Hearing to remove stay

[johnnymitch]

Hi prabs, nice to hear from you again........

 

They really are the limit aren't they? but I think you're right to be cautious - they're just as likely to tell the court you refused to co-operate in setting up a telephone hearing ( albeit for a non-existent hearing!).

 

As to the Test Case , the judgement is due to be handed down tomorrow (Thursday), but I wouldn't hold your breath, as either side is likely to take it to appeal..........

btw -thanks for tipping my scales........sorry I couldn't get back to you....

[Penfold92]

No worries mate, surely the County Court Cases need to be released whilst they are in the process of sorting out the appeal...assuming the FSA win of course?

 

Prabs

[johnnymitch]

Hi prabs

Depends whether the judge makes a ruling to that effect - or if OFT ask for a direction to that effect........

 

It would make sense that, if they have been allowed to carry on charging during this case, this should change whilst an appeal is in progress. But then when did sense ever come into it......

[Penfold92]

BREAKING NEWS.....

 

OFT WON THE CASE....

 

 

What does this now mean for all of us....

 

Penfold

[johnnymitch]

Wow! looks as if you're right prabs - The 24 hour News channel is predicting that the banks are 'bracing themselves for defeat' ........

 

I suppose the miserable bankers will drag this out by appealing.... but at the moment it looks like :

 

We’ve won ! We’ve won! Yippee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[johnnymitch]

bump!

[Penfold92]

But does it mean stayed are immeadiately changed to proceeding or they will just pay out...that is the question...Prabs

[Penfold92]

Breaking News On SKY NEWS;

 

Court Decides Bank Charges Unfair

 

Updated:10:14, Thursday April 24, 2008

The Office of Fair Trading has won its High Court claim that charges levied by banks for unauthorised overdrafts are unfair.

 

Some customers reclaimed charges

 

The test case follows attempts by customers to reclaim millions of pounds of charges through the courts.

It was brought jointly by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), seven high street banks and a building society.

But the judgement will not open the floodgates for more consumers to reclaim money.

A second hearing will be needed to decide whether the charges are excessive.

[alibobsy]

I suspect neither side will want the costs of appeals/further court action and wonder if some kind of "backroom" deal is being thrashed out now. Perhaps setting a charge level acceptable to both and a limit on backdating? With a side order of "only pay out if people write and apply for the charges back".

Seen on other threads and forums that the banks suddenly seem more ameanable to refuding current charges over the phone? Interesting.

ali x

[Penfold92]

Well let's hope they pay out those in the Court system too ASAP...Funny I will only believe it when I see it...

 

Penfold

[Rtech]

When the OFT set the lmit for Credit Card charges to a MAX(and that is the important word)of £12.50,these were still being claimed back via the Courts as the Banks would not provide costing info for charges.Should an agreement be reached on the Current account charges ,then IMO it would have to be in the £2-£5 range to prevent the same thing happening as with Credit Cards.

[johnnymitch]

That has always been my contention - I don't mind them charging - as long as it's fair and £2-£5 seems OK to me.

 

As for how the courts will clear this backlog and banks eventually settle up - we'll have to wait and see again ,for the moment - but the main thing is - the ruling - OFT can decide on what's fair and what's not...........

[deadlykiss]

yeyy excellent news ,, wonder if i will have to apply for my stay to be lifted now more paper work lol ahh well least something good is happening

[Rtech]

Latest from the BBC is that all stays remain until the 22 May,to allow time for Appeals if necessary.

[Penfold92]

I think as soon as the decision regarding the Stays is announced we should simply write to the Court to request they automatically remove the stay and issue a hearing date? Taht sounds about right to me, can't see why I should wait until 9th June for my hearing to set aside do any of you?

 

Prabs

[RossD1968]

Don't know if I am being thick here...which is probably the case!....but wondered why we are still referring so often to "charges" when our arguement was that they were in fact "penalties"! Certainly, with Yorkshire Bank (NAG) claims, the comments of their CEO can be cited to show this.

Also important as has been referred to, is the fact that credit card cases have still gone through the courts even with the £12.50 max charge being known. So, even with the verdict and the possibility of stays being lifted pending any possible appeal, I reckon we should all be able to go for the all amounts taken to be refunded.

Let's all keep our fingers crossed that teh county courts see sense.

[Rtech]

I presume the reason why 'charges' are used,is that like lots of words and terms they become abbreviated very quickly,and 'Text Talk' perhaps demonstrates that.The full term is 'penalty charges',but on these sort of sites, then just charges or even just penalties are regularly used.

