Fellowes Vs Barclays

[saintly_1]

You can apply for the defence to be thrown out then it would be down to the judge if he is going to grant it

[MoneyKing]

what I find really interesting is how a court date is decided in high court, if it is priority then I am shocked and this is why:-

 

OFT v Banks date early next year

 

however a claim submitted at about the same time:-

 

West Ham Utd v MSI (football over Tevez transfer) mid august

 

So is football more important or does it depend on the type of claim?

 

does anybody have a view on this....

[Fellowes]

So should my action plan now should be just to wait till the court date.

 

Surely Barclays will not want to submit their court bundle detailing the true costs of administering such charges.

[saintly_1]

I would wait untill the day after their court bundle is due and then go to the court and request judgment

[Fellowes]

Is this 42 days from when I took my bundle to court, or 42 days from when my allowed 14 days expired?

[saintly_1]

What was the exact wording

[Fellowes]

The word for word order is on my post 28.

[saintly_1]

I would say 42 days after your 14 are up

[Fellowes]

What are the odds Barclays will complete and return a court bundle?

 

How many do you know of being submitted?

[saintly_1]

errrrrrrrrr to date i dont think i have heard of a single one

[Fellowes]

I've been looking for the letter by GaryH re non compliance, referred to in Peter Rabbit Vs Barclays, and posted by Falcom.

Does anyone have the link to this, and advise on its use when the time is right.

It would appear a letter needs to go to Barclays, reminding them the deadline has expired and no bundle has been received. Is this necessary, or can I just go with the court letter of non compliance?

I'm not ready to do this yet, just researching in advance so I can act in a timely fashion.

[saintly_1]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/58011-directions-non-compliance-letters.html#post485266 second letter on the 1st post

[Fellowes]

Yesterday I received the following letter from Barclays, looks like a general one.

 

Has anyone seen this before? Is any action appropiate?

 

Unauthorised Overdraft Charqes ("bank charqes")

You have referred your complaint about bank charges for determination in Court.

We believe the charges are legal, fair and transparent.

Since you filed your claim in Court Barclays (along with a number of other banks) has now become involved in legal proceedings with the Office of Fair Trading ("OFT") in relation to bank charges which we believe will resolve the legal issues regarding the fairness and legality of your bank charges. You should be aware that the bank will immediately apply to the Court for an order to stay your action until the resolution of the bank's proceedings with the OFT. As a result your case is likely to be put on hold until the outcome of these proceedings is known.

Given this court case we have asked the Financial Ombudsman Service ("FOS") not to proceed with any other case they are hearing until the test case is resolved. The FOS has indicated that as a general proposition it will indeed not proceed with cases which rely on the legal issues being considered in the test case.

We have asked the Financial Services Authority ("FSA") to suspend the normal timetable for dealing with bank charges complaints, and the FSA has agreed to this request subject to conditions that protect your rights.

We will keep you updated appropriately about the proceedings with the OFT. You can also check the latest position on our website at www.barclays.co.uk.

We can assure you we have registered and stored your complaint. Please retain your bank records, as this will make it easier for you to support your complaint on resolution of the test case.

 

Once the legal proceedings between the OFT and the banks finish, we will resolve your complaint as quickly as possible applying the (test case) principles.

As a general matter, we will ensure that your claim will not be adversely affected by the stay of your court proceedings.

Yours sincerely

 

Thomas Hickey Legal Clerk Barclays

[welshcakes]

Well now, tell me if I've misintepreted this but the bit about;

 

"Please retain your bank records, as this will make it easier for you to

support your complaint on resolution of the test case."

 

Translation;

 

"Hang onto all your statements and Schedule of Charges because you'll be needing them to confirm how much we have to return once the Test Case is completed".

[tezl]

Well now, tell me if I've misintepreted this but the bit about;

 

"Please retain your bank records, as this will make it easier for you to

support your complaint on resolution of the test case."

 

Translation;

 

"Hang onto all your statements and Schedule of Charges because you'll be needing them to confirm how much we have to return once the Test Case is completed".

hi, were not going to start trusting them our we,they must now this would spread like wildfire.?it could mean dont fight the stays and trust in us.tez.

[Fellowes]

Can anyone assist with the following query. In the non compliance letter GaryH put together, it makes reference to the Rule 3.4(2)© of the Civil Procedure Rules

I've been unable to locate this rule on the Justice web site, I can only find 3.4 (2)(a) & (b).

I just wanted to know what Rule 3.4(2)© of the Civil Procedure Rules was. Is this a type error?

[slick132]

Fellowes,

 

This reads as follows -

 

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;

(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.

I think it relates to Barclays not complying, ie not submitting their Bundle or Defending on time or at all.

 

Any help, Slick

[Fellowes]

Slick, Many thanks, just what I was after. Where did you find this, could not locate on the web.

 

Do you have the link to this section on the Justice web site?

[slick132]

Hi Fellowes,

 

I remember seeing talk of this on the thread of African Igbo and offered an opinion about his case.

 

Have a look here at post #108 onwards - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclays-bank/85784-african-igbo-vrs-barclays-6.html

 

Slick

[slick132]

Oh, and this link - PART 3 - THE COURT’S CASE MANAGEMENT POWERS - will take you to the guts of what you're after, Slick

[Fellowes]

Well Barclays did not comply with the order, and so we sent the standard letter to the court highlighting the non-compliance and requested were were allowed to enter judgement.

 

We have now received the stay from the courts detailed below. The bank have not applied for the stay, the court have just taken this action. What are the chances of applying to have this set aside

 

Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE HA WKESWORTH QC

Upon the Courts own motion. The Court has made this order of its own initiative without a hearing. If you object to the order, you must make an application to have it set aside, varied or stayed within 7 days of receiving it.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

This action will be stayed until 4:00pm on 29 February 2008 pending the decision in the Commercial Court involving various Banks and the Office of Fair Trading.

Either party may apply on notice to lift the stay. Any such application must specify why the stay should not apply.

[slick132]

Hi Fellowes,

 

It seems mad that bank has not complied but Court orders a stay anyway.

 

For £65 (non-reclaimable) you could apply to have stay lifted but, I have to say, chances are very poor unless you have exceptional circumstances.

 

Judge already knew bank was out of time when he stayed the case so I doubt an application now will help.

 

This is so unfair.

 

Slick

[Fellowes]

Barclays have written again, in light of the stay which expires on 29th February 2008 (copy of letter below). Has anyone else received the same, any suggestions on action which can be taken now?

 

 

BARCLAYS LETTER

 

 

I am writing regarding the Order of the 19 September 2007, which stayed the above case until 29 February 2008, at which time it will be referred to the District Judge for directions.

 

The hearing of the Preliminary Issues in the 'test case' in the Commercial Court between the OFT and eight financial institutions (including Barclays) concluded on Friday 8 February 2008. It is anticipated, subject to appeals by either the OFT or the Banks or both, that further preliminary issues will be addressed in a second phase of the 'test case' following Judgment on the stage which has just been completed.

 

As you will be aware, Barclays considers that the test case provides the most appropriate mechanism for the resolution of the complex legal and factual issues that arise in cases such as the present (as illustrated by the need in the test case for 14 days of oral submissions from nine Leading Counsel, hundreds of pages of written submissions, and more than 40 trial bundles). In this connection, the trial judge, Andrew Smith 1, remarked as follows on Wednesday 6 February 2008:

 

I understand that many proceedings have been on hold in the expectation that this case will assist the management of the county court litigation, and the expectation that every effort will be made to provide that assistance without undue delay ... I haven't discerned anything during the hearing that undermines or significantly detracts from that expectation, and I certainly don't mind that being conveyed to those charged with managing the county court cases ...

 

While it is anticipated that the judgment will be prepared as quickly as possible, Andrew Smith J has indicated that it is not possible to predict accurately when that judgment will be handed down. This may take some considerable time, given the complexity of the issues. Moreover, as mentioned above it is presently anticipated by the parties and the Court that, irrespective of the result, further hearings in the test case and/or appeals will be required before all the relevant legal and factual issues are finally determined.

 

For these reasons, Barclays respectfully repeats its request that the case be stayed until the final determination of the test case (including all appeals).

 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

Thomas Hickey

Legal Assistant

 

[slick132]

Hi Fellowes,

 

The Stay on your claim imposed by the court had a specific expiry date, as opposed to the Stay applying "Until the determination of the Test Case".

 

I suggest you write to the court and say:-

 

I refer to the courts last directions which put a Stay on my claim until 29th Feb 2008.

 

I agree to an extension of the Stay, which expires on 29th Feb, until the determination of the "OFT Test Case".

 

Unless I hear to the contrary, I assume my attendance is not required for the extension of the Stay imposed by the court.