Does anybody know when banks and OFT started this deal?

[kopw]

Hi all,

 

Does anybody out there have any idea when the banks and OFT started talking about this test case?

 

I can't imagine that they only started talking the night before over a pint in the pub.

 

I'm in the middle of writing a reply to abbey's letter of 7th August, which I suspect all their customers received on the same day.

Thanks

[ICY]

I should imagine it has taken months to get to this stage

[kopw]

I was thinking of writing to the court. My court order of 5th June states that if any party wants to stay proceedings, then they should apply within 14 days of that date. Abbey should have known about the test case at that time and therefore should have made such an application as per court order. i.e. within 14 days of 5th June. 27th July is a little bit more than 14 days..... Am I making any sense?

[ICY]

I see what you are saying, but they will probably just say that to have done so then would have meant they would have had to give a good reason for the stay, and they would have had to tell everyone what was going to happen, and they will argue that this information wasnt to be released to the general public at the time.

 

Not at all defending, just trying to think how they would attempt to get out of the arguement, although that asside it is still worth trying.

[kopw]

Does anybody think I should send this letter into court?

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find enclosed a copy of a letter recently received from Abbey National Plc, in which they outline their intention to apply to the Court for a stay on proceedings because of the ongoing test case between the O.F.T and Abbey National Plc and other banks..

 

 

I would respectfuly ask the Court not to allow such a stay because:

 

 

In the Notice of Transfer of Proceedings, dated 5th July. It was ordered by District Judge Murdoch, copy attached, sitting at Northampton County Court that:-

 

 

“ANY PARTY AFFECTED BY THIS ORDER MAY UNDER RULE 3.3 (5) APPLY TO HAVE IT SET ASIDE, VARIED OR STAYED. SUCH A PARTY MUST APPLY UNDER RULE 23.3 WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER”.

 

 

In order for Abbey to apply for a stay of proceedings, they should have done so within 14 days of 5th July, one week before the news of the test case was made public.

 

 

It is hard to believe that Abbey National Plc had no knowledge of the impending test case prior to 5th July 2007. Such a test case would have taken weeks, if not months of consultation and planning between the banks and the O.F.T.

 

 

[chelseaboy]

Totally with you on that one, On my General Form of Judgement or Order recieved 06/06/2007 from district Judge Murdoch at Northampton CC, section 8 staited, "Any party affected by the order may apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed. Such an application must be made not more than 7 days after the date on which the order was served on the party making the application."

 

Once again it's the establishment closing ranks!!!!! Still at 91p a day interest it'll be at least another £200 on the cheque.......

[srfrench]

Good letter kopw......... see where you are coming from and a sound reasonable argument to. Hope the Judge sees it the same way!

[TUTTSI]

Hi All

When my Barclaycard claim was settled in April, I was chatting with a barrister from Barclays legal department who told me then that a Test case was iminent and that details were being worked on as we spoke. My hubby then received his court date for his Barclaycard which was listed for August. Due to the fact I had chatted to this chap nicely he agreed to settle my hubbys claim back in June, which he did. So I believe that from the info that I was told that this has been going on for months and months and many QC's and legal teams were involved.

DS

[kopw]

Earlier this evening, I went round to a friend's house who happens to work in the legal department of the local council. I showed him the letter I had drafted and he phoned one of his colleagues just to pick his brains. They came up with the following ammendment to my original letter......

 

******************************************************

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find enclosed a copy of a letter recently received from Abbey National Plc, in which they outline their intention to apply to the Court for a stay on proceedings due to the ongoing test case between the O.F.T and Abbey National Plc and other banks..

 

 

I would respectfuly ask the Court not to allow such a stay because:

 

 

In the Notice of Transfer of Proceedings, dated 5th July. It was ordered by District Judge Murdoch, copy attached, sitting at Northampton County Court that:-

 

 

“ANY PARTY AFFECTED BY THIS ORDER MAY UNDER RULE 3.3 (5) APPLY TO HAVE IT SET ASIDE, VARIED OR STAYED. SUCH A PARTY MUST APPLY UNDER RULE 23.3 WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In order for Abbey to apply for a stay of proceedings, they should have done so within 14 days of 5th July, one week before the news of the test case was made public.

 

 

 

 

It is hard to believe that Abbey National Plc had no knowledge of the impending test case prior to 5th July 2007. Such a test case would have taken weeks, if not months of consultation and planning between the banks and the O.F.T.

 

 

 

 

I would therefore, once again and with the utmost respect, ask the Court to do one of the following:-

 

 

a) Not to grant Abbey National Plc a stay on the forthcoming proceedings.

 

 

Or

 

 

b) If the Court is minded to grant Abbey National Plc a stay on the forthcoming proceedings, then I would respectfully ask the Court to order Abbey National Plc to issue the Court with proof that Abbey National Plc had NO KNOWLEDGE of the impending test case prior to the time scale as set out in the aforementioned County Court order.

 

 

 

 

Yours sincerely,

***************************************************************************************************

Please let me know what you think. I will post the results of the letter if you think it's worth using.

Thank you all

[Lula]

I have to say that this is something that i have thought about too, and then I remember all the offers that they were making in June and I wonder if they know that they are going to loose, but i also think that when they loose that there is going to be some "give back" by the OFT in the way of certain criteria or conditions that will have to be met by the consumer before the banks have to pay it all back, I also think that they are going to be as obstructive as possible and it will still end up in court in most cases.

 

Bur perhaps I am just a miserable old so and so

 

As for your letter, its good, i like it

[psm]

I have said it before and I will say it again. the banks MUST have come to a deal with the OFT before agreeing to a test case, and the actual test case is going to be window dressing. What other incentive is there for the banks to go ahead with a test case that could force them to repay ALL customers irrespective of whether they have claimed or not. When you consider the numbers, the bank charges represent as much as 15% of their income, approx 90% of bank charges is pure profit, depending on how far back the banks are forced to go to refund charges, any UNMANAGED judgement against the banks could be financialy catastrophic. Do you really think, considering the cynical way the banks have treated its customers and the British judicial system, the banks have suddenly developed a concience DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH