Harsh Letter received from Kensington *Claim struck out in court*

[red1]

I don't understand how he has come to this conclusion

 

He struck it out on the grounds of Law and that it was not a penalty as there was no breach of contract. He said we could come out of the agreemant at anytime and it was our choice to do so as we excersied a right not broke a contract.

 

as a research paper commissioned by the OFT says

A term in a mortgage agreement which requires the borrower to pay more for breaching the contract terms than actual costs and losses caused to the lender by the breach (or a genuine pre-estimate of that) is likely to be regarded as an unfair penalty and to be unenforceable both at common law and (in a consumer mortgage) under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. A redemption charge may be regarded as a penalty even if it is expressd as the price for exercising a right rather than a consequence of breaking the agreement.

 

Office of Fair Trading Test for Excessive Redemption Charges

[ukaviator]

Just posting some bits that I'm remembering.

 

He struck it out on the grounds of Law and that it was not a penalty as there was no breach of contract. He said we could come out of the agreemant at anytime and it was our choice to do so as we excersied a right not broke a contract.

 

Sorry to hear about this Morgy.

 

The way i see it, is that by exercising a right, the knock on effect would be a broken contract. By having such a penalty hanging overhead, your

' Right to Redeem ' or what they call ' Equity to redeem ' would be affected. When people see the amounts they have to pay, it puts them off redeeming their Mortgage early. Did you use that in your argument?.

 

Uk

[jamorgan]

This is what I refered to in court, I don't think the judge even read this document I sent him

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the Cardiff County Court

 

 

 

CLAIM NO 6QZ65372

 

 

 

 

 

 

BETWEEN:

 

 

 

 

 

J A MORGAN

 

 

 

 

 

Claimant

 

 

 

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

 

 

 

MORTGAGE AGENCY SERVICES No 6 Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Defendant

 

 

 

 

 

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF JAMORGAN

 

 

 

I, J A Morgan of ............ will say as follows:

 

1. I am the CLAIMANT in this case.

 

2. I make this witness statement in support of my response to the Defendant’s application to strike out my claim and in defence to the counterclaim.

 

 

3. I make this Witness Statement from facts within my own knowledge and from facts which I believe to be true

 

4.Paras 1-18 of the Defendant's defence are admitted.

 

5. Para 19 is denied. The Claimant was in breach of a major term of the contract. The particular term in the mortgage which was breached was an express term relating to the period of thirty years for which the mortgage was to run. This term of the contract was clearly stated in the written mortgage offer signed by the claimant. The terms of which were incorporated by reference into the mortgage deed which was not only signed, but also witnessed. There is clearly no room for doubt that such a clause existed in the contract. Similarly, there is no question that the claimant in fact redeemed the mortgage on the 05/08/2005 as evidenced by the final redemption statement. This date is clearly well before the contractually agreed date of 07/04/2034 and thus represents a clear breach of the contract.

 

6. To further the contention that a breach of contract did in fact occur, it is submitted by the Claimant that during the period of the thirty years the Claimant was clearly under a contractual obligation to pay monthly instalments to the Defendants and clearly has not made such payments since the redemption of the mortgage.

 

7. The Claimant accepts the contention that redemption of the mortgage was expressly provided for in the mortgage offer under Condition 17.1. Condition 17.2 provides that an early redemption charge was payable in the event of redemption and thus represents a charge that is payable in the event of a breach of contract. Conditions 17.1 and 17.2 merely anticipate a breach of contract and thus do not represent the exercising of a right under the contract.

 

8. In the event that the court were to find the said term as exercising a right and without prejudice to the above paragraph it is submitted that the fact that such a term exists does not prevent a court finding of breach of contract following the House of Lords decision in Bridge v Campbell Discount [1962] AC 600. This case was decided upon the finding of a breach of contract, The finding of a breach of contract as oppose to the exercising of an option was based on the fact that to amount to an exercising of an option there had to be intention to exercise the option demonstrated by the hirer. When the Claimant terminated the mortgage early it was purely to be free from the burden of the contractual obligation. The Claimant was not aware that she was exercising an option to terminate but merely knew that if she did end early she would have to pay a penalty. If she is unaware that she is exercising a right how can it be said that she intended to exercise such a right.

