Jump to content


Message from Guildford County Court to CAG - **NEW** Directions Order


PeterAnderson
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5131 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

I have just returned from the court collecting some N1's and had a very long discussion with the Court Office Manager and several interesting things came out of the that discussion.

 

Firstly I have full permission from the Court Manager to post this and he knows exactly what I am going to post (he was glad that people were getting their money back by the way :) ).

 

1. Only about 4% of the bank cases every receive a court date and he was not aware of any defendants turning up at court

2. A few cases have been struck out - due to faulty paperwork.

3. Once a defence has been submitted they will try to set an early court date

3. If anyone here would like to sit-in on a hearing they are welcome.

4. A special court day has been set aside as they have put together 20 cases that they expect to be heard, they also listed 50+ cases as well and will add to this list - this will take place on 14th Sept in Court 7 starting at 1030am - CAG are welcome to sit-in.

 

IMPORTANT NEW DIRECTIONS

The manager told me that they are fed-up with the banks not turning up and as I understand it, once they have lodged their defence, this court gives them 7-days before the case will be struck-out in favour of the claimant.

 

They have only just started issuing these new Directions to the banks - he gave me a copy, and it reads as follows, in full:-

 

DIRECTIONS

 

1. The claim is allocated to the small claims track

 

2. The hearing will take place at a place, time and date which will be notified to the parties.

 

3. The Defendant shall no later than 4pm on 13 August 2007 serve on the Claimant and lodge at Court a document answering the following questions: (a) Is the case intended to be contested to and at trial. (b) Does the Dependent intend to apply to adduce expert evidence?

 

4. If the Defendant fails to lodge at Court a document in accordance with paragraph 3. above the defence shall be struck out and judgement will be entered for the Claimant for the amount claimed and costs comprising the issue fee and any allocation fee paid.

 

5. Each party shall serve on the other the witness statements of all witnesses (other than expert witnesses on whom they intend to rely.

 

6. No party may adduce expert evidence unless an application for permission to adduce such evidence has been made and granted.

 

7. No party may rely on the evidence of any witness whose statement has not been served in accordance with this order without further permission from the Court.

 

8. No more than seven nor less than three clear working days before the trial date the Claimant shall file at Court an indexed and paginated bundle of documents which complies with the requirements of Rule 39.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the practice direction thereto, and shall serve a copy of it on the Defendant. The Claimant shall endeavour to agree the contents of the bundle with the Defendant before it is filed. If the Claimant fails to file a trial bundle in accordance with this direction the claim shall be struck out and the action dismissed without further order.

 

9. Because this order has been made by the Court without considering representations from the parties, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed. A party wishing to make an application must send or deliver the application to the Court (together with the appropriate fee) to arrive withen seven days of service of this order

 

Guildford County Court

  • Haha 3

If you think this post has been of help, please click on my SCALES on the left - thanks :-) :-x

 

Peter Anderson

Me Vs Morgan Stanley - WON £490

Me V's LTSB - Private & Bus Acc - £18.8k (since Oct1997)

inc: S.69 Interest (and growing daily) -;)

Please remember to DONATE when you have WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we have seen a few of those trickling out of Guildford over the last couple of weeks, (see the "struck out" thread in the Campaign Forum), but it is good to hear it is not just a fluke. :-D

 

Now all we have to hope for is that other courts pick up on this, and maybe we'll see the banks pull up their metaphorical socks. About time too. :mad:

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to report this in its entirety, it will come as a great encouragement for those filing in Guildford. Hell, I might even drive to the other end of Surrey myself to file my next one! :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there...

 

Just a thought (dangerous though it is, me having them!!!)... I have not long ago submitted to court, a "draft order for directions", as per following thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/78873-new-after-28-days.html

 

It's obviously too late for me, but would it be worthwhile ammending template to make some sort of reference as to what is happpening in guildford cc?

 

The template does already make references to other courts.

 

Any way of bringing this courts directions to other courts would only be beneficial surely?

 

As I said, it's just a thought, but someone who knows a little better than me may want to comment. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Post 3 - Bump

If you think this post has been of help, please click on my SCALES on the left - thanks :-) :-x

 

Peter Anderson

Me Vs Morgan Stanley - WON £490

Me V's LTSB - Private & Bus Acc - £18.8k (since Oct1997)

inc: S.69 Interest (and growing daily) -;)

Please remember to DONATE when you have WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter

 

This is a VERY interesting thread & for which many thanks.

 

I have a question relating to Direction 3 (in Post #1) - "(a) Is the case intended to be contested to and at trial."

 

If the bank answers 'yes' to that does it commit them to actually attending Court and defending, or can they still force you all the way to the Court door (filing bundle etc etc) and then settle out of Court just before the hearing?

 

If the answer to my question is 'yes, they can', then I can't see that anything has changed.

 

On the other hand if the answer is 'No, they can't', is the intention of that direction to force the bank to settle the claim at that point, rather than force Claimants all the way to the Court door (by submitting 'Bundles' etc) before settling, thereby hugely speeding up the process? If so, this is a massive benefit to us all and we do indeed need to do everything we can to ask all Courts to use the same Direction.

 

Once again, many thanks for this thread - Adam.

  • Haha 1

I do my best to be helpful, but at the end of the day I'm not a professional - please seek further advice if you're not sure. On the other hand, if I have helped, please click my scales - thanks ;)

 

Current Claims (all for friends!) -

 

Abbey - over £4k - Court claim issued & AQ filed ('Tish vs Abbey'). Alloc'n Hearing 21 Sept - Claim stayed 29/8/07.

Cap One - just under £2k - WON (just over 2k!)('Tish vs Cap One')

Cap One - just under £1000 - WON (just over £1k) Nov 07 (JimmyBoy vs Cap One)

Lloyds TSB - £3.5k - Court claim issued, defence rec'd and AQ filed; Alloc'n hearing 7th Sept Claim stayed 29/8/07! (JimmyBoy vs Lloyds')

MBNA - over £1k for mis-sold PPI - WON - approx £1500(IpswichWitch vs MBNA . . .)

Link to post
Share on other sites

In reply, the majority of defendants (Banks) who have been issued these directions have not complied and Judge Reid has found judgement in favour of claimants as soon as the deadline has expired. The only case i know of a bank complying with the directions is Barclays, but its still very early days yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam - Hi,

 

I think these directions are intended to speed up the process and force the banks into paying rather than wasting courts time. The other main change on these directions is that Guildford CC are only allowing 7 days rather than (I 'think' in other courts 28days - now that is a major change in our favour.

 

The court manager did say that they were getting very peeved off with the banks, I can see why the banks are doing it though - because they CAN :)

 

PS I ticked your scales :)

  • Haha 1

If you think this post has been of help, please click on my SCALES on the left - thanks :-) :-x

 

Peter Anderson

Me Vs Morgan Stanley - WON £490

Me V's LTSB - Private & Bus Acc - £18.8k (since Oct1997)

inc: S.69 Interest (and growing daily) -;)

Please remember to DONATE when you have WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter

 

Many thanks for the reputation - have returned the compliment!

 

I currently have 2 claims before Ipswich County Court (as you'll see from my signature), and in both cases (as is apparently fairly standard for Courts in this part of the world) the Judge has ordered, amongst other things, that ". . . the Defendant shall file with the Court draft directions for this case to proceed as a test case . . . .". This would seem to have the same purpose as the Guilford Court's directions in encouraging banks to settle at that stage rather than push all the way to the Court door - at least I hope so!!!!!!!

 

However, having read the announcement about the OFT test case on the validity of the UTCCR's and Law of Penalties to bank charge claims, I fear that we are all now going to have to wait at least till the end of the year for the result of that case before we get anything more from the banks. That is assuming they apply for the 'waiver'. Oh well - wait and see time!

 

All the best - Adam.

I do my best to be helpful, but at the end of the day I'm not a professional - please seek further advice if you're not sure. On the other hand, if I have helped, please click my scales - thanks ;)

 

Current Claims (all for friends!) -

 

Abbey - over £4k - Court claim issued & AQ filed ('Tish vs Abbey'). Alloc'n Hearing 21 Sept - Claim stayed 29/8/07.

Cap One - just under £2k - WON (just over 2k!)('Tish vs Cap One')

Cap One - just under £1000 - WON (just over £1k) Nov 07 (JimmyBoy vs Cap One)

Lloyds TSB - £3.5k - Court claim issued, defence rec'd and AQ filed; Alloc'n hearing 7th Sept Claim stayed 29/8/07! (JimmyBoy vs Lloyds')

MBNA - over £1k for mis-sold PPI - WON - approx £1500(IpswichWitch vs MBNA . . .)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see this being issued from Guildford as I have today received exactly the same in the post (from Guildford). However Lloyds solicitors have already said their client is willing (?!) to settle and I have just signed their letter. However will not discontinue case until cleared funds in account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done,

 

The OFT test case is going to screw me - £18.6k - and just when I was picking the colour of my new Harley Davidson Ultra Electroglide -;(

If you think this post has been of help, please click on my SCALES on the left - thanks :-) :-x

 

Peter Anderson

Me Vs Morgan Stanley - WON £490

Me V's LTSB - Private & Bus Acc - £18.8k (since Oct1997)

inc: S.69 Interest (and growing daily) -;)

Please remember to DONATE when you have WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well it seems mine will be the first case to heard on the 14th at Guildford which is at 1030 and should last no longer than 1 hour. Now I am really scared what am I going to do being the first case to be heard, will judge be asking me any questions, what will we be doing within the 1 hour?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did see a thread on the General forum that Guildford are one of the courts that are not issuing blanket stays but are doing on a case by case basis

 

Best of luck on the 14th - please update us all

If you think this post has been of help, please click on my SCALES on the left - thanks :-) :-x

 

Peter Anderson

Me Vs Morgan Stanley - WON £490

Me V's LTSB - Private & Bus Acc - £18.8k (since Oct1997)

inc: S.69 Interest (and growing daily) -;)

Please remember to DONATE when you have WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Mizzpy

 

We had two cases heard in Guildford at the same hearing at the end of June. [problem] did not turn up and the Judge found in our favour in both cases. They certainly are not going to try and defend this as a trial case and pre-empt the OFT case. I expect they will not show. I do hope your case is not stayed and you are given judgement by default. Best of luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...