[Tillysue]

Hi

This is my first post so please bear with me and apologies if I make a mess of it! I also sent the relevant letter to First Direct ages ago (just after a hold was put on the reclaim of charges) and I have nt done anything since as I didnt know I could! Am I right in thinking that I can ask for the hold to be lifted? Is this the same as 'the stay'? sorry to be a bit thick ! I would be very nervous to have to go to court in case I said the wrong thing. Is there any feedback from people who have been and succeeded so that I could know how daunting it would be? thanks Sue

 

Great news! Like you, I sent in an order to have the stay removed and have just got back a hearing date set for 29th Nov. My case is against First Direct (HSBC).

 

Think it's a bit poor that I originally had a date set for 3rd Sept and then the stay was applied by the court. Paid £65 for an order to get it lifted and now have a date for a hearing re the stay 3 months away. If that is successful I will probably get a final hearing date xx months after that which may not be any earlier than if I'd just accepted the stay and waited for some decision on the test case.

 

Sorry for whining!!

 

I'll keep on eye yours now cos the advice and help is excellent and it will certainly help me along

[Rtech]

Sue,

After the High Court decision yesterday ,there is a Case Management meeting set up for the 22nd May,at which the Banks or the OFT can appeal the decision.So until then, at least.no action is likely to be taken in any Court .So until the outcome of that is known,I think its a matter of sit and wait.

[Penfold92]

OK boys and girls, further to my post on Auds thread saying we have till the 22nd it seems things are starting to move...

 

Please see the letter DG sent the Court after the re arranged telephone hearing was moved to June as it was made a physical hearing (remember my attempts to get them in COurt since they did not organise the last telelphone hearing...): http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn275/pmflkapskycom/DG1.gif

and then page 2:

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn275/pmflkapskycom/DG2.gif

 

Here is the Court's reply:

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn275/pmflkapskycom/Court1.gif

 

Now unless I am reading too much into things DG are trying to say I should be liable for their costs because they organised a telelphone hearing that they should not have done, right? What about the 2nd telelphone hearing they did not orgainse and both myself and my wife had to take a day off work? Bless them...

 

Now to the Court's response....

 

What should I be reading into this? DG's letter was not recieved...probably never posted it...

OK I must admit that they did not say it was canx, but when DG called me for the hearing I told them that we had a new physical hearing date...I assumption, but the COurt appears to agree with me...

I do not understand the last paragraph? Are they saying DG should apply to put the stay back? If so what is the point of the hearing on the 9th?

 

Thanks,

 

Prabs

[Penfold92]

How about this sort of thing as a repost back at the COurt to try our luck?

 

Dear Court Manager,

RE: Claim number 7LU0XXXX Issue Date: 11 July 2007

We would be grateful if you could put this before the District Judge at your earliest convenience. We thank the Court for informing us of the Defendant’s letter dated 29th April 2008 and the Courts response.

We would like to draw the Court to the fact that the Defendant did not organise the adjourned telephone hearing yet managed to send out its skeleton argument. Then this time they organised the hearing when a letter had been sent out stating it had been changed to a physical hearing. They then have the nerve to state they will bring costs to the attention of the Court at the hearing on the 9th June. What about the costs incurred by my wife and I taking a day off work for the hearing they conveniently failed to organise? Are they simply either taking advantage of litigants in person or even worse being vexatious defendants. After all they have not successfully defended any case in Court either prior or post the OFT Test Case.

We would like to bring to the Courts attention the skeleton arguments we filed for the original hearing to set aside the stay dated 17th October 2007. We humbly ask the Court who has really benefited from the catalogue of errors by the Defendants counsel? They have simply wasted both our and the Courts time with their knowledge of the legal system.

The Court will be aware of the Judgment made by Mr. Justice Andrew Smith and we draw the Courts attention back to our arguments and specifically pages 98-102. This was the case where his Honour Judge Behrens (in the High Court) specifically lifted a stay due to the continued processing of subject data where it is marked as in default and this disputed data is being passed onto third parties. The basis of this was that it included, in the alleged debt, charges that were in dispute. Please find enclosed a copy of our recent credit file showing the default recorded in 2005 when we closed this account. The Defendant have refused to remove or freeze said information under any circumstances.

