well done pinky im real chuffed for yah. up the a & l freedom fighters the war is still on.

here you go have a shot at this......... Claim Number:XXXXXXX In the xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Between: Claimant: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -and- Defendant : alliance and Leicester plc I strongly object to the proposed order of a stay in respect of the claim detailed above upon the following grounds; Human rights It would infringe my rights under the European Convention on Human Rights directly and as enacted in the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 6 of the Convention provides that; “1. In the determination of his civil rights… everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.” It is submitted that the ordering of a stay as proposed is not reasonable. The 8 banks involved in the High Court test case have recently published identical statements on their websites informing customers that they expect the test case to last for over a year. Moreover, the nature and gravity of the case is such that any judgment is highly likely to be appealed to the Court of Appeal and possibly even then appealed further to the House of Lords. It is entirely conceivable that a final resolution may not be reached for 2 – 3 years or perhaps even longer. It is thus submitted that the period of any proposed stay cannot be accurately predicted and would therefore in effect be indeterminate, which is contrary to the right of entitlement to a fair hearing within a reasonable time as provided for by Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Overriding Objective 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. Dealing with cases justly includes ensuring that this case is dealt with expeditiously and fairly and in a way that is proportionate to the amount of money involved. It is submitted that the imposition of an indeterminate stay in a small claims track case involving a relatively small sum, at such an advanced stage in proceedings, is not just, nor is it expeditious, nor is it fair on a claimant who has outlaid sums by way of court fees in pursuit of a legitimate right to seek a remedy. Balance of convenience The sum claimed is insignificant to the bank but it is highly significant to me. Furthermore, 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 charges 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. The banks would also remain at liberty to bring legal proceedings against me for the recovery of any debt which mostly or entirely consists of penalty charges, penalty charges which are contended to be unlawful, but which consumers would be helpless to challenge in the event that stays are imposed on any claim where a customer is seeking to dispute the lawfulness of them. 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 frustrate justice by repeatedly taking 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 its legitimate remedy without placing any restriction upon the banks activities which I submit are unlawful and/or retaliatory. Furthermore, as submitted above the present case concerns a relatively small sum and is at a late stage in proceedings, and therefore I submit that to impose an indeterminate stay is unnecessary, inappropriate, not in the interests of justice and further, is detrimental to my rights in a way which is unfair and inequitable. In the alternative In view of the preceding paragraphs, if the court accedes to the defendant’s application for a stay notwithstanding these objections, 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 removes 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. I, the Claimant, believe all facts stated to be true. Signed: Dated: wooot out with the stays and in with the pays good luk .........

put in an appeal,dont settle for that ,brb with a letter for yah

omg tanks............ i love um thanks bigmark u made me smile. nps granny ill post as soon as i hear anything:-D

no warning signs, and as far as we can make out there was no assessment made to assess the effects of its use prior to installation

hi im looking for some legal advice or quotes about cctv in the work place.my boss in his wisdom has installed colour cameras, in a factory envoirenment, and states they are for training and security purposes.but we all know that he and his son (production manager)watch us at all times, to make sure we are not talking when we are working.more cameras are on the way and all my worork m8s are concerned about the placements and the legality of being spyed on. any help or advice appreciated thanx.

im gonna fite um all the way and im gonna get me4 a tank and an army of zombies to ........................

:o gotta be worth a shot,keep on at them despite recent events. good luk m8:-D

:o just in and i have a letter from a & l. dear mr chubbs account no xxxxxxxxx we refer to your complaint about charges for unauthorised overdrafts(meaning paid items,failed items, and unauthorised overdraft charges) and confirm that although we wrote to you with our final response,we consider that your complaint remains unresolved. although we believe the charges are fair,transparent and lawful,since we wrote to you,a number of current account providers have become involved in legal proceedings with the office of fair trading("oft")in relation to charges for unauthorised overdrafts wich we beleive will resolve the legal issues about fairness and legality of your charges. alliance and leicester is not one of the banks and building societys in the test case.however this is an issue where customers,as well as the financial services industry as a whole,would welcome legal clarity. we have asked the fsa to suspened the normal timetable for dealing with complaints in relation to charges for unauthorised overdrafts,and the fsa has agreed to this request subject to conditions that protect your rights. in view of this court case we have asked both the fos and the courts not to proceed with anyother case they are hearing untill the test case is resolved.fos has indicated that as a general proposition it will indeed not proceed with cases which rely on the legal issues being considered in the test case.similarly,you should be aware that if you choose to issue a claim in the county courts, we intened to apply to the court for an order to stay your action untill resolution of the legal proceedings with the oft. obviously exactly what will happen next will depend on the courts.we do not know how long the case will take.given the importance of the issues being considered this may take many months to finally resolve.we can assure you that once the legal proceedings are completed we will resolve your complaint as quickly as possible.if at that stage you do not agree with our conclusions you will of course be able to refer your case to fos (or to the courts) we can assure you that we have registered your complaint.please retain your bank records, as this will make it easier for you to support your complaint on resolution of the test case. once the legal proceedings finish we will resolve your complaint as quickly as possible applying the test case principles, which may result in a different outcome to the one communicated to you in our final response thats the main letter, and it is acompanied by a frequently asked questions page grrrrrrrrrrrr im gonna go on one tonight..........

nice dream and it can come true.only takes a & l to miss a deadline, your in and a winner.

8) yeah they are a bit smarmy with me.pass me from one person to another (normally 3 peeps) over about 15 mins,and then say they will get georgina to "phone me back".yeah like thats gonna happen......... speak later gotta get bak to work

same as you fed up.got holls with the kids in 3 weeks ,looking forward to that.hope the weather stays good.update tomorrow, gonna phone oilys again,keeping up the average of 1 a day 8)

:o omg another in yeovil,thats real cool.i dont feel lonely now:grin: hi jenny how you been,busy i hope? well still nuffin from the court and im getting bored phonin oilys and emailing.need to find a different approach.......................from behind,with a sledgehammer?

this looks like a good one , any comments or ideas how to make it better? Claim Number:XXXXXXX In the xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Between: Claimant: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -and- Defendant : alliance and Leicester plc I strongly object to the proposed order of a stay in respect of the claim detailed above upon the following grounds; Human rights It would infringe my rights under the European Convention on Human Rights directly and as enacted in the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 6 of the Convention provides that; “1. In the determination of his civil rights… everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.” It is submitted that the ordering of a stay as proposed is not reasonable. The 8 banks involved in the High Court test case have recently published identical statements on their websites informing customers that they expect the test case to last for over a year. Moreover, the nature and gravity of the case is such that any judgment is highly likely to be appealed to the Court of Appeal and possibly even then appealed further to the House of Lords. It is entirely conceivable that a final resolution may not be reached for 2 – 3 years or perhaps even longer. It is thus submitted that the period of any proposed stay cannot be accurately predicted and would therefore in effect be indeterminate, which is contrary to the right of entitlement to a fair hearing within a reasonable time as provided for by Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Overriding Objective 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. Dealing with cases justly includes ensuring that this case is dealt with expeditiously and fairly and in a way that is proportionate to the amount of money involved. It is submitted that the imposition of an indeterminate stay in a small claims track case involving a relatively small sum, at such an advanced stage in proceedings, is not just, nor is it expeditious, nor is it fair on a claimant who has outlaid sums by way of court fees in pursuit of a legitimate right to seek a remedy. Balance of convenience The sum claimed is insignificant to the bank but it is highly significant to me. Furthermore, 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 charges 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. The banks would also remain at liberty to bring legal proceedings against me for the recovery of any debt which mostly or entirely consists of penalty charges, penalty charges which are contended to be unlawful, but which consumers would be helpless to challenge in the event that stays are imposed on any claim where a customer is seeking to dispute the lawfulness of them. 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 frustrate justice by repeatedly taking 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 its legitimate remedy without placing any restriction upon the banks activities which I submit are unlawful and/or retaliatory. Furthermore, as submitted above the present case concerns a relatively small sum and is at a late stage in proceedings, and therefore I submit that to impose an indeterminate stay is unnecessary, inappropriate, not in the interests of justice and further, is detrimental to my rights in a way which is unfair and inequitable. In the alternative In view of the preceding paragraphs, if the court accedes to the defendant’s application for a stay notwithstanding these objections, 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 removes 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. I, the Claimant, believe all facts stated to be true. Signed: Dated: thanx

welcome to the a & l freedom fighters,its a blast here.good luk with your case.lots good help around all you gotta do is ask often!

hi,try this i found it earlier, Claim Number:XXXXXXX In the xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Between: Claimant: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -and- Defendant : alliance and Leicester plc I strongly object to the proposed order of a stay in respect of the claim detailed above upon the following grounds; Human rights It would infringe my rights under the European Convention on Human Rights directly and as enacted in the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 6 of the Convention provides that; “1. In the determination of his civil rights… everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.” It is submitted that the ordering of a stay as proposed is not reasonable. The 8 banks involved in the High Court test case have recently published identical statements on their websites informing customers that they expect the test case to last for over a year. Moreover, the nature and gravity of the case is such that any judgment is highly likely to be appealed to the Court of Appeal and possibly even then appealed further to the House of Lords. It is entirely conceivable that a final resolution may not be reached for 2 – 3 years or perhaps even longer. It is thus submitted that the period of any proposed stay cannot be accurately predicted and would therefore in effect be indeterminate, which is contrary to the right of entitlement to a fair hearing within a reasonable time as provided for by Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Overriding Objective 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. Dealing with cases justly includes ensuring that this case is dealt with expeditiously and fairly and in a way that is proportionate to the amount of money involved. It is submitted that the imposition of an indeterminate stay in a small claims track case involving a relatively small sum, at such an advanced stage in proceedings, is not just, nor is it expeditious, nor is it fair on a claimant who has outlaid sums by way of court fees in pursuit of a legitimate right to seek a remedy. Balance of convenience The sum claimed is insignificant to the bank but it is highly significant to me. Furthermore, 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 charges 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. The banks would also remain at liberty to bring legal proceedings against me for the recovery of any debt which mostly or entirely consists of penalty charges, penalty charges which are contended to be unlawful, but which consumers would be helpless to challenge in the event that stays are imposed on any claim where a customer is seeking to dispute the lawfulness of them. 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 frustrate justice by repeatedly taking 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 its legitimate remedy without placing any restriction upon the banks activities which I submit are unlawful and/or retaliatory. Furthermore, as submitted above the present case concerns a relatively small sum and is at a late stage in proceedings, and therefore I submit that to impose an indeterminate stay is unnecessary, inappropriate, not in the interests of justice and further, is detrimental to my rights in a way which is unfair and inequitable. In the alternative In view of the preceding paragraphs, if the court accedes to the defendant’s application for a stay notwithstanding these objections, 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 removes 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. I, the Claimant, believe all facts stated to be true. Signed: Dated: good luk

you mite be lucky and slip under the radar..................:o .i hope you get through, maybe even a settlement is around the corner.they may request a stay, but you should appeal it, i definately would.

im definately gonna contest it if it is stayed.there is no reason for it to be.

phoned my local court today.they are still w8ing for the letter that apparently has been sent out by the master of the roles, (The MoR decided not to issue an order staying all outstanding cases. Instead he asked the Deputy Head of Civil Justice to write to all Designated Civil Judges, (which he has done) inviting them to consider staying outstanding claims on a case by case basis as appropriate. Designated Civil Judges are the senior circuit judge responsible for a group of courts. S/he may agree arrangements with the district judges sitting at each individual court.) (pinched from zootscoots thread) ~~## Stays info and guidance ##~~ once my local judge has this, he will make an informed decision :-? . so its a w8ting game at the min,and i cant w8..............

im up the road in yeovil togs,ill try my court again today and see what they say:rolleyes:

gonna sort out an appeal for the stay.i havnt had notification yet but i can feel it in my waters.

still nothing from a & l or wragges or my local court.getting to me now.all i want is my cash is it to much to ask for?these days i think it is.but i must soldier on,bayonets fixed and over the top.have a nice weekend all, im going to the sea side tomorrow.see you all on monday if your luky :grin:

by the look of things, i may be joining you burton. we wont be alone.

reynard ............formula 1 team years ago? are you driving for them ? and still playing with guns? at your age honestly............you need a new scarf and a hot chocolate, maybe some calm me down pills also?

nice 1 holymoly................tell all your m8s and there dogs:D if anyone is interested i found this on holymolys thread Petition to: form a commons review by the Home Secretary on the current abuse of the court system by banks, building societies and other fiduciary services in the UK when dealing with customers on 'unfair bank charges' claims. :grin: