relating to this case until a date for a hearing is announced.

 

 

Also, 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. By agreeing to remove the stay and ordering a Court date, my case would also present 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.

In the alternativeif 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 199:cool:.
  
• 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.

Thank you for taking the time to consider the above requests and I look forward to hearing from the Court in due course.

[stadium_arcadium]

Received through the letterbox today....

 

 

Before DISTRICT JUDGE HENDICOTT sitting at Cardiff County Court, Cardiff Civil Justice Ctr...

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

1. Case is stayed generally pending further order from the court.

 

Dated 21 August 2006

[JonCris]

For what reason. Not Elliott v Lloyds I hope

 

This is an argument for us all issuing in a single court.

 

Use the site application for lifting the stay which has I beleive already been successfull in another members case

[elsinore]

JonCris there's another one here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/23667-mum-lloyds.html

with a bit more detail.

I have suggested she adds it to this thread for greater exposure.

 

Elsinore

[purp72]

I too had the same order made by DJ Hendicott on 9th August. I have telephoned the County Court today and they have told me that it's been stayed until a "test-case" in London has been decided. They couldn't (or wouldn't) give me any other details other than a phone number for what turned out to be the Central London County Court - who couldn't tell me anything without the case number or details of the parties for the test case! Will try Cardiff County Court again - but this story does not quite tally with what Mum v Lloyds thread said. I'm confused - do I sit and wait or try to get the stay overturned?

 

Purp 72

[meagain]

Tell them it's "Elliot vs. Lloyds TSB" and that the case has been settled out of court.

[Mrgreengenes]

I'm waiting for a court date as well against Barclays.

 

Is there no way we could respectfully ask the judge to ensure that the case is still current? He would look a bit silly if he has ordered a stay pending a test case which has been settled out of court!

 

 

Don't let the fatherless chillen get ya!

[meagain]

I've not got the N1 in front of me, but I'm going to try "draw [their] attention to the fact that the Mercantile case has been settled"

[JonCris]

I too had the same order made by DJ Hendicott on 9th August. I have telephoned the County Court today and they have told me that it's been stayed until a "test-case" in London has been decided. They couldn't (or wouldn't) give me any other details other than a phone number for what turned out to be the Central London County Court - who couldn't tell me anything without the case number or details of the parties for the test case! Will try Cardiff County Court again - but this story does not quite tally with what Mum v Lloyds thread said. I'm confused - do I sit and wait or try to get the stay overturned?

 

Purp 72

 

Phone London again & tell them you understand its Elliot v Lloyds & if they tell you it is, point out that it's been settled by the bank prehearing. If they confrim they know this request written confirmation because your case has been mistakenly stayed by the judge

 

On the otherhand if they say it isn't then at least you will know its another test case & enquiries can be made.

[purp72]

I've now managed to obtain some further information from Cardiff County Court in relation to Welsh cases which have been "stayed generally". The case is Williams-v- Barclays Bank, which is a multi-track case (because the amount claimed is over £15,000?). I've been told that it is to be heard at Cardiff County Court by DJ Higginbottom but that no hearing date has been set yet. Anyone else have any additional information about this case?

 

While I can understand the rationale behind it administratively for the court system, it's extremely frustrating to have been placed in "limbo" like this. I'm only claiming a relatively small amount (approx. £300) but I can't see DLA (Abbey's solicitors) working to settle (I've already had 50% offer) while the case is held up like this. Any suggestions?

 

Thanks

Purp72

[angry cat]

Hi purp72- I was in a similar position to you, in that my claim against Morgan Stanley had a General Form of Judgement or Order placed upon it by the District Judge. The Order stated that the action be stayed until further order on the basis that there is likely to be a test case to be heard before the Designated Judge for Southend County Court before the end of the year. Therefore I submitted a County Court N244 Apllication Notice to my County Court. I used Bankfodders template, and requested " I Angry Cat intend to apply for an order that The Stay of my case ordered by the District Judge (name) on 8 August 2006 be set aside because, I have explained the reasons for this Application in my Part C statement".....and then I used the wonderful wording that Bankfodder has provided on the forum....I hope that this information will assist you. My County Court accepted the Application Notice. Good Luck Angry Cat

[FunkyJMan]

I recieved a stay from Gloucester CC but there is no mention of any cases, it just says about a possible test case... this is what I recieved...

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

1. The action be stayed until 21st October 2006 or further Order on the basis that there is likely to be a test case before a Higher Court before the end of the year the result of which is likely to reduce the need and/or amount of litigation in these type of cases:the stay will afford the parties an oppurtunity to try and settle the matter without a court hearing.

 

2. Liberty to apply to remove the stay

 

3. File to be referred back to the District Judge by 22nd October 2006.

 

4. This order was made on the District Judge's own initiative pursuant to CPR Part 23.8. If you object to the terms of the order you must make an application to the court to have it set aside, varied or stayed within 7 days of recieving it pursuant to CPR Part 23.10

I want to send this letter to the court, it is the letter that paulwlton sent on the previous page, hope he doesn't mind, I have edited it a little as obviously mine doesn't mention a specific case.... Do you think that this is ok to send?

 

 

I respectfully request that these stays be removed for the following reasons.

 

Firstly, you have not reffered to any cases actually awaiting hearing before a higher court.

 

Secondly, whilst I will continue to attempt to reach an agreeable settlement with National Westminster Bank PLC, I have so far been unsuccessful. I have made numerous attempts to enter into meaningful dialogue with the Bank who continue to refuse to negotiate. Whilst I have received an offer of partial settlement as a gesture of goodwill, there has been no admittance of liability or any offers of the full amount outstanding.

 

Further, I understand that there are many similar cases, litigating on the same issue of contractual penalties. However the Court may be unaware that not one of these has so far gone to a hearing. Whilst the Banks are filing defences, they are regularly settling pre-hearing. In many other cases, the defendant Banks are even receiving default judgements against them which are being set aside on application by the Bank and which are subsequently being settled prior to a Court hearing. In two cases, the Court has even ordered standard disclosure against the defendant Banks but those Banks have gone on to settle rather than reveal the details of its contractual penalties. I believe that I will not reach an adequate agreement with National Westminster Bank PLC relating to this case until a date for a hearing is announced.

 

Also, 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. By agreeing to remove the stay and ordering a Court date, my case would also present 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.

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 1998 )
  
• 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.

Thank you for taking the time to consider the above requests and I look forward to hearing from the Court in due course.

 

 

Is that ok or do I need to change anything?

 

Thanks

Jamie

[twinkle]

Sorry I've just picked up this thread.

 

Just to let you know that the case was sent to the Disrict Judge from my local court. The amount being claimed is under £1000. As you can imagine I was more than slightly nervous to hear that the case had gone to multi track but after advice from BankFodder and ALOT of thinking I decided to go ahead.

 

I have now received a letter from Barclays this morning stating that they want to settle. Unfortunately the amount offered does not include the AQ court fee I paid. So I shall be requesting that this be added to my claim and if not I will see them in court.

[pelham9]

Rather than just 'settled' would it not be better to write SETTLED IN FULL with or without the capitals!l. After all it would be perfectly possible for a settlement before the hearing to be for a lesser amount than that claimed and this is still a settled claim Any judge might well understand that there had been a negotiated settlement and the point is that there there was no negotiation in the cases you mention in your letter

[pelham9]

Negotiation! This word has the commonly understood meaning of 'haggling'

 

The bank has made an offer so they have negotiated.

 

Your position is ( or should be) that you will accept nothing but your full claim. You therefore must NOT negotiate. If there were some doubt as to the justice of your full claim there might be a place for negotiation but the banks have shown repeatedly that they have no defence and pay up in full.

 

I feel that the third paragraph in your letter could be put differently otherwise the judge may give the bank time to negotiate further which is not what you want -ony the bank will benefit from that. Perhaps it would be better to leave it out entirely or replace it with a paragraph listing the bank's delaying tactics which will emphasise that a stay will only benefit them.

[angry cat]

Hi FunkyJMan- Sending a letter to the Court is not sufficient!!! If you wish to request the stay be put aside, then it is important to follow the correct procedure. You will have to make an Application Notice using the Court form N244. A moderator will assist you. Twinkle, I agree that you should be re-imbursed with the cost of you AQ. Just keep going and they will cave in. Keep the faith:) Angry Cat

[paulwlton]

I would send the letter i posted requesting the stay be removed, in my case it was removed whithin a week of the court receiving it,

[angry cat]

I am simply passing on to you, the excellant advice that was given to me by one of the BAG/CAG Administrators, namely Bankfodder. However, at the end of the day, it is your choice on how you decide to try to get the stay, put aside. Kind thoughts from Angry Cat:)

[paulwlton]

If something works then spread the word, it is then up to the individual to decide if it may work for him, the more options the better.