Soulfish v Barclays - Hearing 15th August

[Soulfish]

Hi Everyone,

 

Just got back from my hearing in Hastings County Court with Judge Pollard. Barclays sent their barrister who informed me that they were going to be applying for a stay.

 

We get called in and before we've even taken our seats the Judge is already telling us that he's going to be staying the case pending the high court test case. I tried to argue against the stay but he refused every thing I tried and stated that he was being ordered to stay all cases (unless there are serious grounds to not award a stay) by the senior judge in Sussex.

 

He also stated that the only real reason he wouldn't apply a stay is if you weren't going to be alive next March and had serious medical evidence to back it up. Even then it wouldn't be guaranteed to be awarded a stay.

 

Since there was no talking him out of it (he hadn't even bothered to read my objections to a stay) I asked him to prevent the defendant from apply further charges, or to set the charges at a level deemed reasonable by the court etc.

He told me that he had no legal grounds or basis to do such a thing.

 

He also seemed to think that since you were incurring overdraft fees and direct debit charges you obviously had enough money to live on so the grounds of financial hardship didn't apply.

 

My final tactic was to try and force Barclays to comply with the directions that had been previously sent out (they hadn't disclosed the information that they Judge had requested). The Judge didn't seem to like that idea and stated that since this was a fast track case, and costs would be incurred he couldn't order Barclays to comply with the previous orders due to the fact that it would cause us to incur additional costs should the high court case be lost.

 

All in all it was a pretty poor hearing. The Judge had made up his mind before we'd even entered the room, and wasn't going to change it. The Barclays barrister didn't even need to speak - the Judge did everything for him.

 

The case was stayed pending the outcome of the high court test case, with the stay to be reviewed on 7th March 2008.

 

Ohh well.

[SarahApples]

So sorry to read about your experience today - it really just depends on the Judge doesn't it - you got the short straw - I'll cross my fingers for you for 2008!

[tezl]

Hi Everyone,

 

Just got back from my hearing in Hastings County Court with Judge Pollard. Barclays sent their barrister who informed me that they were going to be applying for a stay.

 

We get called in and before we've even taken our seats the Judge is already telling us that he's going to be staying the case pending the high court test case. I tried to argue against the stay but he refused every thing I tried and stated that he was being ordered to stay all cases (unless there are serious grounds to not award a stay) by the senior judge in Sussex.

 

He also stated that the only real reason he wouldn't apply a stay is if you weren't going to be alive next March and had serious medical evidence to back it up. Even then it wouldn't be guaranteed to be awarded a stay.

 

Since there was no talking him out of it (he hadn't even bothered to read my objections to a stay) I asked him to prevent the defendant from apply further charges, or to set the charges at a level deemed reasonable by the court etc.

He told me that he had no legal grounds or basis to do such a thing.

 

He also seemed to think that since you were incurring overdraft fees and direct debit charges you obviously had enough money to live on so the grounds of financial hardship didn't apply.

 

My final tactic was to try and force Barclays to comply with the directions that had been previously sent out (they hadn't disclosed the information that they Judge had requested). The Judge didn't seem to like that idea and stated that since this was a fast track case, and costs would be incurred he couldn't order Barclays to comply with the previous orders due to the fact that it would cause us to incur additional costs should the high court case be lost.

 

All in all it was a pretty poor hearing. The Judge had made up his mind before we'd even entered the room, and wasn't going to change it. The Barclays barrister didn't even need to speak - the Judge did everything for him.

 

The case was stayed pending the outcome of the high court test case, with the stay to be reviewed on 7th March 2008.

 

Ohh well.

hard luck, very frustrating when you cant get a word in after all the hard work.it would be interesting to know who gave him his orders to stay.did not think that had been done.own discresion being a judge.?hard luck again.