Jump to content


car2403 -v- Natwest


car2403
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4245 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

 

I'm at the stage where NatWest/Corbetts LLP have just entered their Defence, which is;

 

 

1 This Defence is filed and served without prejudice to the Defendant’s case that the Particulars of Claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the Defendant to recover the bank charges (and interest thereon) referred to in the Particulars of Claim or any other sum(s). In the event that the Claim is not properly particularised then the Defendant will apply to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgement in respect of the same.

 

2 No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the Claimant’s bank account.

 

3 The Claimant is put to strict proof of each and every charge the subject of the claim and must identify in respect of each charge (a) the date the same was debited, (b) the amount of the same and © the description applied to the charge.

 

4 In relation to the allegation that the bank charges amount to an unenforceable penalty the Defendant pleads as follows:

4.1 In order for the Claimant to sustain a claim that the charges debited by the Defendant are in the nature of a penalty the Claimant will need to plead and prove (a) the clause(s) pursuant to which the charges were applied: (b) that the charges were applied due to a breach of contract by the Claimant: and © identifying in each case the particular breach of contract (by reference to appropriate term(s) of the contract) that the charge related to. As presently pleaded the claim does not plead these matters and therefore does not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim that all or any of the charges referred to in the Particulars of Claim have been applied pursuant to an unenforceable penalty clause.

4.2 Until such time as the Claimant pleads the matters referred to in paragraph 4.1 above the Defendant is unable to plead to the claim brought against it and therefore (pending the provision of full and proper particulars of the claim) at this stage denies that any charges have been applied to the Claimant’s bank account pursuant to unenforceable penalty clauses.

 

5 In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are invalid pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“the Regulations”).

5.1 The Claimant is required to identify the contractual provision(s) that the Claimant alleges are invalid by reference to the Regulations. Until such time as these provisions are identified the Defendant cannot (save as appears below) plead to the allegation referred to in paragraph 5 above. The Defendant therefore reserves its right to plead further to the allegation once (and if) the Claimant identifies the relevant contractual provisions.

5.2 In relation to the case of the Claimant that the contractual provisions are invalid pursuant to the Regulations the Defendant pleads as follows:

5.2.1 Schedule 2 to the Regulations is an Indicative and non- exhaustive list of terms which be regarded as unfair (emphasis supplied).

5.2.2 If the Claimant is to rely upon paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations then the Claimant is required to plead and prove in relation to each bank charge that is sought the matters referred to in paragraph 5.1 above and all facts and matters relied upon in alleging that the sums paid are disproportionately high.

5.2.3 In the circumstances no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the contractual provisions (whatever they are alleged to be see paragraph 5.1 above) falls foul of the Regulations and in particular paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 2.

5.2.4 The Defendant is therefore unable (save as appears below) to plead to this allegation beyond denying that any bank charges have been applied pursuant to terms which contravene the Regulations. The Defendant reserves its right to plead further to this allegation once (and if) the particulars referred to in paragraph 5.2.2 above are provided.

5.2.5 Without prejudice to paragraph 5.2.4 it is the case of the Defendant that the Regulations have no application because the charges amount to payment for services provided by the Defendant and the adequacy (or otherwise) of consideration paid under a contract for services is not an issue to be judged by reference to principles of fairness under the Regulations.

 

6 To assist the Claimant with the proper particularisation of the claim(s), the Defendant serves with this Defence a request made pursuant to CPR Part 18. If the Claimant fails to provide the particulars requested in the time stipulated and/or the defects with the claim(s) (referred to in paragraph I above) remain then the Defendant will apply to the Court for (among other things) an order striking out the claim.

 

7 Pending the proper particularisation of the claim(s) the Defendant is unable to plead to the Claimant’s claim(s) beyond at this stage denying that the Defendant is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the Claim or at all. The Defendant reserves its right to amend this Defence to plead further to the Claimant’s claim(s) once or if the Claimant properly particularises the same.

 

8 Save as hereinbefore appears the Defendant joins issue with the Claimant on the claim(s) and denies that it is liable to the Claimant as alleged or at all.

 

 

I've already sent the letter here;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/55874-letter-court-re-cpr18.html

 

Is it now just a case of waiting to hear back from the Court as to the Allocation Questionnaire, or should I be doing something more at this time? I'm assuming I should also send this;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclays-bank/84462-no-allocation-questionnaire.html

 

Thanks in advance for the help!

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it now just a case of waiting to hear back from the Court as to the Allocation Questionnaire, or should I be doing something more at this time? I'm assuming I should also send this;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclays-bank/84462-no-allocation-questionnaire.html

 

 

You got it.

