Tracey vs HSBC

[Audreygreeneyes]

freaky it depends on the court. lenlu check you letter if under where it it is typed it is order if the writing below that is in bold type then there is no charge...........

 

that is what I was told by my court..........I handed mine in last week and was not aske dfor a fee...............

 

phone the court and ask...

[freakyleaky]

I am wondering if all courts opperate the same system regarding the bold writing = no fee, or is it just your court?

Just a thought and I am not dissagreeing with you. (I wouldn't dare argue with an Old Account Customer LOL;) )

 

Yes, tracey, ring the court for confirmation!

[Audreygreeneyes]

pmsl u as if..... I know you are not thats why i put phone the court and ask...

I know it might very well vary, was covering my butt there.........

[Lenlu]

Nothing in bold on my letter apart from the judges name and it says

 

4) This order having been made on the courts own initiuative, either party may apply to vary or revoke it provided the application is made not later than 7 days after the service of the order together with the appropraite fee

 

so i guess they still taking my money Whats the chance DG will apply for the stay to be lifted then!!??

 

My question is obv this is not be resolved til feb next year, do i keep sending nudge letters or just leave it for now?

[freakyleaky]

Keep sending the nudges until you have exhausted every other avenue and you know for certain that the stay will not be lifted!

[Audreygreeneyes]

ok first if the court have granted a stay without DG applying for it TRUST ME ON THIS dg wont ASK TO HAVE TI SET ASIDE. THAT WOULD MEAN THEY HAD TO PAY YOU!!!!....

 

it is worth asking the court and if you want you can use my case ref no as a example, I have nto been charged a fee for requesting a stya and hearing...

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU GET THE STAY REMOVAL REQUEST IN ASAP. YOU ALSO HAVE TO SEND DG A COPY.........

 

NOW AGAIN YOU ARE WELCOME TO USE MY LETTER AND JUST TWEAK IT WHERE NEC. IF OYU WANT....

[Lenlu]

OK, I have seen the application for removal or stay thread, is that what I send or is there a form to fill in? If so do i send that document listed in the app of stay thread too? Im not going to be able to ring them before weds though as Im working long days tomorrow and tuesday, but will hopefully get in on the 7 day deadline. TBH though if there is a fee I dont think I will bother

 

Im so dis illusioned, can see the money slipping away from me I hope the test case goes our way

 

al, would love to use your letters etc anything appreciated

[Lenlu]

OK had a read, is the form avaliable online? do i send that doc as supporting evidence?

[freakyleaky]

Sorry just a quick q for auburn. Do you have to send a copy of the request fro removal to DG? If so why?

[Lenlu]

bump for auburn

[Audreygreeneyes]

sorry guys missed this earlier ok got the odrer now

 

it says you must file with the Court and serve on the other parties an application that sets out your reasons for objection...........

[Audreygreeneyes]

lenlu when I filed my N244 in section 1 I asked for a hearing

 

in 3 i cited the defendants breach of rule 3.4(2)(b) of the Civil Procedurre Rules, and the Human rights act 1998 article 6 of the convention and my record of contact with the defendant.........

 

on the back of the form in part C I wrote .... please find attached in support of this claim copy of the letter handed into this court on the 26/07/07 requesting defence be struck out .. copy of the human rights act 1998 article 6 of the convention copy of all contact between claimant and defendant........

 

oh yeah in section 2

removal of stay grante don the 06.08.07 and defence be struck out

[Audreygreeneyes]

i then sent coipes of all the to DG via fax on the thursday and then backed it with registered del on friday...........

 

for some reason why it escapes me but their fax was rather busy............

[freakyleaky]

Thanks auburn. Comprhensive answer!

[Audreygreeneyes]

you are welcome my little sheep (mint sauce mint sauce). hope it helps you lenlu

[Audreygreeneyes]

you can dl the from from the hmcs web site.............. and jsut attach what you are relying on..... like i did

[Lenlu]

absolutly, thanks hun

 

Just a little question the form N244 is that avaliable online or do I go to my court to get it?

[Lenlu]

LOL thanks hun, now to work out what I am relying on

[Lenlu]

Just got the stuff belwo so far, pinched from the stay post

Claim Number:XXXXXXX

 

In the XXXXXXXX County Court

 

Between:

 

 

 

[YOU]

Claimant

 

 

 

-and-

 

 

 

 

XXXXXXX BANK PLC

Defendant

 

 

 

I strongly object to the proposed order of a stay in respect of the claim detailed above upon the following grounds;

 

Human rights

 

It would infringe my rights under the European Convention on Human Rights directly and as enacted in the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 6 of the Convention provides that;

 

“1. In the determination of his civil rights… everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.”

 

It is submitted that the ordering of a stay as proposed is not reasonable. The 8 banks involved in the High Court test case have recently published identical statements on their websites informing customers that they expect the test case to last for over a year. Moreover, the nature and gravity of the case is such that any judgment is highly likely to be appealed to the Court of Appeal and possibly even then appealed further to the House of Lords. It is entirely conceivable that a final resolution may not be reached for 2 – 3 years or perhaps even longer. It is thus submitted that the period of any proposed stay cannot be accurately predicted and would therefore in effect be indeterminate, which is contrary to the right of entitlement to a fair hearing within a reasonable time as provided for by Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

The Overriding Objective

 

The Overriding Objective requires that my case is allowed to proceed speedily so that a just settlement may be obtained by the parties to this case. Dealing with cases justly includes ensuring that this case is dealt with expeditiously and fairly and in a way that is proportionate to the amount of money involved. It is submitted that the imposition of an indeterminate stay in a small claims track case involving a reletively small sum, at such an advanced stage in proceedings, is not just, nor is it expeditious, nor is it fair on a claimant who has outlaid sums by way of court fees in pursuit of a legitimate right to seek a remedy.

 

Balance of convenience

 

The sum claimed is insignificant to the bank but it is highly significant to me. Furthermore, although a stay prevents me from recovering my money, the defendant bank is not prevented from levying its charges or interest on debt comprised of those charges so the order of the court has the effect of favouring a powerful and well-resourced institution and does not place any restriction on their continued application of charges which I say are unlawful. Further, many banks are now routinely closing the accounts of their customers who commence claims against them. This amounts to a sanction for seeking a ruling from the justice system and as such is a basic denial of citizenship. I will remain at risk of such action despite the fact that my remedy has been placed on an indeterminate hold.

 

Additionally, the defendant remains at liberty to enter my name on the default register which it and other banks routinely do in respect of unlawful penalties which are unpaid by their customers. The banks have direct and privileged access to this register. They have no need to obtain a County Court judgment before they may enter a default on the register. This default remains on the register for 6 years and causes enormous damage to reputations. Were my name to be entered on the default register I would find it impossible to get credit or a mortgage and I would have to pay higher fees for any credit which I did manage to obtain. The banks would also remain at liberty to bring legal proceedings against me for the recovery of any debt which mostly or entirely consists of penalty charges, penalty charges which are contended to be unlawful, but which consumers would be helpless to challenge in the event that stays are imposed on any claim where a customer is seeking to dispute the lawfulness of them.

 

It is submitted that a stay may potentially mean great difficulty for me and yet be insignificant for the defendant bank. In fact a stay is supportive of the banks litigation strategy which is to frustrate justice by repeatedly taking the claimant to the door of the court and then to settle the claim.

 

The Status Quo

 

The stay does not maintain the status quo. As submitted above, a stay favours the bank by preventing the claimant’s pursuit of its legitimate remedy without placing any restriction upon the banks activities which I submit are unlawful and/or retaliatory.

 

Furthermore, as submitted above the present case concerns a relatively small sum and is at a late stage in proceedings, and therefore I submit that to impose an indeterminate stay is unnecessary, inappropriate, not in the interests of justice and further, is detrimental to my rights in a way which is unfair and inequitable.

 

In the alternative

 

In view of the preceding paragraphs, if the court accedes to the defendant’s application for a stay notwithstanding these objections, 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 removes 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.

I, the Claimant, believe all facts stated to be true.

 

Signed:

Dated:

[syds mum]

hi there lenlu i am at derby court as well got 2 claims one been stayed and the other in process...so far i have judgement and DGs have applied for set aside and in court on 21st sept(this friday) i have all arguements ready but just wondered how you got on re stay removal?

 

debbie xx

[Lenlu]

Hiya all.....well I didnt apply for a stay removal in the end, too many things were going on....but Im back now and wondering where I am now, I havent heard anything from DG or the court since they put a stay on the case? has to oft thing finished? where are we now?

[Lenlu]

anyone??

[Castlebest]

Hiya Lenlu, the test case was heard in February and we are expecting the judgment between now and sometime in May so theres not a lot any of us can do until we know the outcome.

 

pete

[Lenlu]

Thanks for your reply, just making sure I havent missed anything...