 

9. Furthermore, in Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co Ltd Two of their Lordships (Lord Denning and Lord Devlin) went further in their findings, holding that even had the hirer exercised the option, they would still be prepared to strike down clause 9 as a penalty and thus were of the opinion that Associated Distributors, Ltd. v. Hall was wrongly decided. This, as a minority decision, however, is not binding, but the Claimant invites the court to consider this as persuasive authority in the light of advances in consumer protection legislation since the decision.

 

10. It is the Claimant’s submission that term relating to the Early Repayment charge is merely a penalty clause disguised as an option to exercise a right. It is respectfully requested that the court should look to the substance of the clause rather than the form. It is thus asserted that clauses 17.1 & 17.2 when read together are simply a pretence at conferring a right to exercise an option when in essence it is simply a term setting out the consequences of a breach of contract and as such in the absence of a genuine pre-estimate it amounts to a penalty. As such, the clause can thus be seen as ambiguous as there are two possible interpretations of clause. In the event of ambiguity in a written contractual term, the contra proferentem rule requires the court to resolve any ambiguity against the party who drafted the term. In this regard I would also like to rely on Regulation 7 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:

 

Reg 7. - (1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a

contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language.

 

(2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation

which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail.

 

11. The Claimant denies the contention by the Defendant in para 19 that the term relating to the early repayment charge is a liquidated damages clause. A contractual term which provides for a specified amount payable (whether by a fixed sum or calculated by way of a percentage) must represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss if it is to be regarded as a liquidated damages clause Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd. [1915] A.C. 79. The Claimant has repeatedly asked the Defendant to provide the claimant with details of how their charge was calculated to represent a genuine estimate of their loss. The Defendant has failed to respond to this request and thus the claimant is of the opinion that no genuine pre-estimate indeed took place. The Claimant thus makes a respectful request to the court that disclosure of this information is provided to the Claimant forthwith to bring an expeditious termination to the proceedings.

 

12. Further, in relation to paragraph 19 of the Defence, the Claimant contends that if the Defendant complies with the Claimant’s request to provide a breakdown of losses to which the Defendant has been put to, it would reveal that the charge levied would in fact be revealed to be a disproportionate penalty under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI. 1999/2083). The Claimant’s account falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 as the Claimant is a consumer. The charge constitutes an unfair penalty under Schedule 2 of the said Regulations which provide an indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair. Under paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 this specifically includes terms which have the object of requiring any consumer, who fails his obligation, to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation. The Claimant vigorously contends that this is the position regarding the fee of £7149.64 which the Defendant deemed fit to apply to the Claimant’s account. It is further submitted by the Claimant that the Defendant’s failure to provide such information is for the reason that such information would reveal that the term is in fact a disproportionate penalty. Had the defendant been able to demonstrate that the charge was indeed a liquidated damages clause it has had ample opportunity to do so and the Claimant would not have needed to initiate these proceedings. It is thus respectfully submitted by the Claimant that the Defendant’s defence be struck out as an abuse of process or in the alternative that an order to disclose this information is made so as to satisfy the claimant that the charge is indeed a liquidated damages clause.

 

13. Furthermore it is submitted that clause 49.3 of the mortgage conditions is unenforceable by virtue of s.4 Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. It is respectfully submitted that the clause is unreasonable with in the meaning of s.11 of the said Act.

 

14. Para 20 of the Defendant’s defence is admitted.

 

15. Regarding Para 22 the Defendant has not given a breakdown of its actual losses nor provided a response as to how it came up with a genuine pre-estimate of its losses. A fee calculated by terms of a percentage of the sum repaid can not amount to a genuine pre-estimate of the Defendant’s loss, but moreover represents a fee levied with a view calculated to profit from the claimant’s breach, to act as a clog on the equitable right to redeem or to punish the Claimant for its breach of contract. Furthermore it is contended that the reasons thus far provided by the Defendant fail to take into consideration the duty of the Defendant to mitigate its loss in accordance with the principles set out in Payzu v Saunders [1919] 2KB 581.

 

16. The Claimant agrees with para 22 c of the Defendant’s application in as much that the Defendant has the right to set a liquidated damages clause and this would be perfectly acceptable to the Claimant. However, the Claimant contends that the early repayment charge calculated at 6% did not amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss and that it was excessive in relation to any loss which could conceivably flow from the Claimant’s breach of contract.

