Sub Prime Judge Judys

[enoughisenough]

Have you been to court and had Judge Judy siding wholly with the lenders and staring over their glass rims at this horrible little oik of A Litigant In Person?

 

If So We'd Like To Hear Your Sub Prime Horror Stories In Court So We Can Begin To Put HMCS On Notice That:

 

1. There Is Something Called The Civil Procedure Rules

 

2. There Is Something Called The Law In Relation To Unlawful And Therefore Unrecoverable Charges

 

3. That These Charges Cannot Be Alleged As Part Of The Arrears

 

4. That Legal Costs Also Cannot Be Part Of The Alleged Arrears and can only be awarded by the court.

 

5. That These Judys Are Mandated By EU Law To Get Off their Lazy Behinds And Examine The Ts And Cs On Our Behalf

 

6. That Judges Must Be Neutral And Even The Appearance Of Bias/ Prejudice In Favour Of One Party Over The Other Is Enough To Get Their Numpty Decisions Overrturned

 

Please Note We Are Not In The Business Of Naming And Shaming Individual Judges.

 

The Idea Is To Get As Much Anecdotal Evidence Together To Buld Up A Picture That We Could Then Lobby The Higher Echelons Of The Judicial Food Chain. Positive stories welcome also to cheer us all up!

 

Thanks. Keep The Faith. Eie.;-)

Edited July 11, 2009 by enoughisenough

[gustavius rex]

l've spent a large part of 2008 in various courts trying to sort out problems with my mortgage(s), and it has been a real eye-opener. My first conclusion was and is that the current courtsystem is nothing but a conveyer belt with a rubber stamp in the end of it, only benefitting the claimant(s). No judge and l mean no single judge has ever bothered to even talk to me properly. What normally happen is that the judge will be talking to the claimants legal eagle over your head and it is a shut case before you have a chance to even open your mouth. The last time l got so peed off that l actually told the judge that l did not appreciate that he and the claimants legal executive treated me with utter disregard and contempt. The judge, surprisingly enough, said he was sorry l felt that way and that he did not try to ignore me, but, only to impose the usual 30 days deferral before repossession would commence. To me it is clear that we as borrowers do not even merit the most basic of respect and equality under the law. We are anonomys parts of the grey masses and as such, can be treated as something you scrape off from under your shoe.

GR

[enoughisenough]

Thanks for that.

 

It is sadly as I expected. I think there will be many more of these types of story. If the judges don't do their job properly they can be subject to so called francovich damages.

[gustavius rex]

Thanks for that.

 

It is sadly as I expected. I think there will be many more of these types of story. If the judges don't do their job properly they can be subject to so called francovich damages.

 

Just a foot note. l actually investigated the possibility to complain or report the judge in question. lt is impossible, you have to prove that he is biased or prejudiced and a judgement is not reason enough.

GR

[enoughisenough]

Hi I accept all you say, but I don't like to think of anything as impossible. Granted it's very very difficult. I think a decent way for this thread to proceed is to set out some legal principles starting with the CPR. I'll do this later as I'm using mobile email at the moment.

[gustavius rex]

l really look forward to that.

[iconoclash]

Hi I accept all you say, but I don't like to think of anything as impossible. Granted it's very very difficult. I think a decent way for this thread to proceed is to set out some legal principles starting with the CPR. I'll do this later as I'm using mobile email at the moment.

Hi - here's a horror for you! when going back into court to try to get a judgement set aside with all my evidence about the agreements errors etc,, the judge turned round and told me, literally over his glasses, that "I was trying to get a second bite of the cherry" and dismissed my case out of hand - he let the judgement stand and it cost me money!! arrrrgh

[maddiemay]

Please please do something about these Judges, who always assume the defendant is the baddie, we are expected to do the right thing (pay basically) whilst the claimant can get away with all sorts of non compliance, bullying,threats,intimidation and all manor of other horrible things.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Maddie and others. That's exactly the point of this thread. I promise to get as much light shed on this all too hidden aspect of our story. The judges need to be brought to book as well. They are operating by virtue of a very mistaken perception that we have indeed been very naughty and therefore need to be punished. I hate the courts almost as much as I hate the lenders.

[enoughisenough]

OK, so as promised let's try and look at the legal basis of things. We'll start with the Civil Procedure Rules laid down in the Access to Justice Act(1999)

 

Part one of the CPR refers to the Overriding Objective of the Rules and is divided into four parts. The overriding objective sets out what the court must do and why. Here's a few key extracts.

 

The overriding objective

1.1

 

(1)These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly.