 

There is also the possibility that they will dispense with the AQ, in which case you should send this

 

Steven

 

If this post is helpful, please click the scales

  • Haha 1

Steven

 

Using CAG Toolbar will generate much needed income - Download Here

 

Confused by Simple Interest? Confounded by Compound Interest? Read my Interest Tutorial

My Wins

 GE Money Won unconditionally May 2007

NatWest Won unconditionally August 2007

Brighthouse Won unconditionally August 2007

Goldfish Won unconditionally April 2008 (including CI on the basis of Sempra)

Clydesdale Financial Services (now BPF) Won unconditionally February 2008

 

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. Do not take any legal action on my advice alone. Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site.

 

Please note, I will not give advice by PM. Please send a link to your thread and I will do my best to answer there.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received the Transfer of Proceedings notification, along with a "No AQ" order - I was preparing my bundle anyway, so I'm going to send the response to this with my bundle.

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received the Transfer of Proceedings notification, along with a "No AQ" order - I was preparing my bundle anyway, so I'm going to send the response to this with my bundle.

 

You shouldn't send the bundle yet. If the court issues the draft order for directions your bundle will be the response to that.

 

Steven

 

If this post is helpful, please click the scales

Steven

 

Using CAG Toolbar will generate much needed income - Download Here

 

Confused by Simple Interest? Confounded by Compound Interest? Read my Interest Tutorial

My Wins

 GE Money Won unconditionally May 2007

NatWest Won unconditionally August 2007

Brighthouse Won unconditionally August 2007

Goldfish Won unconditionally April 2008 (including CI on the basis of Sempra)

Clydesdale Financial Services (now BPF) Won unconditionally February 2008

 

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. Do not take any legal action on my advice alone. Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site.

 

Please note, I will not give advice by PM. Please send a link to your thread and I will do my best to answer there.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I'd share my response to the CPR part 18 request, as I had an interesting letter from NatWest in response to the LBA. (It's taken this long for them to reply!);

 

I have received a request from the defendants for further information, which they say is made pursuant to CPR Part 18. However it is highly likely that this claim will be allocated to the small claims track and I know part 18 does not apply to the small claims track.

I would like the Court to note the tone of the request for further information and the part 18 request. This type of approach as been seen in many Claims against NatWest and I consider this as an attempt to stall further action on this claim, or complete withdrawal. The legal representatives of NatWest in this claim are well aware that I am a “litigant in person”, without full legal representation – and are attempting to turn this to your advantage. As this is causing me some concern, I am seriously considering raising the issue with the Law Society, as the regulator for Cobbetts LLP.

 

The Defendant’s part 18 request suggests very strongly that I have not supplied them with enough information to mount a defence. Despite this, however, they have submitted a very full and complicated defence.

 

In the interest of co-operating as much as I can, I am providing the following information and sending a copy to the defendants. I apologise for disrupting the normal flow of this case via the Court, but this information has specifically been requested at this stage by the Defendants’ representatives, so I felt that I had to comply – this information will also be contained within my statement of evidence, when requested by order of the Court at the correct time, where I intend to cite authority for my opinion contained within the claim and this letter.

 

In section 2 of their request, the defendants ask for a detailed breakdown of the charges that have been applied to my account and my account details. I do not understand why they require this information as I sent their clients copies on 23 March and 2 April, 2007 – these charges were also highlighted on account statements received from the Defendant. This information is clearly accessible to both the Defendant and their representatives. Nonetheless, I have attached a spreadsheet showing the charges in question.

In section 2.3 the defendant asks why the charges should not have been levied against me, but it has already been explained in the claim, the charges are disproportionate penalties applied under unfair terms. In fact sections 3 and 5 of the defendants request makes it fully clear they are aware of the answers to section 2.3 as they specifically refer to the reasons for my claim.

 

Section 4 of the defendants request asks for details of our account contract with the defendant. However the defendants are clearly fully aware of the details of the contract - the contract is their own terms and conditions imposed by them with no basis for negotiation. Further more the defendant has purported to rely upon the terms and conditions in order to implement charges against me. The defendants must understand very well, which are the contractual terms in issue. I’m surprised that the defendants’ representatives have placed a request for this information – on 19 May 2007, I received a letter from Stuart Higley, Customer Relations, (which I intend to submit to the Court as evidence) in response to a complaint I raised with NatWest on 23 March 2007 and again on 2 April 2007 - this being the first time NatWest has formally acknowledged any letter with regards my complaint or claim against them regarding charges. With this letter is a copy of the Bank’s booklet “A guide to Personal Current Account fees and interest”, which outlines the information requested by their own representatives - I also intend to submit this information to the Court as evidence in due course.

Section 6 requests more details of the facts relied upon in the claim relating to issues raised under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts regulations. The defendant is a multi-national corporation and the term regarding charges was inserted unilaterally in contract. The contract was pre- and mass-produced on the defendant’s standard terms and conditions and I had no opportunity to negotiate the clause, or indeed any of the contract. At no time was I given the opportunity to negotiate the application of these charges, or be notified of any increases in these charges. This means the bank has unilaterally altered the terms of my account contract to my detriment, and to their advantage – in support of this argument, the letter received from Stuart Higley – referred to above – states;

 

“…Any charges that properly accrue in the future will be applied to your account in line with our published tariff and in accordance with your agreement with the Bank. Should you be unwilling to accept any such charges, that we may need to consider if we are prepared to continue to provide you with your existing banking facilities…”

 

Following on from the above, the claimant does not accept the Defendants’ contention that the charges are enforceable as a service charge. It is not disputed that the Defendant is entitled to recover its damages following my breaches of contract, and it is entitled to include a liquidated damages clause. I accept without reservation the banks right to recover its actual losses or a genuine pre-estimate thereof. A penalty however, is unenforceable.

 

On numerous occasions, the Claimant has requested that the Defendant justify its charges by providing details of the costs incurred as a result of my contractual breaches. Each time those requests were rebutted or ignored.

I am sure the court is already aware of the current flood of litigation which is being brought against all of the major banks on the issue of penalty charges. I can tell the court that hundreds such of claims have been issued at courts around the country, many having been allocated to the fast track and there are at least 10 cases transferred to the mercantile court in London to be heard as a test case. However to date every case has been settled by the banks before going to a hearing, even Barclays bank which is the defendant at the Mercantile court cases has started contacting the claimants and making an offer of full settlement in order to avoid the case being fully heard - NatWest, the defendants in our own case has also settled numerous cases, many of them for much larger amounts than my own claim. I am hoping that the Court takes this in to account when taking into consideration my suggestions for the Order for Directions, which I intend to submit to the Court with the Allocation Questionnaire.

 

The banks are fully aware of the bank charges issue. The Office of Fair Trading conducted a 2 year investigation into Credit Card penalty charge cases and found they were unfair and unenforceable at law. The OFT also said there was a read-across to banks of their penalty charges. The OFT has urged the banks to comply with their findings. The banks have refused and the OFT in entering into further discussions with them.

 

In the meantime the banks oblige thousands of their customers – very ordinary citizens, to bring court claims which their banks or their solicitors then go on to complicate the process with procedural devices such as the present part 18 request.

 

Only those claimants of sufficient heart and tenacity are eventually paid out in full. I are sure the great majority give up altogether or accept reduced payments. This is the deliberate intention of the banks style of litigation, which is intimidatory and a sham. The banks style of litigation would be vexatious if it were not for the fact they are the defendants.

 

The Master of Rolls in 2004 addressed an international conference on vexatious litigation. He told the conference the evil of vexatious litigation was that it undermined justice and was a burden to the public resource. I can not imagine any better description of the result of the banks style of litigation.

 

It really should not be for an ordinary citizen to bear the burden of bringing the banks back within the rule of law.

The OFT has the power to deal with this matter and is tasked and resourced to do the job. If the OFT were to seek an injunction then this burden upon the private individual could probably be brought to an end within a week.

Yours Faithfully,

 

 

The bits in italics are taken directly from that Letter from Customer Relations - sounds like a threat to me, so it's going in to the bundle as evidence against NatWest being unwilling/unable to negotiate the application of these charges. Hopefully the Court will see this as evidence of the terms unfairness?

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bits in italics are taken directly from that Letter from Customer Relations - sounds like a threat to me, so it's going in to the bundle as evidence against NatWest being unwilling/unable to negotiate the application of these charges. Hopefully the Court will see this as evidence of the terms unfairness?

 

We had the same in our 'offer'. I will make sure something similar goes in our statement of evidence too. Let's keep the pressure on.

 

Steven

 

If this post is helpful, please click the scales

Steven

 

Using CAG Toolbar will generate much needed income - Download Here

 

Confused by Simple Interest? Confounded by Compound Interest? Read my Interest Tutorial

My Wins

 GE Money Won unconditionally May 2007

NatWest Won unconditionally August 2007

Brighthouse Won unconditionally August 2007

Goldfish Won unconditionally April 2008 (including CI on the basis of Sempra)

Clydesdale Financial Services (now BPF) Won unconditionally February 2008

 

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. Do not take any legal action on my advice alone. Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site.

 

Please note, I will not give advice by PM. Please send a link to your thread and I will do my best to answer there.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Got my hearing date - 17th August. No special orders, though.

Court bundle on it's way...

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

No Defence Bundle received, so I'm getting the first Directions non-compliance letter off in anticipation anyway;

 

Directions non-compliance letters

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no Defence Bundle received, but Cobbetts have requested a stay until the TC is heard.

 

I've sent the 2nd Directions non-compliance letter to the Court and the response to the proposed stay, which is here;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/17065-application-removal-stay-updated.html

 

Anything else I should be doing, as it's 8 days to the hearing date now?!

 

:(

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't really an awful lot that you can do at the moment except wait and see if the court grants their application for the stay. Fingers crossed that your claim isn't stayed though - let's hope the hearing goes ahead as planned.

Can't find what you're looking for? Please have a look at Michael Browne's

A-Z Guide

*** PLEASE NOTE ***

I do not answer queries via PM. If you send me a PM, please include a link to your thread - any advice I am able to offer will be on your thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received the full Application Notice from Cobbetts - there seems to be some new arguments (or one's I haven't seen defended on this site yet) so here's the wording of the full Notice;

 

To be placed before District Judge X as a matter of urgency

 

14 August 2007

Dear Sirs

car2403 -v- National Westminster Bank PLC

 

 

We are instructed on behalf of the Defendant. We would be grateful if this letter and its attachments could be put before District Judge X as soon as possible. We note this case is listed for hearing on 17 August 2007. The attachments are enclosed with the hard copy of this letter.

For the reasons set out in detail below, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court stay this claim forthwith pending the judgment in the Commercial Court proceedings in OFT v. Abbey National plc and Others (Claim Number 2007 Folio 1186). In view of the below, and the impending hearing date, we would be grateful if you could communicate the Court’s response to this request on an urgent basis.

As you are probably aware, on 27 July 2007 a “Test Case” was commenced between The Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”) and a number of banks (namely Abbey National plc, Barclays Bank plc, Clydesdale Bank plc, HBOS plc, HSBC Bank plc, Lloyds TSB Bank plc, Nationwide Building Society and The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (which owns National Westminster Bank plc and The Royal Bank of Scotland plc), together the “Banks”) in relation to charges paid by current account customers to the Banks in circumstances where the customers seek to make payments for which they do not have available funds (commonly known as “unauthorised overdraft charges”).

 

You may be aware, not least from the recent significant media and press coverage, that the Banks are encountering a very large volume of complaints and claims brought by both existing and former current account customers in relation to unauthorised overdraft charges. The essence of the claims is to seek a refund of such charges paid by the customer, typically on the basis that the relevant charge was an unenforceable penalty at common law and/or unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (the “1999 Regulations”).

We understand that the sheer volume of claims commenced has placed an extraordinary burden on the resources and administration of the Court system, as well as on the Banks as participants in the litigation.

In light of the continuing increase in the volume of these cases, the Banks and the OFT have sought to find a means of achieving a quick, cost efficient, fair and orderly way of resolving through the Courts what all acknowledge to be important and complex issues. The FSA has also been involved in this dialogue as a result of the FSA’s regulatory responsibility as lead regulator of the Banks, in particular with respect to their handling of complaints.

 

Accordingly, the Banks and the OFT agreed that the OFT should commence proceedings against the Banks for the determination of certain key issues relevant to the vast majority of these cases. On 27 July 2007, proceedings were issued in the Commercial Court for this purpose. Specifically, it is intended and agreed that the first stage of these proceedings will encompass preliminary issues as follows:

 

1. the OFT has issued a claim for a declaration that the relevant contractual charging terms are not excluded from assessment for fairness under the 1999 Regulations by reason of regulation 6(2)(a) and/or (b) thereto;

2. the Banks will counterclaim against the OFT for declarations that:

(a) the relevant terms are in plain intelligible language, and:

(i) relate to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract, and/or

(ii) provide for remuneration for services supplied by the Banks in exchange, rather than payment of a sum by the customer for breach of a contractual duty owed to the Banks

and accordingly, are excluded from assessment for fairness under the 1999

Regulations by reason of regulations 6(2)(a) and/or (b) thereof, and, by reason of (ii)

above, are not capable of amounting to a penalty at common law;

(b) alternatively, if the relevant terms fall to be assessed for fairness under the 1999 Regulations, it is a necessary (but not sufficient) precondition to such terms being shown to be unfair within the meaning of regulation 5(1) of the 1999 Regulations that they be shown to be contrary to the requirement of good faith, and a declaration as to the true meaning of “good faith” for the purposes of the 1999 Regulation.