Once again we do not understand why the Court is even entertaining the blatant abuse of process by the Defendant. After all, how is it the Defendant can file and serve the same skeleton argument for the Stay based on a telephone hearing yet fail to organise the telephone hearing, but instead instruct someone to attend Court? Then when the rearranged hearing comes round, several months later, fail to cancel it when they get the letter confirming a new hearing date? Surely they should have rung the Court at that point to clarify? Being Litigant in nature perhaps we do not understand the Court procedures, however, this is a clear case of wasting both the Courts and our time by trying to delay the hearing as much as possible. We feel this further provides evidence in favour of the Human Rights issue for “a fair trial within a reasonable timescale”. We should have had a decision on this matter back in October 2007 that is nearly 7 months ago. The amount being claimed is irrelevant to the Defendant yet a great deal of money to us.

As the Court states in its letter to the Defendant, on the 14th May 2008, that the original stay has expired now, we humbly request that the hearing set for the 9th June simply be vacated and the Court issue Orders for a full hearing and a new hearing date on the basis of this information. This is in the interest of costs to ourselves and saves on wasted Court time.

Yours faithfully

Penfold

 

[johnnymitch]

Hi Penfold , hope you don't mind me proof-reading (again! )

 

How about this for a (slightly ) amended submission:

 

Dear Court Manager,*RE: Claim number 7LU0XXXX Issue Date: **11 July 2007*

We would be grateful if you could put this before the District Judge at your earliest convenience. We thank the Court for informing us of the Defendant’s letter dated 29th April 2008 and the Courts response.

 

We would like to draw the Court’s attention to the fact that the Defendant failed to organise the adjourned telephone hearing yet managed to send out its skeleton argument. Then, this time, they organised the hearing when a letter had been sent out stating it had been changed to a physical hearing.

They then have the audacity to state that they will bring costs to the attention of the Court at the hearing on the 9th June.

What about the costs incurred by my wife and me taking a day off work for the hearing they conveniently failed to organise? Are they simply taking advantage of Litigants in Person or even worse being vexatious defendants. After all they have not successfully defended any case in Court either prior to, or post, the OFT Test Case.

 

We would also like to bring to the Courts attention the skeleton arguments we filed for the original hearing to set aside the stay dated 17th October 2007. We humbly ask the Court, “Who has really benefited from the catalogue of errors by the Defendants counsel?” They have simply wasted both the Courts time and ours with their knowledge of the legal system.

 

The Court will be aware of the Judgment made by Mr. Justice Andrew Smith and we draw the Courts attention back to our arguments, specifically pages 98-102. This was the case where his Honour Judge Behrens (in the High Court) specifically lifted a stay due to the continued processing of subject data where it is marked as in default and this disputed data is being passed onto third parties. The basis of this was that it included, in the alleged debt, charges that were in dispute. Please find enclosed a copy of our recent credit file showing the default recorded in 2005 when we closed this account. The Defendant has refused to remove or freeze said information under any circumstances.

 

Once again we are at a loss to understand why the Court is even entertaining the blatant abuse of process by the Defendant. After all, how is it the Defendant can file and serve the same skeleton argument for the Stay based on a telephone hearing, then fail to organise the telephone hearing, but instead instruct someone to attend Court? Then, when the rearranged hearing comes round, several months later, they fail to cancel it when they get the letter confirming a new hearing date?

Surely they should have rung the Court at that point to clarify? Being Litigants in Person perhaps we do not understand the Court procedures, however, this is a clear case of wasting both the Courts and our time by trying to delay the hearing as much as possible. We feel this further provides evidence in favour of the Human Rights issue for “a fair trial within a reasonable timescale”. We should have had a decision on this matter back in October 2007 and that is nearly 7 months ago. The amount being claimed is irrelevant to the Defendant yet a great deal of money to us.

 

As the Court states in its letter to the Defendant, on the 14th May 2008, the original stay has now expired , we humbly request that the hearing set for the 9th June simply be vacated and the Court issue Orders for a full hearing and a new hearing date on the basis of this information. This is in the interest of costs to ourselves and saves on wasted Court time.

Yours faithfully

[Penfold92]

but does anyone think it will work...?

[johnnymitch]

A good point prabs, - I'd think the court would appreciate you saving their time - you've also stated your case clearly - and it would save a pointless attendance on 9 June ...........

 

However , pete, freaky, jo (et al) may have a different viewpoint - so may be prudent to wait for further feedback before committing yourself......

[Penfold92]

lol mate!