Proposed Judicial Review Proceedings

[jansus]

I have only posted new thread on three forums - I will wait for you to check wording

 

Jan

[crfx250]

Your PM box is full! See you thread in A&L

[jansus]

Found this today :

 

post by eherway - in Barclays - which may shed some light on why hardship cases are being refused ?

 

 

Basic Account Customer

 

Join Date: Jul 2007

Posts: 7

 

 

In court this morning - this is how it went.

I was in court this morning along with 25 other people. There was a representative from each of the banks involved. The case lasted from 10am until 2pm.

 

The stay was not lifted for anybody. Our judge was sympathetic to everyone's situations, but gave his main reason as.....

 

'I cannot see from any of the cases that hardship will be brought from the delay, to wait for the OFT case in January and the review in March 2008. I base my decision on the Nottingham Hughes & Mitchel case'.

 

TIPS for OTHER cases - from what I heard today:

• If you are using grounds of hardship for getting your stay lifted, you MUST explain in your skeleton argument how this is a direct result of bank charges. It was argued quite a bit about often financial difficulties are not a direct result of bank charges.

• The judge commented that it is hard to tell the individual requirements on hardship cases using the proforma's from websites. You MUST include with these, your own personal information as well. I also realised that the court is quite accommodating and so do not worry if you are unable to word it in 'law speak'. Your own words will be fine and means the judge will have taken a detailed look at what you submitted before the court date.

The one major benefit to most of us there today is that the judge has ordered that the banks are not able to harass, abuse, threaten (via letters or otherwise) or enforce disputed debts (through collection agencies) arising from charges or closure of accounts, in the interim, otherwise we can put in an application to him directly to strike out the defence (stay) on grounds of abuse

[olden]

Hi everyone. BAD NEWS I JUST PHONED BARCLAYS LITIGATION TEAM AND GUESS WHO ANSWERED ONLY SHARON WHO WAS HANDLING MY CLAIM AND JUST ABOUT TO LOOK INTO IT WHEN THE ANNOUNCEMENT CAME

 

WELL THEY ARE SENDING A BARRISTER ON 19TH OCTOBER AND SHE ACTUALLY SAID THEY ARE NOT PAYING OUT ANY MORE CLAIMS UNTIL AFTER THE DECISION WITH THE OFT

[jansus]

Hi

 

Did you get a personal email plus the draft letter by pm>?

 

Having major computer problems

[crfx250]

Instructions for the judicial review have been issued to a Barrister at Doughty Sreet Chambers who is now looking at the case and a decision to proceed will be made early next week.

[topsilk]

The JR will not succeed for reason of delay (the judges expect you to bring JR proceedings promptly), IMO.

 

Grounds for JR I think are that its decision to grant a waiver is irrational, perverse and Wednesbury unreasonable. I.e. no regulator properly directing itself would reach such a decision / the decision is irrational / perverse.

 

Would be interested to read your counsel's opinion!

[olden]

crfx I am so pleased you have proceeded with this. Every time I or my husband have read through all the info about the FSA and the OFT claim etc. we have been more and more convinced this is mainly down to the government pressure fear of reducing their cut from the banks revenue

 

Do you still want claim details? you can have mine and I am sure plenty of others. I went to court last friday, failed to uplift the stay, on hardship grounds, I have posted the whole event on my site "Olden v Barclays"

[jansus]

hi crfx is actually away at the moment - Please send your details to Alanfromderby - his email is on the announcement in the forum - must be by tomorrow latest I think. Also if you know any others please give them a nudge .

 

thanks

 

Jan

[caro]

Anyone who wishes to bring their cases to the attention of the FSA should respond to this announcement as a matter of urgency. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/announcement.php?f=22&a=114

[zootscoot]

The JR will not succeed for reason of delay (the judges expect you to bring JR proceedings promptly), IMO.

 

Grounds for JR I think are that its decision to grant a waiver is irrational, perverse and Wednesbury unreasonable. I.e. no regulator properly directing itself would reach such a decision / the decision is irrational / perverse.

 

Would be interested to read your counsel's opinion!

 

 

The limitation period for Judicial Review is three months so that means the case needs to be issued by 26th Oct as I'm sure CRFX's barrister is aware.

 

The grounds for JR are threefold: Ultra vires, irrational and procedural impropriety. Irrational being the most difficult to establish. In addition breach of Human Rights Act is now an established ground of JR.

 

Ultra vires meaning where the decision maker has gone beyond their powers.

 

Irrationalality or Wednesbury unreasonableness is where the decision is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible Regulator could have reached it.

 

Procedural impropriety is where the correct procedures for implementing the decision were not followed.

 

I too am interested in hearing what grounds are being used.

[jansus]

I understand that a case not on here - where the claimant was a clear and definite hardship case - had the stay lifted in torquay - but then the bank appealed - and the courts put the stay back on.

 

This seems to indicate even more reason for claimants to go the FOS route for hardship with a copy to the FSA - lets at least clog them up with paperwork if nothing else!

 

Jan

[olden]

Hello all of you, is anyone on here now? I was trying to get on here last night . did the site go down all night,? whats happening with the proceedings, hope its all going through?

[olden]

Hello again I was trying to post my details for the review deadline, and the site was down for maintenance, this seems an unfortunate time to have happened? I suppose it is too late?

[jansus]

As far as I know they had to be in by 26th - but I am not sure when they were going to send them to the FSA - try going to the announcement and sending the deatils to AlanfromDerby - the email address is there.

 

every case will help so worth a try.

 

Jan

[caro]

Send it anyway olden. It was unfortunate timing but AFAIK if you send it to admin@consumeractiongr oup.co.uk it should be ok.

[olden]

OK done that emailed alanfrom derby and he accepted my case emailed me straight away, many thanks hope it all goes well. val

[caro]

Thanks olden. I understand that they've all been submitted now.

[Josie8]

subscribing

[caro]

Although CAG has now forwarded the cases sent in, it is worth people continuing to send them to the FSA individually.

[jansus]

out of interest do you know how many case details were sent?

 

Thanks

 

Jan

[caro]

I believe there were 37.

[jansus]

Apparently the hopes of a judicial review have been dashed - see attached

Could a Mod please post in full if they feel the contents should be read elsewhere as well

 

 

thanks

 

Jan

Barrister's council1.pdf

[midge61]

can the comment about applying for an amendment not be looked into?

[olden]

The paragraph about crfx not having standing as he himself is not agrieved surely crfx could use one of us claimants name? and we would all be prepared to join ? Is this possible? CRFX has worked so hard for everyone. Not forgetting all of you.