 

We attach a copy of the Test Case litigation agreement (together with a copy of a further agreement executed by the Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc) and an example of the Claim Form for your information. The Commercial Court proceedings will be progressed speedily with a view to resolving these key issues at trial. The timetable for exchange of pleadings is set out in the litigation agreement. The Case Management Conference has now been listed for 12 October 2007 and the trial for two weeks commencing on 14 January 2008.

 

In order to address the recognised public interest in resolving these issues in an orderly way, the current claims and complaints environment needs to be addressed. As stated above, the purpose øf this letter is to respectfully request that the Court stay this claim and that the Defendant’s application for an order that the claim be stayed be heard at the hearing listed for 17 August 2007 at Morpeth & Berwick County Court.

 

The rationale for the agreement between the OFT and the Banks is set out (in part) in recital C of the litigation agreement. As recorded there, it is recognised that the issues involved are important and complex. This is reflected in the fact that the Preliminary Issues as set out above have been listed for a two week trial in the Commercial Court. If it is necessary for the Court to resolve the Substantive Issue (which will only happen if the OFT succeeds on the Preliminary Issues) of the fairness and penal nature or otherwise of the charges it is anticipated that the trial of those issues would take significantly longer. The Banks submit that the appropriate forum for the resolution of these issues is the Commercial Court proceedings. Dealing with the issues raised in this County Court claim would not be an efficient use of resources and would also give rise to the risk of an inconsistent judgment.

 

You should be aware that the Financial Ombudsman Service has agreed not to proceed with consideration of the merits of relevant complaints that are referred to it pending the final determination of the Test Case, and the Financial Ombudsman Service has confirmed it will put on hold its own work on complaints about these charges, pending the final determination of the Test Case. In addition, the FSA has conditionally agreed to grant the Banks certain rule waivers in relation to the regulatory requirements with respect to the handling of customer complaints. We attach a copy direction dated 27 July 2007 from the FSA and a copy letter dated 27 July 2007 from FOS for your records. We would draw your attention in particular to clause 12(12) of the FSA Direction, the effect of which is that, for limitation purposes, time will not run whilst the Direction is in effect.

 

Finally, we understand that LJ Moore-Bick has written to Designated Civil Judges in relation to the Test case and the ongoing handling of “live” claims. We understand that in an exchange of e-mails between LJ Moore-Bick and the Designated Civil Judges, LJ Moore-Bick expressed the view that he would be surprised if a stay of the proceedings did not commend itself as the appropriate course in most cases pending a decision in the Test Case.

 

We confirm that a copy of this letter (without enclosures) has been sent to the Claimant. We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully

Cobbetts LLP

Cc car2403, Claimant

Enclosures:

1. OFT Litigation Agreement dated 25 July 2007.

2. The Supplementary Agreement between the OFT and RBSG dated 26 July 2007.

3. Test Case Claim Form filed 27 July 2007.

4. FSA Direction dated 27 July 2007.

5. FOS letter dated 27 July 2007.

 

I've already sent this letter to the Court, so do I need to do anything else here?;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/17065-application-removal-stay-updated.html

 

Incidentally, I haven't received any of the attachments, despite them saying they've been sent!

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

had sane letter today said all that must be standed letter, only my claaim is tomorrow and they have asked for a stay called the court and yes they had had letter but asked for the fee todo this. i was told that my case was still going ahead, but i was to call in the morning to check dippy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just re-reading the detail to this again, and I've noticed;

 

in relation to charges paid by current account customers to the Banks in circumstances where the customers seek to make payments for which they do not have available funds (commonly known as “unauthorised overdraft charges”).

 

But...

 

All of my charges are for "unpaid items" and "card misuse" fees, which I'm assuming (I could argue, anyway...) isn't included in the definition above? No unauthorised overdraft charges, as they've paid each of the items and charged me for the benefit.

 

Whaddaya my chances are of avoiding the stay if I put that to the Judge? I'm sure I've read elsewhere that unpaid item fees isn't included in the TC, but will probably be covered in the Declaration regardless.

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of my charges are for "unpaid items" and "card misuse" fees, which I'm assuming (I could argue, anyway...) isn't included in the definition above? No unauthorised overdraft charges, as they've paid each of the items and charged me for the benefit..