 

17. In relation to para 22 d, the Claimant contends that the this para is irrelevant to the present proceedings and in any event the Defendant already charges some of the highest fees and interests rates on the market. The set up costs charged by the Defendant were £1865.00 compared to other lenders fees which are typically £300.00 on average. The interest rate commenced at 6.25% and rose to 8.950 % comparable to typical lending rates at the time of 3.77%. The Defendant’s concern about being disadvantaged in the mortgage market place is misplaced in that the Defendant specialises in sub prime lending where the choice available to consumers is significantly narrowed allowing the few commercial entities that lend in this specialised market to charge fees which border on extortion.

 

18. In relation to para 22 e, the Claimant has never suggested that any other consumers bare the burden of any loss sustained by the Defendant. The Claimant is happy to pay any actual cost incurred by the Defendant in relation to the Claimant’s inability to continue with her contractual commitments. In fact the Claimant has repeatedly asked the Defendant to provide her with a breakdown of such costs which the Defendant refuses to do.

 

19. The Claimant contends that the early repayment charge was an unfair term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and in relation to para 22 of the application would refer the court to the submissions outlined in para 9 above.

 

20. In response to para 23 a, the Claimant denies that the ERC was a core term relating to the adequacy of the price of the mortgage. It is the Claimant’s submission that the ERC was a sum payable on breach of a core term of the mortgage in accordance with para 5-7 outlined above.

 

21. In relation to para 23 b, the Claimant contends that the ERC was contrary to the requirement of good faith as it exceeded any actual loss to the Defendant, was levied with a view to profit, was designed to act as a clog on the Claimant’s equitable right to redeem so that the Defendant could continue to increasing the interest rate payable which it contributed to the Claimant’s inability to meet her contractual obligations.

 

22. In relation to para 23 c, the Claimant refers the court to para 7 above.

 

23. The Claimant contends that the ERC did cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations and denies para 22 d. The Claimant was in a vulnerable position in that she had a history of light adverse credit. The Defendant was in a significantly stronger position in that they are leaders in a niche market in providing mortgages in the sub prime sector. The Claimant was paying an interest rate above the High street lending rate and was not in reality getting a discounted rate but was paying a premium rate. The Claimant had limited choice in the mortgages available to her.

 

24. In response to para 22 e the Claimant contends that the ERC was detrimental to the consumer for all the reasons outlined above. The Claimant strongly refutes the suggestion that she had the option of continuing the mortgage for three years to avoid the ERC. The Claimant was unable to meet her mortgage instalments once the interest rate rose to such a level that the mortgage payments had increased from the initial £618.00 to £894.00. This was beyond the means of the Claimant. Whilst the Claimant accepts that the Defendant had the right to increase the interest rate within the terms and conditions the Claimant, perhaps naively, did not expect to see such a dramatic increase in such a short space of time. After the Claimant contacted the Defendant and was denied any help with regards to a better offer i.e a new fixed rate for years two and three. The Claimant could not afford the risk of more dramatic increases in the final two years of the tie in period, therefore the Claimant had no other option than to terminate the agreement.

 

25. In response to para 24 the Claimant accepts that she had independent advice and was aware that the charges were applicable. However she did not expect to be forced in to the position of having to redeem the mortgage so early due to the excessive hikes in interest rates.

 

 

26. In the premise of all the above, the Claimant respectfully submits that the claimant does indeed have a legitimate cause of action which should be allowed to proceed to trial in the event that the defendant continues to refuse to provide the claimant with the information requested to satisfy the Claimant that the fee levied by the Defendant was indeed lawful.

 

27. The Claimant further submits that the Defendant has not provided a satisfactory cause for the claim to be struck out nor provided a legitimate reason for its accusation that the Claimant has abused the court process. Indeed had the Defendant complied with the Claimant’s requests for information the Claimant would not have needed to seek redress through the courts.

 

 

Defence to counter claim:

 

28. The claimant accepts para 26 of the counterclaim and that under clause s48 & 49 of the mortgage conditions she agreed to indemnify the Defendant in respect of any costs the defendant reasonably incurred in dealing with the discharge of the mortgage. The Claimant puts the Defendant to strict proof of these costs. The Claimant reserves the right to inspect the evidence relating to costs with a view to challenging the clause in relation to the costs under the s.4 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Further the Claimant request an order from the court that this aspect of the Counter claim is struck out as the Defendant has failed to adequately particularise its costs.

29. Further to paragraph 27 of the Defendant’s counter claim it is submitted by the Claimant that it was not in the contemplation of the parties nor was it anticipated that such a clause could be relied upon by the Defendant to require the claimant to indemnify the defendant in proceedings brought by the Claimant to recover sums unlawfully taken by the Defendant.

30.Furthermore since the mortgage was discharged on 05/08/2005 it is no longer open to the Defendant to rely on a clause contained in that contract allowing them to recover legal costs.

31.Without prejudice to the above paragraph, it is further submitted that clauses 48 and 49 of the contract which the Defendant seeks to rely on to recover their legal charges, is an unfair term under s.4 of the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977. It is respectfully submitted by the Claimant that such a term should be regarded as unreasonable under s.11 of the said Act, as even if the Claimant were to succeed in these proceedings, the term would effectively deprive the claimant of a remedy and indeed could leave the Claimant open to pay further costs.

32.The claimant respectfully asks the court to strike out the Defendant’s counterclaim as it represents an abuse of the court process in that it is intimidatory to the claimant, aimed at pressuring the claimant into withdrawing her claim and is in direct conflict with the Civil Procedure Rules. Under the Overriding Objectives of the Civil Procedure Rules there is an obligation to deal with cases justly and to ensure that the parties are on an equal footing. To allow the Defendant’s counterclaim for costs would put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage to the Defendant in that the Claimant has no reciprocal right to claim costs under the contract and is thus unable to obtain legal advice and representation for her claim. Also as a litigant in person the Claimant is already at a substantial disadvantage as the Defendant is a large financial institution with ready access to legal advice and the ability to bear the burden of such costs. The claimant firmly believes in the justice of her claim and feels she has no option but to proceed. The Claimant and her family would be caused severe financial hardship should the court allow the Defendant’s counter claim.

33. The claimant accepts that it is within the courts jurisdiction to award costs against her, however, the defendant’s counterclaim seeks to usurp the judge’s power on the order of costs.

34.In view of the Defendant’s conduct thus far in the proceedings and particularly for the reasons given in paragraphs 28-33 above it is respectfully requested that the court makes an order that no costs be awarded against the claimant at all in these proceedings.

 

 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

 

 

I believe the facts stated within this defence to be true and comprising of 7 pages.

 

 

Dated: 10/01/07

 

Signed: JAMorgan

[zootscoot]

Absolutely gutted for you Morgy.

 

I can't believe the judges decision. As for Bridge v Campbell they held that there was a breach of contract even though there was a right to end early because the Defendant was forced to end the agreement early by his circumstances just as you were by Kensington hiking their interest rates to a level that you could no longer afford it. I really don't see how the judge could find otherwise. Did you manage to raise your points relating to the fact that it was a sub prime lender and therefore your choice of mortgage was substantially reduced?

 

I am truly gutted for you.

 

Speak soon

 

Zoot xx

[jamorgan]

Hi Zoot

 

Told the Judge that we had a little light adverse credit and we were only offered a mortgage with

1 mortgage lender , and 1 product only no other alternative what so ever was offered

I referred him to para 17 which I read out which states how much it cost me to get the mortgage,the rate we started off on and what it rose to comparable with other lenders at the time and about the company specialising in sub prime lending and a bit about there charges bording on extortion.

 

He was not interested

[ellielou]

Ohhhhhh Morgy, I'm so sorry this has happened. I can only begin to imagine how you feel. I truely am gutted for you.

 

However, on the positive side you have 2 weeks to appeal & get a stronger argument together & from reading Zoots comments you clearly do have one.

 

The fighting isn't over yet - don't give up & don't let the b*****ds grind you down.

 

Let me know if there's anything we can do to help x

[jamorgan]

Thanks guys for the continued suport

I know you feel for me and are truley gutted, well you know what they say YOU WIN SOME YOU LOOSE SOME

 

Not sure what to do now, I'm wondering wether to appeal. what shall I do guys allready court costs are up to £4558.00 (will they except a £1.00 a week)

Judge did say that I could incur further costs and I would have to reply to him personaly in wrighting within 14 days no later if he refuses I could apply to higher judge within 21 days

what do you think?