 

(2)Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable –

 

(a)ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;

 

(b)saving expense;

 

©dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –

 

(i)to the amount of money involved;

 

(ii)to the importance of the case;

 

(iii)to the complexity of the issues; and

 

(iv)to the financial position of each party;

 

(d)ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and

 

(e)allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.

 

 

Application by the court of the overriding objective

1.2

The court must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it –

 

(a)exercises any power given to it by the Rules; or

 

(b)interprets any rule subject to rules 76.2 and 79.2.

 

(Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 656 (L.16)

 

The Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2005

 

Modification to the overriding objective

 

76.2. - (1) Where this Part applies, the overriding objective in Part 1, and so far as relevant any other rule, must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the duty set out in paragraph (2).

 

(2) The court must ensure that information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest.

 

(3) Subject to paragraph (2), the court must satisfy itself that the material available to it enables it properly to determine proceedings.

 

 

 

 

Duty of the parties

1.3

The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective.

 

 

Court’s duty to manage cases

1.4

(1)The court must further the overriding objective by actively managing cases.

 

(2)Active case management includes –

 

(a)encouraging the parties to co-operate with each other in the conduct of the proceedings;

 

(b)identifying the issues at an early stage;

 

©deciding promptly which issues need full investigation and trial and accordingly disposing summarily of the others;

 

(d)deciding the order in which issues are to be resolved;

 

(e)encouraging the parties to use an alternative dispute resolution(GL)procedure if the court considers that appropriate and facilitating the use of such procedure;

 

(f)helping the parties to settle the whole or part of the case;

 

(g)fixing timetables or otherwise controlling the progress of the case;

 

(h)considering whether the likely benefits of taking a particular step justify the cost of taking it;

 

it could be argued here that repossession contains no likely benefit. If the lender argues that they are reluctant and only taking this step as a last resort the courts should have their attention drawn to the absence of benefit in making such an order.

 

There are other parts but These seem to be the most relevant.

 

In short the courts must

 

1. Further the overriding objective

2. Put the parties on an equal footing

3. Deal with cases fairly

4. Decide whether the evidence available allows it to proceed fairly

5. Consider the likely benefits of making any order. The wronged lender arguing that repo is very inconvenient for them but they feel they have no choice has just probably if you pitch it right using this talked the judge into not giving an order.

 

I realise this assumes a huge leap of faith on our part. But as in my tag enough is enough with these courts and Judges and We are putting them on Notice.

 

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

More on CPR to follow.

[enoughisenough]

Additionally the court needs to be reminded of the following rule. I am sure that They claim to have followed the CJCs Pre action protocols before making a claim but as we all know they don't.

 

The court’s general powers of management

3.1

 

(4)Where the court gives directions it will take into account whether or not a party has complied with the Practice Direction (Pre-Action Conduct) and any relevant pre-action protocol.

[enoughisenough]

Additionally if the claim is a sloppy pro-forma claim (one of there many cut and paste jobs) this rule looks useful. Remember however that a statement of case is a submission in lieu of particulars of claim or in addition to. A statement of case insofar as I am aware is not the same as the POC. Any clarification or correction would be appreciated here. Here's the rule.

 

Power to strike out a statement of case

 

3.4

(1)In this rule and rule 3.5, reference to a statement of case includes reference to part of a statement of case.

 

(2)The court may strike out(GL) a statement of case if it appears to the court –

 

(a)that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim;

 

I am thinking that reinstating an action in which you are paying the overage and they continue to apply charges more than the overage - that is not reasonable.

 

(b)that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or

 

©that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

This is OFTEN the case.

 

 

(3)When the court strikes out a statement of case it may make any consequential order it considers appropriate.

 

(4)Where –

 

©before the claimant pays those costs, he starts another claim against the same defendant, arising out of facts which are the same or substantially the same as those relating to the claim in which the statement of case was struck out,

 

the court may, on the application of the defendant, stay(GL) that other claim until the costs of the first claim have been paid.

 

(5)Paragraph (2) does not limit any other power of the court to strike out(GL) a statement of case.

 

(6)If the court strikes out a claimant’s statement of case and it considers that the claim is totally without merit –

 

(a)the court’s order must record that fact; and

 

(b)the court must at the same time consider whether it is appropriate to make a civil restraint order.

 

I like that bit.

 

Put the Courts on Notice that were are not taking their bull anymore

[iconoclash]

Hi - re bringing another case with substantially the same facts, I understand that they cannot do this when the previous claim has been struck out - but - do you know if this still applies if the previous claim has been heard and judged eg bringing back essentially the same claim for more money - Im thinking about Oakwood and their attempts to repo us again:confused: