no news on my stay................. wrote a letter to mortgage lender will have it looked at and send it this week...................see what happens:rolleyes:

thanx jan. the 20k was eaten up with clean and clear, sols fees, insurance something or other? i still have a list somewhere im sure.but i have just moved home so im struggling to track them down at the min.

1)i am the only member of a union at my place of work everyone else is to scared to join a union, because several years ago the bosses saked an individual for advertising union membership at work. 2)we are concerned about the cameras because not only does the director have access to them in the work place,he can view them at home with his children who have jobs at the same factory.the forman also sits viewing the images in a public office with his m8s. i dont think any of the 13 people working the shop floor are common criminals and steal from the premisis(it would be difficult with a 90 ton printing machine or 4 ton fork truck.)all our work is done on time or ahead of production scheduel, barring breakdowns or missed deliveries.we cant even talk to each other whilst working for fear of one of them jumping on us. thanx for the info and advice you have all given its been very helpfull.

no news from me today. but i thought i would have a go at the mortgage reclamation.i would like a real lot of advice because it was a complicated deal with the change of lenders and then my ex wife was repoed.a fourty two grand house in n. ireland sold for sixty two grand, and the bank took the whole 20 grand in fees.the house was then sold three years later (and this is the gutta) for 150k.

ouchy

...........found me a stay removal tool............................. nice huh ?

i have applyed to have my stay removed, and got it for free, because the district judge ordered the stay.its gotta be worth a shot people.if its a mistake ill end up paying in the end i spose.but i did ask the lady twice to chek.and was told the same thing twice ." he ordered it, the bank did not apply for it so its free":-)go for it alice dont stop now .

my turn to say "keep you peker up" you will be fine im sure xxx

yeah gave myself a good kik in the pants and sorted it out late last night.i used the letter template from cag and threw in the 764 cases that have been settled by numurous banks, then highlighted the a & l settlements.

ok had a better day today.went to my local court to do the bizz on the stay and hey presto............the lady tells me " theres no charge for that sir". ........???????????? i ask why is there no charge?.she replys "because the judge made the decision about the stay of his own accord , it was not applied for so its free".....ah a freeby from the justice system is it true or is it even real.pinched myself and asked her to chek again plz......."no im right sir its free" so i came home quik

thanx jen, its a bad week,had my lawn laid thinking the sun was commin out for the kids and ...nope its wet weather programe.going to the sea side 1st week in sept so i have at least 1 good thing to look forwards to.

ok im looking for a form to fill out to apply for the stay to be removed.it starts with an "n"....................then some numbers.im loosing my will to search stuff and my head hurts.i have written my letter and attached an annexe 2 with 764 cases allready settled by various banks.i know in the morning i will have trouble letting go of my dosh but i gotta do it. can i down load the form and fill it out tonight as i wont get long off work to do this in the morning................. help me............ im melting......

still feel bad...................struggling to scrape up 65 quid for this appeal.i hope i can do it by friday or all my work will have been for nuthing.even if i manage to get the money and pay it i could still get a negative from the court....................so im in two minds as to carry on or not.frustrating !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i do feel a bit sad,but thats because the judges are losing their bottle and falling in line with the whims of the banks.helping the banks drag it out longer than is realy needed.then when peeps appeal their wimpy decision they take the 65 quid and say sod off! this aint fair.............we are in the system let it carry on dont stop us now ............how fed up would the judges be feeling if they were in our shoes?:?

nope im still stressing,need more tanks and men to carry on the fight.maybe some rokets and stuff.the scrumpy will be squeezed eventuall ,but by western wenches but thats good enough for me

reading through some threads seems like some judges are making there decision fineite, even after using the appeal letter and forms.they are taking our money up (to to 65 buks which we cant claim back.) and still doing nothing for us.its enough to drive you up the wall,what is the world comming to,the justice system is letting us down, .................................srry rant over..

yeah allways in the hands of some one.oh well just gotta keep stabbing away at it.what if the judge wont change his mind about the stay?can we keep appealing or will it be a case of "no get lost, youve been told ";-)

stayed at yeovil county court.had the letter on sat 11/ 08 /2007, dated 07/ 11/ 2007. appeal letter going in on monday 13/ 11 /2007:cool:

5 of the cameras are fixed position, looking directly at operators positions at machines, most are forwards facing looking directly at the individuals face. (or full frontal)the other camera causing concern is 180 degree remote controll and can zoom.it has been observed following people across the workshop.

OK BEING SERIOUS NOW.mentioned in the letter to remove the stay is a section ............ Attached to this application is a sample list of 223 cases complete with county court reference numbers (Annexe 2)- of which the claimant is aware and which have been started since February of 2006. All of them have been settled before hearing. any ideas where i can get this infiormation ??? thanx

got me a stay letter from my court today............ gonna appeal on monday so gotta get my letter sorted tomorrow;) on the 07th of august 2007 district judge b. silly sitting at xx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx considered the papers in the case and ordered that; 1) a test case has been issued in the high court between the oft and certain banks with a veiw to deciding issues of legal principle in relation to the recovery of charges made on bank accounts. 2) further information in relation to the test case is likely to be available on that offices website at The Office of Fair Trading: making markets work well for consumers 3) the issues in that case will affect this case. 4) it is ordered that:- 5) this claim is stayed untill further order with a veiw to awaiting the final decision in the test case ( by which is included the outcome of any appeal or the expiry of time for appealing) 6) the defendant shall within 28 days of the final decision in the test case file at court and serve on the claimant a letter confirming whether or not the case is to proceed and, if so , setting out the required directions 7) either party may apply on notice at any time to remove the stay 8) 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 any appropriate fee) to arrive within seven days of the service of this order. you have got to be joking!!! over the top men,take no prisoners..................................... charge

I respectfully request that the stay which was ordered on the XXXXXXXX be removed. Human rights It interferes with my rights under the European Convention on Human Rights directly and as enacted in the Human Rights Act 1998. Art.6 1. of the Convention provides that “ In the determination of his civil rights … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.” It is submitted that in a claim for a sum of £3,778.06, an indeterminate stay which depends on some litigation unconnected to the instant case, between two other parties who have no relation to the parties in the instant case is not reasonable. It is not clear that the matter will be heard as predicted and in the event that it does go to trial, there could then be appeals and subsequent appeals so that the matter might become protracted and even last as long as 2 years or more – from the date of the commencement of trial. Even if the predicted case does go to trial, it is not certain that it will proceed to judgment as it is entirely possible that there will be a settlement during the course of the litigation so that the question in issue is inconclusive. The Overriding Objective It is submitted that the Overriding Objective requires that my case is allowed to proceed speedily so that a just settlement may be obtained by the parties to this case. There is no complicated issue of law. The common law relating to contractual penalties is settled law since the late 1800s and has been reinforced as recently as the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 which itself is the result of a European directive. Lloyds TSB Bank The defendants Lloyds TSB Bank have already settled 14 similar cases. In the attached list of cases, the court will see that Lloyds were defendants in 14 cases. In most of these Lloyds actually filed defences and actually returned their allocation questionnaire, obliging the claimant to do the same. However, in every one of these cases, Lloyds bank settled the matter before the hearing. In 2004 the head of personal banking of Lloyds TSB Bank Peter MacNamara stated in a radio 4 interview that Lloyds was making big profits out of its default charges and that this money was being used to find free banking for its customers. The Claimant can supply a copy of this recording of the court wishes. Other cases It is true that there are currently many other cases which are litigating on the same issue of contractual penalties. However the court may be unaware that not a single case so far has gone to a hearing. Attached to this application is a sample list of 223 cases complete with county court reference numbers (Annexe 2)- of which the claimant is aware and which have been started since February of 2006. All of them have been settled before hearing. Many of them have even received default judgments against the defendant banks in question which has then been set aside on application by that bank and then which has been settled by that bank rather than go to court. In two cases the court has even ordered standard disclosure against defendant banks but those banks have then gone on to settle rather than reveal the details of its contractual penalties. It is submitted that the predicted test case is most unlikely to go to a hearing and that it will be settled out of court and therefore produce no useful decision from a higher court. It is further submitted that the defendant in the instant case has no intention of going to a hearing. It is submitted that the pattern of cases settled so far suggests very strongly that the banks are merely using the justice system as a publicly funded means of intimidating their customers and dissuading them from pursuing their legitimate Right. It is submitted that this is abusive of the justice system and of the public resource. Balance of convenience The sum claimed is insignificant to the bank but it is a significant sum to me. Further more although a stay prevents me from recovering my money, the defendant bank is not prevented from levying its charges or interest on debt comprised of those charges so the order of the court has the effect of favouring a powerful and well-resourced institution and does not place any restriction on their continued application of penalties which I say are unlawful. Further, many banks are now routinely closing the accounts of their customers who commence claims against them. This amounts to a sanction for seeking a ruling from the justice system and as such is a basic denial of citizenship. I will remain at risk of such action despite the fact that my remedy has been placed on an indeterminate hold. Additionally, the defendant remains at liberty to enter my name on the default register which it and other banks routinely do in respect of unlawful penalties which are unpaid by their customers. The banks have direct and privileged access to this register. They have no need to obtain a County Court judgment before they may enter a default on the register. This default remains on the register for 6 years and causes enormous damage to reputations. Were my name to be entered on the default register I would find it impossible to get credit or a mortgage and I would have to pay higher fees for any credit which I did manage to obtain. It is submitted that a stay may potentially mean great difficulty for me and yet be insignificant for the defendant bank. In fact a stay is supportive of the banks litigation strategy which is to take the claimant to the door of the court and then to settle the claim. The Status Quo The stay does not maintain the status quo. As submitted above, a stay favours the bank by preventing the claimant’s pursuit of his legitimate remedy without placing any restriction upon the banks activities which the claimant submits are unlawful and/or retaliatory. Test Case It is agreed that a case in which the issues were fully argued would be of enormous benefit. However, as has been explained above, the banks so far have settled every one of the 223 example cases and it is clear that it is their abusive litigation strategy which is responsible for the problem of the large number of cases being started against them. Every one of the cases settled so far has presented an opportunity to settle the common issue of contractual penalties. Despite their massive resources and access to high level expertise the defendants have declined to allow the issue to be decided. My case presents another opportunity for the question to be definitively settled as should the defendants lose, they have the resources to continue the matter through the appeals process and through the court hierarchy. It is respectfully submitted that the court’s order to stay the claim creates more uncertainty and more difficulty. It is respectfully submitted that if the predicted test case referred to by the district judge in his order, was actually in the course of a trial at the present moment so that it was more certain that the matter would be tried and that a decision would be likely to be reached, then there would be good grounds for staying all similar actions including my own. However, it is respectfully submitted that none of this is at all clear and on the evidence of all of the cases conducted so far it is submitted that the predicted test case is most unlikely to be heard at all. The OFT and their powers under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 gives the power to the Office of Fair Trading to seek injunctions to prevent the use of unfair terms in consumer contracts. More than that, the UTCCR specifically prevents the private citizen from pursuing this remedy on his own behalf. The OFT conducted a 2 year investigation of the contractual charges regime. They received a great deal of confidential evidence from the banks. The OFT has already announced that it considers that the contractual penalty charge regimes of these financial institutions are unfair. It is not at all clear why the OFT has not now proceeded to seek injunctions in the face of the banks’ refusals to comply. This is particularly serious when the Regulations have prevented the citizen from doing so. However, it is submitted that the issue of a test case and the definitive settling of the banks’ penalty charging system is a matter to be borne by the OFT or some other public body who are tasked and resourced to deal with this matter. It is not a burden to be suffered by the private citizen and in particular by myself in the instant case. In the alternative If the court decides not to accede to my request to remove the stay I respectfully request that the court issues the following injunctions: That the defendant bank is prevented from applying further penalty charges to my account until the final settlement of the matter. That the defendant is prevented from applying interest charges to any outstanding amounts which are comprised of penalties until the settlement of the matter That the defendant is prevented from closing my account That the defendant is prevented from making any entry on its own systems or from communicating any similar information to any third party about any matter insofar as it relates to penalty charges until the final settlement of the matter. That the defendant remove any derogatory entry on its own records insofar as it relates to penalty charges. (The Court has the power to do this under the Data Protection Act 1998 ) That the defendant arranges the removal of entries from the records of any third parties to whom it has previously communicated information insofar as it relates to penalty charges. (The Court has the power to do this under the Data protection Act 1998. ) That these injunctions remain in place until the settlement of my claim That should my claim proceed to a hearing that a decision should be made at the hearing as to whether these injunctions should be made permanent That if the matter should not proceed to a hearing because the defendant decides to settle outside court, that these injunctions should become permanent. Additional orders If the court does accede to my request for a removal of stay then I respectfully request that the case be allocated to the small claims track but that the defendant be ordered to make standard disclosure. It is submitted that an order for standard disclosure will assist greatly in bringing this and other similar claims to a speedy and just conclusion. The matter is suitable for the Small Claims Track as it involves no issue of law – the law is well established. It only involves questions of fact – in particular the true costs of the banks default charges system. The OFT has already formed its conclusion about this. Standard disclosure will put the matter beyond doubt. As I rely upon the bank as my fiduciary it is clear that they have a duty to act in utmost good faith in relation to their conduct of their contract with me. I submit that they do not act in good faith in relation to me or their other customers in the matter of penalty charges ah looks good mite use this 1 when needed.