Got major headache now think I might get some shut eye its been along day

x

[gizmo111]

Night Morgy,

 

I'd sleep on it if I was you and see what advice and support tomorrow brings.

 

Regards

[Bona]

Were the costs itemised to the last penny if they are un reasonable you can apply to have them taxed may cost you , but could save you also it will give you a breathing space. We have had adverse credit so could only Mortgage with GMAC the Mortgages from hell, we sold our house under a court order, but they stiil took in excess of 4000 in redemption fees and 90,000 in silictors costs as well as a further 6000.00 over the life time of the mortgage in excess fees we have nothing to loose as we are know in rented accomadation any any money we get we pay our kids back!!!! so if we loose they will loose as we will just go bankrupt hope it wont come to that, we appealed and went to the high court our experiance of the Royal courts of justice has been very positive not many people appear on person so i think they are very " helpful" we are haveing all the costs assessed and we are applying to have GNACs cost assessed to .who were the othersides solicitors and Barristers can you remeber their names, will give you any help we can but dont let the buggers beat you also do we know if all these buggers are monertering this site Take care and sleep well

[jamorgan]

I think I will Giz, cheers my darling.

 

I would like to say that what's happened to me today was just unlucky like I said, you win some you loose some,but for the rest of you,don't be put off by whats happened today, fight for what you believe.

Maybe I didn't do enough today to sway the Judge into our thinking.

I did not feel confident enough, it was a very awful experience for me.

I am not a very good speaker and I feel Ii was way out of my league.

Another day tommorrow fresh thoughts

x

[Les Gunn]

jamorgan,

 

What you did today was nothing short of courage in the face of adversity. You showed you would face up to a toothless tiger and a judge, who quite clearly was on another planet!

 

Whilst I was perturbed by what happened, it now makes us that little bit stronger and more determined to win. If you look at the ratio of cases won /settled vs cases lost/for appeal, the percentage in our favour is STAGGERING!

 

I know you must be daunted at the next step - even considering it is beyond my comprehension. Rest assured, if I had to, i'd gladly chip in 20 quid to help with any additional fee you have to pay to take this further and Appeal. I don't have a lot, but it would be the best investment just to see this imbecillic decision overturned.

 

The barrister might be having a celebratory Pimms, but you might just get the Champers yet!

 

(Sorry it's a novel, just had to get it off my chest...!!)

 

Keep smiling eh?

 

[jamorgan]

Hi Bona,

sorry to here your sad storey.

Solicitor is Drydens in Bradford

Adam Fox is the contact we have had through the claim,but today a Stephen Innes turned up with Adam Fox to defend them.

 

I recieved a letter this morning before I went to court

Please find enclosed,by way of service,our clients statement of costs

 

fee earners grade c £120.00 per hour plus vat

asf - 1.3 hours @ £120.00 toatal £156.00

Attendance on court

asf-2.1 hours @ £120.00 total £252.00

Attendance on Documants

asf-5.4 hours @ £120.00 per hour plus vat toatl £648.00

Preperation of hearing

asf-9.1 hours plus vat per hour total £1092.00

Attendence on Claimant

asf - 1.0 hour @£120.00 plus vat per hour total £120.00

counterclaim issue fee £250.00

Apllication fee £65.00

Councel's fee for settling evidence £150.00

Councel's Brief fee £750.00

legal fee £212.63

Disbursements £157.50

 

Total including VAT £3,853.13

Judge asked Defendant at the end of the conference was there any other fees applicable to this ammount and Styephen Innes advised yes an extra

£600.00 for the last minute skeleton argument

 

So total amounts to £4558.30

 

Great isn't it

x

[jamorgan]

Thanks Les you just put a smile on my face

xxxx

[Guest Tracey284]

I am so sorry to hear what happened today. I have been following your case closely as we have ERC of around £19000 with Kensington but now I am really nervous to start. I certainly couldn't afford the costs should I loose. Let's hope it all looks better tomorrow. Keep on fighting. Tracey

