My bank charges hearing is this week

[kriso]

Has anyone else gone to a hearing with DG solicitors? I have a hearing this week since I claimed a judgement against HSBC which the court approved, but which DG Solicitors want set aside and the case stayed.

 

I'm a little un-prepared and only got 7 days notice that the hearing was happening. I was just wondering if it's likely that they will turn up, since it's only a few hundred pounds that they owe me?

 

I am having to not go into work and travel to the court so can I claim these loss of earnings and travel costs aswell? If so, do I just ask the judge at the hearing?

 

How has anyone else got on at court with DG?

 

Would love to hear your thoughts as I'm pretty worried about this Thanks.

Edited October 19, 2009 by kriso

[caro]

Are you sure that the hearing is actually for the bank charges? I think it's more likely just for the set aside. You would be unlikely to get any costs unless the judge refuses the setaside, but in all honesty, I think it's unlikely to be refused. The stay is likely to be agreed and the case for the charges heard after the test case is sorted.

 

What have DG put in the application for the set aside?

[kriso]

Hi Caro...I'm not sure because there isn't much detail on the Notice of Hearing. It says things like 'When you should attend' and then it's blank, as if they haven't filled part of the notice in or something.

 

DG say on the application that they want the judgement set aside and the case stayed and they ticked the 'Without a Hearing' box, but the judge obviously wants a hearing.

 

So doesn't it seem a complete waste of time having the hearing, and even me having to attend if the judge is just going to stay the case anyway? That's why I think I should be entitled to costs, because will be annoying to have to take the day off and get to court for him to just go back on the judgement he has already given :\

[johnnymitch]

Hi kriso ,

 

I would say the judge wants a hearing to be seen to give you a fair crack of the whip ....... the bank wants his/her judgement to be 'set aside' without a hearing ....... I'm not surprised the judge is not agreeing to that . I'd agree with Caro that the hearing is likely to be for the set-aside, and that it's likely to be a rubber stamp job ... but it must be seen to be fair .... not the bank telling the court what to do ....

 

You could try ringing the court if you think there is info missing from the Notice of Hearing .... and you could ask them about costs at the same time ...

[kriso]

OK I suppose it will just be about the set aside then. I'm just a little frustrated at having to go through the hassle and cost of getting to the court if it's just going to be set aside and stayed anyway.

 

The way I see it - even if the test case is on-going and cases are being stayed, the bank should have submitted a defence within the allowed time period. Because they didn't, it should mean a judgement by default (which the judge already granted once). It's really the bank's word against the court's so I would hope that unless the court is incorrect and they did receive a defence..or the bank can somehow prove that they did submit it), the judgement should still stand.

 

I need to convince the judge of this I suppose

[johnnymitch]

Yep ...... and you'd need a strong argument kriso , unless the judge is sympathetic to you ....... but his hands are kind of tied by the Test case anyway ..... ...

 

The banks seem to get away with late defence submissions frequently ..... whereas, if it was you or I, it would just be struck out or judgement passed ....

[Spiceskull]

Yes, the Judge will probably agree the set aside, unless of course you can give a good enough reason for him to decline DG's request.

 

It is almost three years since I have been up against DG, and whilst they may have been easy meat in those days I am sure they will have sharpened up their act since.

 

All the set asides are just a way to inconvenience banks' customers, customers that they will ultimately have to deal with once the test case is finalised.

 

Good luck.

[johnnymitch]

This may give you some idea of what you're up against kriso .:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2489578.html

[kriso]

Thanks both, I'll take a look at that other thread. Off to print loads of stuff out for the case tomorrow now.

[Castlebest]

And this is what happened when I asked for my stay to be set aside back in February, a little different but I think you will get a similar reaction from your judge, he will want you to know why he is allowing the set aside so will explain it all.

 

They need to be seen to be fair to both sides so he will want to wait for the test case to finish

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cases-stayed-pending-oft/115275-castlebest-stays.html

 

pete

[caro]

I've PM'd you Kriso. Keep us posted and good luck.

[kriso]

Well the hearing was a waste of time really and lasted all of 4 minutes. HSBC lawyer was going on about the OFT case etc. right from the start and the judge said 'case stayed' before I could even speak.

 

I don't understand why I had to lose over £100 in lost earnings and travel costs when the judge could have just stayed the case without a hearing! I hope the HSBC/DG lawyer can sleep at night knowing they've just made a customer even poorer...still, hopefully it cost them some legal charges too.

[caro]

Sorry to hear this kriso. At least you've got the satisfaction of knowing you gave it a shot and didn't just roll over.

 

On the bright side, you're earning 8% interest on your claim until they eventually cough up.

[johnnymitch]

Yep ! It was to be expected kriso - but well done for sticking with it - and as caro says .... your interest will make up at least a bit of what it cost you ..........

 

Thanks also for letting us know the attitude of the judge and the DG shower.. it's all good experience for anyone else following in your footsteps....

Edited October 20, 2009 by johnnymitch
afterthought

[kriso]

Yea it was worth the experience I suppose There were a whole load of other 'Smith Vs Lloyds' etc. cases listed up on the wall so I suspect Tuesday must be their 'bank charges day'.

 

The lawyer was just how I imagined and just like on TV - she hardly took a breath as she spouted out all the test case info. The judge did say to her at the end - 'You do have to be careful as this could end up costing you quite a bit couldn't it?'. She didn't have anything to say to that

 

Anyway I've now switched my bank account and will await the test case outcome.

 

Thanks so much for the help and support