abroadgirl v Abbey

[abroadgirl]

hello is it worth me emailing inga again as i am not sure as to what to do with this going on they are saying all claims are on hold? so if that is they case what is going to happen as district judge xxxx has given them to a week on friday to settle i dont know what to do or what to say i have put in here a copy of there replys to me any help or advise much appreciated thankyou

good luck to everyone with there claims

hugs

abg

[abroadgirl]

hi chris thankyou so much for replying how far and at what stage are you at, i dont really understand all of this and can honestly say gets confusing at times up to nopw i havent had a court date all i have is that district judge xxxx has said that abour a settlement between us both by 17th aug so this is why with reading the threads ithought i would send them en email which u can see here what i did and there replies so now i am at the stage i dont know what to say or put or do, reguarding the settlement, and if i dont hear anything is this when iget a court date? i am sorry for all the questions thanku so much if i can be of any help for u let me know tyvm chris

abg

[abroadgirl]

oh my look what i have found i will post part 2 as well

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) should investigate the level of charges for

failed direct debits on basic bank accounts to ensure that charges are not

disproportionate but reflect the costs incurred by the banks.

26. The national rollout of HB reform should not start until difficulties with opening

and using bank accounts for payment of local housing allowance have been

resolved. DWP should work with HM Treasury and the Financial Inc lusion

Task Force to achieve this, and to consider the funding of support services for

people opening basic bank accounts more generally.

27. To make a real and lasting difference, efforts to extend access to bank

accounts need to become an integral part of banks’ core business. We

therefore recommend that the Financial Inclusion Task Force should

commission a report to outline the business case for banks to actively offer

bank accounts to people on low incomes.

[abroadgirl]

CAB clients are likely to be on low incomes. Recent research for Citizens

Advice by MORI shows that CAB clients are predominantly in social groups

DE and more likely to be tenants of social housing than the population as a

whole.

45 They are therefore more vulnerable to very small income shocks,

and are at risk of falling into unmanageable debt. Whilst these debts may

seem small, they can have a great and detrimental impact on people’s lives.

Banks’ right of set-off

3.4 CAB evidence shows that banks can take money out of a customer’s basic or

current account to pay other debts to the bank without checking the

customer’s circumstances first. Nearly 40 per cent of the evidence forms

submitted by bureaux and analysed for this report concerned this issue.

3.5 Under accepted banking practice, banks have a general right to evaluate a

customer’s financial situation and, if necessary, to ‘combine’ the accounts

held by that customer. In reality, this means that a bank can transfer money

from an account that is in credit in order to make payments that are due on

another account. This principle is known as the right of ‘set-off’. According to

the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), this right does not have to be

mentioned in the Terms and Conditions which apply when opening any bank

account including savings accounts. The only onus on the bank is that they

should give the client a ‘reasonable’ amount of time to pay the debt; although

44

Beyond Bank Accounts: full financial inclusion, Sue Regan and Will Paxton, ippr and Citizens

[abroadgirl]

The Banking Code is silent about the right of set-off, though it does commit

subscribers to treat customers in financial difficulty positively and

sympathetically. This responsibility is defined in the Banking Code Guidance

for Subscribers which states “the subscriber should take into account any

other accounts that the customer may have with the subscriber if these have a

credit balance…the subscriber should leave the customer with sufficient

money for reasonable day-to-day expenses, taking into account individual

circumstances”.

47

3.8 Evidence from bureaux shows banks are not adhering to this guidance, and

as a result, CAB clients are suffering excessively. Cases reveal that banks

are removing income - and for the majority of our clients this is benefit income

required for essential needs - to satisfy outstanding debts. Some clients are

even finding that banks are removing all their income leaving them with

nothing to live on.

A Buckinghamshire CAB reported that they saw a client who has her

son’s disability living allowance (DLA) and child benefit (CB) paid into

her current account. The account was overdrawn and she also had two

consolidation loans so owed £27,000. The bank removed the client’s

DLA and CB payments for two months, resulting in severe hardship with

the loss of some £500 a month benefit income. This left the client short

of money for food for her children.

A South West Wales CAB saw a client who was experiencing financial

hardship and was in debt. The client had two young children and was in

receipt of income support. Her bank had been accessing the client’s

account to meet some debt repayments, leaving the client with no

money to live on. The client was left in a situation where she could not

cover her rent and risked eviction.

A Lincolnshire CAB reported that they saw a client who has been

overdrawn twice in one month. The bank used the client’s child tax

credit and child benefit to pay off the overdraft and the overdraft

charges. This has left the client with no money for her children or to pay

for her living costs.

46

Banking: firms' right of 'set off', Financial Ombudsman Service, Ombudsman News Issue 40

[abroadgirl]

A rural CAB in the Midlands saw a client who had been unable to open

a basic bank account. As a result her DLA was paid into a current

account. The account has an overdraft and the whole amount of her

recent DLA payment of £65 was used to ‘service’ her overdraft. This is

despite repeated requests to not use this income.

A Humberside CAB reported that a lone parent with four children, and

who was expecting a baby, was shocked to discover that £400 of her

social fund maternity grant had been transferred out of her bank

account to pay other debts leaving her with about £30 to live on. The

client told the bureau that the bank had taken £200 out of her account a

few weeks before. On contacting the local branch she was asked to

speak to a helpdesk who informed her that even though an offer of

repayments for the amount she owed the bank had been accepted, they

would check her account regularly and take any money found to be in it.

3.9 Such practices obviously have major implications for the planned rollout of

LHA payments to bank accounts. As discussed earlier, reform of HB entails

payment being made direct from the local authority to the claimant’s bank

account for te nants in private rented accommodation. So if a client is in debt

on another account, their LHA payment might be appropriated to pay it,

leaving the client unable to pay their landlord, and facing rent arrears and

even eviction. In comparison there are no t such drastic consequences for

non-payment of an unsecured credit debt.

3.10 This practice does nothing to help people with multiple debt problems, and

can reinforce poverty and social exclusion. If the bank chooses to enact its

right of set-off and wholly removes the balance in a client’s account for money

owed on a non-priority debt - a credit card for example - it may prevent the

client from honouring other, perhaps more critical, debt repayments. And as

banks are not duty bound to inform the client that they are going to use their

right of set-off, the client is not given the opportunity to manage their other

financial commitments.

Direct debits and administration charges

3.1

1 It is not just the banks’ right to set-off which is undermining the financial

welfare and stability of CAB clients. Charges levied by banks for items such

as failed direct debits, standing orders, unauthorised overdrafts and bounced

cheques can also cause considerable hardship. This is a growing problem:

research by Egg highlights the substantial 71 per cent increase over the last

five years in the use of direct debits as a means of paying household bills and

nearly a third of all UK current account holders claim to have been hit by a

charge for going over their agreed overdraft limit.

48

3.1

2 Although basic bank accounts have a direct debit facility, the majority do not

allow for an overdraft facility. Therefore if one or more direct debits fail

[abroadgirl]

ok looking up on diffrent web sites for abbey i came across this and read the 56 pages in which i am now printing it all out what i found interesting i have put in here for u all

abroadgirl

[abroadgirl]

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) should investigate the level of charges for

failed direct debits on basic bank accounts to ensure that charges are not

disproportionate but reflect the costs incurred by the banks.

2

6. The national rollout of HB reform should not start until difficulties with opening

and using bank accounts for payment of local housing allowance have been

resolved. DWP should work with HM Treasury and the Financial Inc lusion

Task Force to achieve this, and to consider the funding of support services for

people opening basic bank accounts more generally.

27. To make a real and lasting difference, efforts to extend access to bank

accounts need to become an integral part of banks’ core business. We

therefore recommend that the Financial Inclusion Task Force should

commission a report to outline the business case for banks to actively offer

bank accounts to people on low incomes. part 2 to continue

[abroadgirl]

CAB clients are likely to be on low incomes. Recent research for Citizens

Advice by MORI shows that CAB clients are predominantly in social groups

DE and more likely to be tenants of social housing than the population as a

whole.

45 They are therefore more vulnerable to very small income shocks,

and are at risk of falling into unmanageable debt. Whilst these debts may

seem small, they can have a great and detrimental impact on people’s lives.

Banks’ right of set-off

3.4 CAB evidence shows that banks can take money out of a customer’s basic or

current account to pay other debts to the bank without checking the

customer’s circumstances first. Nearly 40 per cent of the evidence forms

submitted by bureaux and analysed for this report concerned this issue.

3.5 Under accepted banking practice, banks have a general right to evaluate a

customer’s financial situation and, if necessary, to ‘combine’ the accounts

held by that customer. In reality, this means that a bank can transfer money

from an account that is in credit in order to make payments that are due on

another account. This principle is known as the right of ‘set-off’. According to

the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), this right does not have to be

mentioned in the Terms and Conditions which apply when opening any bank

account including savings accounts. The only onus on the bank is that they

should give the client a ‘reasonable’ amount of time to pay the debt; although

44

Beyond Bank Accounts: full financial inclusion, Sue Regan and Will Paxton, ippr and Citizens

[abroadgirl]

The Banking Code is silent about the right of set-off, though it does commit

subscribers to treat customers in financial difficulty positively and

sympathetically. This responsibility is defined in the Banking Code Guidance

for Subscribers which states “the subscriber should take into account any

other accounts that the customer may have with the subscriber if these have a

credit balance…the subscriber should leave the customer with sufficient

money for reasonable day-to-day expenses, taking into account individual

circumstances”.

47

3.8 Evidence from bureaux shows banks are not adhering to this guidance, and

as a result, CAB clients are suffering excessively. Cases reveal that banks

are removing income - and for the majority of our clients this is benefit income

required for essential needs - to satisfy outstanding debts. Some clients are

even finding that banks are removing all their income leaving them with

nothing to live on.

A Buckinghamshire CAB reported that they saw a client who has her

son’s disability living allowance (DLA) and child benefit (CB) paid into

her current account. The account was overdrawn and she also had two

consolidation loans so owed £27,000. The bank removed the client’s

DLA and CB payments for two months, resulting in severe hardship with

the loss of some £500 a month benefit income. This left the client short

of money for food for her children.

A South West Wales CAB saw a client who was experiencing financial

hardship and was in debt. The client had two young children and was in

receipt of income support. Her bank had been accessing the client’s

account to meet some debt repayments, leaving the client with no

money to live on. The client was left in a situation where she could not

cover her rent and risked eviction.

A Lincolnshire CAB reported that they saw a client who has been

overdrawn twice in one month. The bank used the client’s child tax

credit and child benefit to pay off the overdraft and the overdraft

charges. This has left the client with no money for her children or to pay

for her living costs.

46

Banking: firms' right of 'set off', Financial Ombudsman Service, Ombudsman News Issue 40

[abroadgirl]

A rural CAB in the Midlands saw a client who had been unable to open

a basic bank account. As a result her DLA was paid into a current

account. The account has an overdraft and the whole amount of her

recent DLA payment of £65 was used to ‘service’ her overdraft. This is

despite repeated requests to not use this income.

A Humberside CAB reported that a lone parent with four children, and

who was expecting a baby, was shocked to discover that £400 of her

social fund maternity grant had been transferred out of her bank

account to pay other debts leaving her with about £30 to live on. The

client told the bureau that the bank had taken £200 out of her account a

few weeks before. On contacting the local branch she was asked to

speak to a helpdesk who informed her that even though an offer of

repayments for the amount she owed the bank had been accepted, they

would check her account regularly and take any money found to be in it.

3.9 Such practices obviously have major implications for the planned rollout of

LHA payments to bank accounts. As discussed earlier, reform of HB entails

payment being made direct from the local authority to the claimant’s bank

account for te nants in private rented accommodation. So if a client is in debt

on another account, their LHA payment might be appropriated to pay it,

leaving the client unable to pay their landlord, and facing rent arrears and

even eviction. In comparison there are no t such drastic consequences for

non-payment of an unsecured credit debt.

3.10 This practice does nothing to help people with multiple debt problems, and

can reinforce poverty and social exclusion. If the bank chooses to enact its

right of set-off and wholly removes the balance in a client’s account for money

owed on a non-priority debt - a credit card for example - it may prevent the

client from honouring other, perhaps more critical, debt repayments. And as

banks are not duty bound to inform the client that they are going to use their

right of set-off, the client is not given the opportunity to manage their other

financial commitments.

Direct debits and administration charges

3.1

1 It is not just the banks’ right to set-off which is undermining the financial

welfare and stability of CAB clients. Charges levied by banks for items such

as failed direct debits, standing orders, unauthorised overdrafts and bounced

cheques can also cause considerable hardship. This is a growing problem:

research by Egg highlights the substantial 71 per cent increase over the last

five years in the use of direct debits as a means of paying household bills and

nearly a third of all UK current account holders claim to have been hit by a

charge for going over their agreed overdraft limit.

48

3.1

2 Although basic bank accounts have a direct debit facility, the majority do not

allow for an overdraft facility. Therefore if one or more direct debits fail

[abroadgirl]

because there are insufficient funds the consumer will be penalised for failing

to honour a direct debit and may then be charged for having an unauthorised

overdraft.

3.1

3 The Banking Code stipulates that banks should exercise consideration when

applying charges, especially if a client is in financial difficulty. The code states

that ‘subscribers may consider agreeing with such customers appropriate

concessions relating to charges and interest payable by the customer. This

may mean suspending or reducing interest, default charges and annual fees

where agreed repayments do not cover them’.49

3.1

4 The table b elow shows the charges levied by banks for missed direct debits

on their basic bank accounts, and also shows whether the account offers a

free buffer zone. There is an extraordinary 160 per cent difference between

the lowest and highest charges.

Table 3.1 Basic Bank Accounts – Summary of charges

50

Bank Free Buffer Zone Charge for unpaid

Direct Debit

Abbey No £35

Alliance & Leicester No £34

Bank of Ireland No £38

Bank of Scotland No £39

Barclays No £15

Clydesdale No £35

Cooperative Bank No £19.50

First Trust Bank £10 Under £35 = £22.50

Over £35 = £37.50

Halifax No £39

HSBC £10 No

Lloyds TSB £10 No

Nationwide Building Society No £30

NatWest No £38

Northern Bank No £37.50

The Royal Bank of Scotland No £38

Ulster Bank No Under £20 = £35

Over £20 = £37.50

Yorkshire Bank No £35

3.15 Table 3.2 shows charges for unpaid direct debit for some current accounts.

Viewed together, both tables highlight the comparable level of charging for

both basic and current accounts. For example, Halifax charges exactly the

same amount for both its current and basic accounts.

49

The Banking Code, Section 14.3, March 2005

[abroadgirl]

To improve promotion of basic bank accounts,

the Banking Code

should mandate banks to display information about basic bank

accounts in bank branches. Specifically, the Banking Code Guidance

(Paragraph 3.2) should be strengthened to state "Where we offer basic

bank accounts, literature relating to the account will be clearly

displayed in our banking halls and on our website."

·

The Banking Code rules and Guidance (Paragraph 3.1) should be

changed to mandate that where applications for a basic bank

account are turned down, banks must provide a proforma letter

explaining clearly the reasons for the refusal, and detailing

exactly what applicants need to do to remedy the situation.

·

The Banking Code guidance should require firms to include the

need to combat financial exclusion in their money laundering

training. An integral part of this should be a focus on why people may

be on benefits or unbanked, as this would help to improve awareness

among bank branch staff of the difficulties that these people may face,

and help to foster a more understanding approach.

·

The Banking Code and Guidance should be amended so that

banks provide a commitment that it will take no more than 10

working days to open a basic bank account where acceptable ID

is provided. Where delays are experienced, banks should keep

clients informed, and should seek to proactively assist applicants

where problems are encountered.

·

The Banking Code should include Guidance on how basic bank

accounts should be upgraded, and detail the safeguards that

should be put in place.

·

The Banking Code should prohibit banks from exercising their

right of set-off from basic bank accounts. This is because the

customer may have to make repayments to other creditors which are of

greater priority such as paying for rent, mortgage, council tax or fuel.

In relation to the right of set-off from current accounts, the

Banking Code and Guidance should be amended to require banks

to refund any money they have appropriated through the right of

set-off to a customer who can demonstrate that these actions

have left them in financial difficulty.

Recommendations to the JMLSG

4.

22 The Joint Money Laundering Steering Group (JMLSG) is made up of the

leading UK trade associations in the financial services industry. Its aim is to

promulgate good practice in countering money laundering and to give

practical assistance in interpreting the UK Money Laundering Regulations.

4.23 Citizens Advice recognises that positive steps have been taken by the JMLSG

to address the problems experienced by people who do not possess the

[abroadgirl]

hi chris *S* (smiles) i know i get carried away i have now been looking for statement of evidence and carnt find it anywhere:confused:

the cab thingy grins its called banking benefits and what the bank can and carnt do which i found interesting as they took my benefits and left me with nothing and there is a benefits acts where they carnt take your benefits.......... i will have to read ur thread again reguarding this oft and feb 2008 its a pain isnt it gheepers my eyes are closing here i think iwill leave it for now and come back tomorrow to see if i can find the statement of evidence thigy

take care and ty for all ur replies hugs

abg

[abroadgirl]

hi deadlykiss, what stage are you at? did you knowthey are not allowed to take your benefits in charges? there is a thread on hear where you can get the acts stating that thy cannot take your money? let me know abg

[abroadgirl]

morning deadlykiss,

if i was you i would still do it and also send it to the bank i sent 2 of them go on it wont hurt i faxed mine to the court with a letter its never too late fax it to them if not send bank and cout them acts i did as i didnt know at the time but i sent mine to them its better late than never honest

hugs

abg

[abroadgirl]

hi everyone i have enjoyed reading your posts i will answer them asap as i have alot to do at the moment and also want to let you know my update and what has happened

i emailed inga and i faxed london shabbey grabby

okay i emailed them again for a settlement....yes you guessed no reply for either reguarding the settlement...

teatime and last night bout 7pm ring ring omg its abbey i thought they were going ot offer me an offer no i dont think so.............

it was about my sttement for june after all this time woohoooo they arnt slow are they june statement in aug infact may/june and they have only just contacted me about this guess what it suppose to be comming ok i thought u are going to get it while you are on the phone you have reffered me to drbt management in edinburough about the on going charges since jan 9th this year for a cheque which was returned cause my disability went in the next day u returned it u charged me for this ok then the next was a payment for 23 pounds odd in which i have it in black nwhite it was refunded yet you have charged me every month up till you closing my account 26th june in which you are suppost to give me 30 days notice you didnt let me know and these charges have gone on since the 9th jan 07 and you have done this to me he said they shouldnt have continued ongoing like that i said yes i know you shouldnt but you have done so will you contact the debt management and cancel this on going charges which is over 300 pounds i am sorry i carnt do this you will have to do it me i said i think you should do it after all it is abbey that has refered me to this company i am sorry madame i cannot do this ok i said i will tell them when they phone me as they do so can you make a note of this on my file on your computor so that if they cintact you they will have it there infront of them and while you are on the phone i have recived a letter from you and says about an open offer i havent been sent an offer or nothing i have faxed your london office and inga solicitor for shabbey and i have had no reply perhaps you can put that down and that i am waiting for an offer etc that was my convo with him...........i will now put in the letter i have recived from grabby shabbey in my next post

hugs

abg.xx

[abroadgirl]

Dear Madam,

Your claim in relation to unauthorised bank charges is currently being litigated in the county court. Althought we belive the charges are fair and unlawful since you have filed your claim in court abbey along with other six other banks and building soiciety has become involed in legal proceedings with the oft in relation to unautherised overdraft bank charges. We belive this will be resolved the issues reguarding the fairness and legalalty of your unautheried bank charges.

Pending the outcome of the test case we are asking the county courts to stay all claims relating to unartherised overdraft bank charges. A stay means that the case be put on hold.If your claim has not yet already been stayed then, we have a written or will shortly be writing to the county court seeking a stay of your legal claim as a result your case is likely to be put on hold untill the outcome of the test case is known.

\given the court case we have asked the 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 complaints rights.

We have also asked the fos not to proceed with any other case they are hearing untill the test case be resolved. FOS has indecated that as a general propostion it will indeed not proceed with cases which rely on the legal issues being considered in the test case.

Exactly what will happen next will depend on the courts we do not know how long the test case will take we have promised to proceed as quickly as possible but inevitably given the importance of the issues being considered this may take many months to resolve. We will keep you updated appropraitly in respect of the proceedings with the OFT. You can also check the lastest posion on our website at Abbey

in the intrim please retain your bank records as this will make it easier for you to support your legal claim on resolution of the test case we can assure you that we have kept a record of your legal claim. part 2 cont

[abroadgirl]

last page............................

last page read..................... ..

We may have written to you recently to make you a goodwill offer in full and final settlement of your legal claim provided that you have not rejected that offer the goodwill will offer the banks has made to you still stands and will be honoured.

If you wish to take up this offer the bank will take this acceptance as full and final settlement of your legal claim to acept this offer you must contact the within 2 working months of the date of this letter if you accept the offer as a fulland final settlement it is highly unlikely you will be awarded a futher sum at a later stage even if the test case established you were otherwise entitled to a larger amount. However this does not preclude you from asking for repayment of any future charges if the court findsw they are unlawful.

please contact us if u are not sure wether you have an open offer or not

after the test case is finished once the legal proceedings between OFT and that the banks have finished we will resolve your legal claim as quickly as possible applying the principles established in the test case. which may generate a larger or smaller figure when compared with any currant offer we may have made.

The FSA requires us to ensure that your legal claim will not be affected by the stay ot your court proceedings.

end...................... ......................... ......................... ..................

[abroadgirl]

hi psm, ty for your reply di

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:

 

 

.

d u see the post about my call when shabbey phoned me last night?

anyway i dont know if i have done right but here is what i have just faxed my court.

[abroadgirl]

does anyone think i should fax shabbey again about a settlement or should i wait they have till next friday anyway to offer a settlement tyvm

abg.

[abroadgirl]

hi,

i have gone throu the stages of claiming back my charges like everyone here okay i am at the stage where district judge xxxxxxx has said that between both abbey & i we have to see if we can come to a settlement by 17th aug. 07

up to now i havent had any offer or anything apart from a letter i got yesterday the normal about the test case etc.

so before i got his i have emailed inga and faxz abbey in londaon about a settlement.

 

so i was just wondering when and at what stage do you get a court date or now what happens after the 17th august

thankyou for any info help advise

oh yes i have gone ahead any faxed a withdrawal of a stay.

abbey said there going to apply for a stay this is why i sent mine ty for reading and any help info advise please

abg.

[abroadgirl]

ty lila i thought that just lets hope they get this sorted asap, thanku for replying

abg.

[abroadgirl]

sorry spelt your name wrong my nails are long and need doing so i am finding im catching the wrong keys sorry lula

abg

[abroadgirl]

got a letter from grabbey shabbey informing me after all this time they have closed my account 26th june never let me know and they are supposed to give 30 days notice they didnt me

hugs

abg