[dogwash]

Absolutely devastated for you jamorgan. You've had one hell of a day. Sounds like the Judge hadn't read your evidence properly (or even at all) and he'd made his mind up before the conference. No doubt if you appeal to him in writing personally he will not change his mind but I feel that if you take it to appeal at the High Court you may stand a chance. (many years ago i used to attend County Court as part of my job and in my experience District Judge's were not always particularly well informed on the law). Obviously the problem then is further costs. Don't know whether on that one you could apply for legal aid - perhaps someone on this site could advise on that. I feel LesGunns offer to contribute £20 a great idea. I would certainly be prepared to put in £20 and if enough of us did on this site hopefully it would cover your costs. Could someone in admin perhaps start up a fund? Let's face it would be very advantageous to us all to have a high court ruling on this matter.

 

I'm in court on 19 Feb against GE Money for £4400 erc claim. Fortunately it is in small claims court so no question of costs and maybe with a bit of luck if I get a sympathetic Judge and he may rule in my favour. If he does that may help in other cases. Hope so.

 

Feel so sorry for you but nil desperandum it isn't necessarily over yet.

[CrispDust]

Surely the funds donated to this site should be used in cases like this?

[red1]

I have already pmed Jamorgan offering a donation. As I see it I owe it her as she is a pioneer.

[dhoom]

nice to see everyone backing jamorgan, might be a good idea, if there was another thread say 'plan of action-jmorgan vs kensington' where only legalities were discussed and keep the support thread seperate so jamorgan can keep track of things. Just an idea. IGNORE IF YOU WISH

[paulson1985]

I was so very sorry to read about your case.

 

I think you were very brave to go as far as you did.

 

I also think it was another example of the big boys putting us little guys once again in our place.

 

I have nothing but admiration for your courage, and hope there can be a solution found to help you out.

 

Take Care and whatever you decide to do, I wish you well.

 

I had to smile or really no not smile I was amazed at the amounts per hour these guys are payed, sums of money most of us can only dream about.

 

That is why in my opinion they will go to every length possible to stop people getting there money refunded.

 

They all seem to stick together, well we should all stick together as well.

[The Avengers]

Seeing Morgy's situation, is there not a case for us instructing a legal firm using a fighting fund to take out a class action. The legal seagulls out there will know what I mean. Seems to there's so many of us fighting our own separate skirmishes, we should 'unite and fight'.

 

COMMENTS WELCOME - ESPECIALLY FROM ZOOT AND COLLEAGUES.

[The Avengers]

Forgot to mention that we have all seen, for example, hundreds or even thousands of litigants represented by one legal firm suing medical companies and the like. It would work in our case, surely.

 

There's surely enough of us - even those of us without much dosh - who could contribute modest amounts which would still amount to sufficient to pay our lawyers.

 

What do you think.

[The Avengers]

Starting A Separate Thread About Initiating A Fighting Fund With A View To Taking Out A Class Action With Our Own Legal Team.

[Louisk]

Absolutely outraged on your result jamoran, admire your courage and hope you keep going. Like others I would be happy to make a contribution to your fight, (actually its NatWest's money but thats another story) if you decide to carry on.

 

Like all of us here I regard Kensington as **** of the earth the judge in your trail must be blind, anyone with an IQ level greater than thier shoe size can see Kensington have a mission statement written by the Mafia.

 

Stay strong jamorgan.

[The Avengers]

Please see new thread:

 

'Fighting Fund for Mortgage ERC Recovery'.

 

We need to get together, help JAMORGAN and issue our own claim as one litigant in a class action.

 

We need each other's support.

 

JAMORGAN:

Do your letter to the judge and then hopefully we'll get together and help you take it to the High Court.

[The Avengers]

Re: Fighting Fund For Mortgage Erc Recovery

CLASS ACTION:

A civil action brought by one or more individuals on behalf of themselves and "all others similarly situated" (or equivalent language). The purpose of a class action is to secure a judicial remedy which not only eliminates a wrong committed against an individual, and compensates him or her for the effects of that wrong, but which also provides such remedies for all others in a definable class who have suffered as a result of the same practice or practices.

 

A lawsuit brought by one or more persons on behalf of a larger group.

 

PLEASE GO TO OUR THREAD!!