 

They may have paid them, but by doing so it sent you over your account limit - which is unauthorised borrowing (if you hadn't gone over your limit - you wouldn't have had the charges in the first place).

 

Whaddaya my chances are of avoiding the stay if I put that to the Judge? I'm sure I've read elsewhere that unpaid item fees isn't included in the TC, but will probably be covered in the Declaration regardless.

 

At the moment car, all you can do is see how the DJ responds to your opposition to their request for a stay.

 

Fingers crossed for you - best of luck x :)

Can't find what you're looking for? Please have a look at Michael Browne's

A-Z Guide

*** PLEASE NOTE ***

I do not answer queries via PM. If you send me a PM, please include a link to your thread - any advice I am able to offer will be on your thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm absolutely fuming now! I've just had another charge applied for being £1.36 overdrawn for 6 (count'em! 6!) hours earlier this month - I've just called the "lending centre", who makes these decisions and spoken to a rather nice (not!) man called Kevin.

 

He said the charge is for going overdrawn, when challenged whether this was a penalty and the right amount that it's cost NatWest to deal with being £1.36 overdrawn - to which he replied "yes", when I asked "yes to what", he said "both".

 

I told him about the hearing tomorrow and he said he could see that from the account, but wouldn't refund the fee still - I then asked if the call was being recorded and he said all calls are for security, so I said I'll be sending a DPA request for a copy of the call and commencing a 2nd claim for £28.00 plus interest - to this he said "well, we should have applied a 2nd charge of £35 for returning the item and didn't - so, because of your attitude, I am now going to apply that charge to your account so you need to include that in your claim as well" and cut me off!

 

Bloody cheek! Anyway, he's fired me up ready for tomorrow again - I'd calmed down over this until now...

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

WELL CAR i hope you have better luck then me tomorrow i went today for a 5 min prem hearing me and hubby both took days of work ,and the DJstayed the case nat west tried to go for a stay but the DJsaid they had to go threw the proper chanels wouldent even take the appeal letter about the stay untill hubby shoved it under his nose,he said ok but it was a wast of time(us being there for him to stay the case wasant then ?????????)well i reaky do hope all goese well with you the very best off luck dippy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Off to (Morpeth and Berwick) Court in a tick, for what it's worth!

 

I'm ready to tell my story, if they bother to listen and fight my corner over a stay.

 

I'll post back as soon as I get a chance either way.

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's it - I've had my day in Court with both Barclays and NatWest! Sorry in advance for the lengthy post, but this will be critical information for those that have hearings in the next few days...

 

On arriving at the Court, NatWest's solicitor asked for a "word in private" - "here we go...", I thought! He was a really nice chap (but they all are, aren't they!) who said that they had already applied for a stay last week, so the Judge would probably just approve his application "on the nod". You should have seen his face when I spoke up and said, "ah, but are you aware that I will be arguing against the application" - priceless! I showed him the application rejection letter I sent off last week and he admitted that this was the best argument against the stay application that he'd seen! (1-0 to us CAG'ers, then!)

 

On coming out of a side room, I could see the Barclays solicitor "working the room" with the other Barclays claimants - saying pretty much the same thing as the NatWest bod did. Again another priceless look on her face when I pulled out the stay objection letter that she hadn't seen. (2-0 to the CAG!)

 

There were loads of other claimants there for their claim hearings as well - 3 x Barclays, (1 being mine) 1 x Natwest (my claim) and 3 x Abbey.

The first one in was an Abbey one - set up for a full 60 min trial for some reason, but the woman that was claiming hadn't sent in her supporting evidence/bundle in time, as directed by the Court. As there was no formal application from Abbey to stay and the Judge wouldn't hear the case without the supporting statements/evidence, the case was adjourned until the next available hearing date. He did say that this would probably be next week, as so many claims were being stayed anyway and hearing dates vacated as a result - the problem being is that this gives Abbey enough time to make the formal application for a stay, so this one is effectively knocked on the head until the outcome of the OFT TC is known.

 

The rest were all dealt with by the Judge together - (I think he was planning on going home early!) which was really good, because the other claimants didn't really seem that keen on being in court anyway! He got us all in the courtroom, with the relevant solicitors in tow, and asked if everyone was up to date with what was happening - he explained it all anyway, as some of them weren't aware of the Test Case that has been agreed.

 

He went on to say that each of the solicitors in attendance were "probably going to apply" for a stay today - to which they all nodded. (A bit like those Churchill insurance adverts, where the Dog nods - "oh, yes!" they all said!) He also said that, apart from my NatWest claim, the Court hadn't received confirmation of any applications for a stay, so he was going to deal with the applications as new evidence/requests as we (the claimants) hadn't had any notice. He then went on to say what the stay was, the effect it had, etc - he then adjourned the hearing for 20 mins for us to decide what to do. The question he asked was, "will you agree to the application of the stay?".

 

After the 20 minutes were up, he pulled us all back in and, one by one, he asked us for our responses - "no", "no", "no", "no", "no"... we all said. "Very well, I'll have to turn the application for a stay to one side as no formal application has been made where the claimant has been given notice - and a "no notice" application requires the consent of each claimant", he said! EXCELLENT NEWS! He also refused to allow the Banks leave to apply to appeal his decision!

 

Then came the biggy - he looked at the 3 solicitors and said, "do you have instructions from your Clients to defend these claims, as I fully intend to hear these claims this afternoon as listed?". They all asked for an adjourment to take orders, which he turned down as they "should have came prepared for a full hearing". They all said that they had instructions to apply for an appeal, but had been instructed to NOT defend the claims if the stays were turned down and the hearings went ahead.

 

So, out we all trot again and are called in one at a time for the hearings - (this is also what I later found out that happened in the others);

 

Second hearing was mine with NatWest - the Judge said that, as I had notice of the formal application being made, he had no choice but to approve the stay. I said that I wanted to object to this, handing him a copy of the objection letter. He read this and said "you offer some good objections, but I'm afraid I've already read this letter before - which website have you got this from?". Of course I replied CAG, to which he gave a smile. (Obviously aware of this site! 3-0 to CAG!) He went on to apply the stay anyway - (3-1 to CAG!) NW's solicitor had some arguments with him as he wanted to know what the terms of the stay order would be - "the terms will be any that I wish to apply, Mr Hall" he said, "I'm sure you've seen these orders before - if you haven't call me on Monday and I will fax you a copy, if you want a copy?". He did say that it would be applied until end of 10/2008, or Judgement being entered in the Test Case, or the expiration date of any leave to appeal that may have been granted. Shame that the formal application wasn't a few days later, as the Judge hadn't been passed my objection letter before the hearing, or I would have won! (They had a sign on the wall saying they were 5 days behind with their paperwork - and I sent it 5 working ways ago!) Oh well, just have to wait for the outcome of the TC for the NW claim...

 

Third hearing was adjourned as the claimant hadn't sent in her bundle as ordered, just turned up to Court with it on the day.

 

Fourth hearing adjourned because this claimant had sent his bundle in, but the Court couldn't find it! Turns out that he sent it to Northampton County Court as he issued via MCOL and hadn't realised that the Bundle had to go to Morpeth! (Despite the Courts directions!) Interestingly, the hearing was adjourned for 30 minutes while the Usher dashed madly to the phone to call Northampton to see if they had received it - they hadn't, so the hearing was adjourned to the next hearing date. (Again giving the bank more time to make their formal application)

 

Fifth hearing was mine with Barclays - I went in, sat down and the Judge immediately said that I was one of the "most prepared litigants" he has ever came across in his career. (4-1 to CAG!) He then checked the bundle for the Statement of Charges and stuck out the first charge as it was more than 6 years old when the claim was issued. (I hadn't noticed this, despite this amount of preparation!) He was satisfied with my arguments and statement of charges, so turned to the bank's solicitor and asked where their Defence Bundle was - the solicitor cheekily turned around and said that no bundle had been sent in but a Defence had been entered and that the case was similar to the TC, so shouldn't be heard. The Judge was having none of this and said he had already refused the application for a stay, refused the application for leave to appeal that decision and was now hearing the case - he said "why has an organisation as big as Barclays not fully prepared for THIS case and submitted legal argument in defence?". The Solictor, after struggling to find a suitable response, admitted that this was the first he had heard of the claim and couldn't dispute it at all. This really p'd the Judge off, so he put up his hand and said "Enough! I don't know how many times I've case managed claims against these banks only to have them settled before coming to trial, or, even worse, go to trial without someone appearing and having Judgement entered in default after the defence is stuck out - the first time the bank chooses to appear before me, in any court, they haven't submitted a defence and admit to doing it in plain faced cheek?". He immediately stuck out their defence and awarded Judgement by Default to me! Wahey, I've WON! £880 all-in-all.

 

Sixth hearing was won with Judgement in Default for the same reasons as my NatWest claim.

 

Seventh hearing was adjouned as the claimant hadn't sent in a Statement of Charges - and the Judge said that the Court wouldn't perform the admin task of listing all the charges on one page by looking through the statements that he had submitted. (Bank will apply for a stay in the meantime, of course)

 

So, I won the Barclays one immediately and the NatWest claim has been stayed.

 

Some REALLY important advice that I can give to anyone claiming or about to start to, though, is; (all this appears elsewhere on the site, but I've put it here for clarity anyway)

- Make sure you comply with ALL directions sent to you by the Court. Not doing so will result in your claim being delayed, or worse, stuck out, and gives the other side the competitive edge.

- When sending in your Bundles, make sure you either use recorded delivery and check it's being received, or pop the bundle in to the Court yourself. (And get a receipt from the counter!)

- Make sure you know where to send your claim information! (Don't send it to the wrong Court!)

- Make sure your bundle includes a statement of charges. (It MUST show interest on each charge as well, if you're claiming it!)

 

The Judge was clearly on one here, though - even referring to months and months of cases that he's had where the Bank hasn't cooperated fully. He even quoted this as a reason for refusing applications and entering judgements, because of the "contempt shown by the Banks". I think he even enjoyed the experience, as he was smiling throughout the whole thing!

 

I'm really pleasantly suprised at the Barclays outcome!

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

PROBLEM! Or is it?

 

I've just received the order from the Court;

 

Standard order for stay for settlement with consent of all the parties

 

All parties having agreed, DISTRICT JUDGE X orders that this claim is stayed until 01 October 2007 to enable the parties to attempt settlement.

 

On or before 15 October 2007, one of the following steps must be taken;

either

the claimant must notify the Court that the whole of the claim has been settled; (see not (i) below)

or

the claimant or defendant must write to the Court requesting an extension of the stay period, explaining the steps being taken towards settlement and identifying any mediator, expert, or other person heloing with the process. The letter should confirm the agreement of all the other parties. (see note (ii) below)

or

all the parties must file a completed allocation questionnaire at the Court. Where a settlement of some of the issues in dispute has been reached, a list of those issues should be attached to the completed questionnaire. The list must be agreed with the other parties and must indicate that it has been agreed.

 

Date 20 August 2007

 

Note (i): Where settlement of the claim is achieved before the end of the period of stay, the following will be taken to include an application for the stay to be lifted;

(a) an application for a consent order to give effect to the settlement.

(b) an applicaiton for approval of a settlement where one or more of the parties is a person under a disability: and

© the filing of a notice of acceptance of monies paid into Court, or an application to accept monies paid into Court out of time.

 

Note (ii): Extenstions to the period of stay will fenerally be no more than 1 month

 

Now then... this clearly isn't what was discussed in Court;

  • NW haven't entered any settlement discussions
  • NW have applied for a stay until the TC is heard
  • DJ has approved the stay until end of 10/2008

But - do I come clean and tell them, or hope that the shear volume of cases being heard/dealt with will mean this goes unnoticed?

 

Is this wishful thinking?

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still nothing from either party regarding this mis-applied stay

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cobbetts are still "awaiting instructions" from the Bank as to how to progress. The lady said "if it gets beyond the stay period applied, my advice would be just continue with your claim as normal".

 

Bizarre!

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Car, I've just re-read your last few posts and bizarre doesn't even cover it!!!

 

I think I'd personally be inclined to give the court a ring tomorrow. You could then (very casually!) mention the order you've received and ask them to confirm the dates.

 

Can't hurt! ;):D

Can't find what you're looking for? Please have a look at Michael Browne's

A-Z Guide

*** PLEASE NOTE ***

I do not answer queries via PM. If you send me a PM, please include a link to your thread - any advice I am able to offer will be on your thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rang the Court and they were really unhelpful - couldn't tell me why the Order had been made or who requested it as they couldn't "find the file"... Bizarre!

 

Anyway, the Claim is stayed pending settlement - and they will probably apply for the TC stay anyway. I'm sending a plea about both as they haven't contacted me in 2 weeks regarding any settlement and I want to ensure the TC stay isn't applied as I don't want to wait.

 

(I'll keep the details of the application private for now, but I'll happily share with you subscribers once I know the Court's decision on it - I've drafted my own stay objection that I don't want to jeopardise by "making public" without seeing the effect first. The details are specific to my case, but are easily adaptable to others if need be.)

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Best of luck car............. I hope you get a positive result with this. Keep us posted on your progress :D

Can't find what you're looking for? Please have a look at Michael Browne's

A-Z Guide

*** PLEASE NOTE ***

I do not answer queries via PM. If you send me a PM, please include a link to your thread - any advice I am able to offer will be on your thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...