This topic was closed on 03/08/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 03/06/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

Many thanks Dave for a detailed response... Cheers Innocent

Hi Dave and thanks for a very informative and inspiring thread Been away from this site for some times, after some success, and now ready to return to get some more of MY money back CCAs?!? Ok, this is my situation: I have a Lloyds mastercard (formally More Than) with a £30 balance remaining, and a Monument (I know, I know you love them ;-) formally Providian) with a £3000 debt on. Both I need to get charges and interest back, and both, payments are up to date *Should everyone, almost as standard, now apply for their CCA? *If the CCA is not enforcable (when with Monument) what exactly is not enforceable? The debt? The interest? *In my Lloyds example? Is a CCA irrelevant, bearing in mind I should just go for £900 of charges and interest, or would I actually get anything back by proving the CCA was not enforceable too? *Once a CCA is proven to be unenforceable, thats it!? Its that easy? Well apart from the harrassing phone calls to begin with and the complaint letters we have to write? *Is there a default CCA request letter template somewhere? Apologies for asking so many generic questions on CCA (I just can't find a definitive thread; apart from yours , finding out exactly what, and what not people can do) Many thanks for your help in advance Cheers Innocent:D

Guido Put simply.... I don't know how to thankyou enough for your knowledge and support Innocent

The actual N157 'Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing)' form read: dated 17 August 2007 DISTRICT JUDGE X has considered the statements of case and allocation questionnaires filed and allocated the claim to the small claims track. 1. The Claim be submitted to the Small Claims Track. 2. The Claim be stayed until 1st April 2008 to await the outcome of the OFT test case in the High Court. If no application to extend or lift the stay is filed by 4.00pm on the 21st April 2008, the claim will be deemed to have settled and struck out automatically. 3. Liberty to apply. 4. This order has been made without a hearing under Rule3.3 and any party affected by it may apply to have it set aside varied or stayed. Such a party must apply within 14 days of service of this order.

Hi all, (actually remaining positive so ) Well I'm going to submit form N244 on Monday to apply to remove the stay. This is an early draft version of sectionC: and I would appreciate any comments: (Im not very good at legal 'chatter') Claim Number: bla bla In the Portsmouth County Court Between: Innocent Claimant -and- LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC Defendant I strongly object and respectfully request that the order of a stay which was ordered by District Judge Jolly on the 17th August 2007 be removed 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 6.1 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 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 the stay, ultimately, 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 6.1 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Overriding Objective The Overriding Objective requires that my case be 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 the 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 the stay may potentially mean great difficulty for myself, the claimant, 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 Claimant would like to highlight how far advanced the case in question is, and highlight how the Defendant has still not complied with the last directions order, ordered by District Judge Manuel on the 13th June 2007 that request the parties agree directions by the 4th July 2007. The defendant, both during and prior to this litigation, has ignored all attempts to narrow the issues in dispute, or otherwise engage in meaningful dialogue which may have facilitated an amicable settlement to these matters. It is submitted that the defendant has attempted to frustrate and delay proceedings continuously which again is supportive of the banks litigation stragedy. The Claimant respectfully requests that special directions be ordered, as previously submitted to the court, and the defendant. The Claimant proposes these directions in mind of the Overriding Objectives, and in particular the duty of the parties to help the court further them. The issues outlined are the crux upon which the claim rests, and the proposed directions identify these issues and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously. 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 the 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 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:

Thanks Guido; sounds advice as usual Disappointing is not the word..... Will keep thread updated with news (hopefully before 1/4/2008) Innocent

Hi all Well still waiting with baited breath so I rang the courts AGAIN today: Apparently my case went 'upstairs' on the 3rd and there are some directions (not that they have been typed up yet!!!) Basically Im allocated to SMALL CLAIMS TRACK BUT STAYED UNTIL 1/4/2008 pending high court case; if after this date the court does not hear anything within 21 days it will be assumed the case is settled bla bla I have 14 days from the date of this order (NOT RECEIVED YET because its not typed up) to appeal against this decision.... "Gutted!"; case been going on for 5 months... "oh well.... pick myself up and start preparing a letter to the court to appeal against the decision eh???" Advise all Innocent

Hi all Well I have been waiting with 'baited breath' ever since the stay ended on the 4th July.... I phoned Portsmouth court on the 19th July, and the court said the case was just about to be returned "upstairs"...... then the high court announcement...... and I phoned the Portsmouth court this afternoon, 2nd August. Apparently (and I took the name of the court helper) someone has forgotten to put a 'trigger' on my case after the stay ended, which he had then just done... He said, "We have had many cases now stayed pending the result of the high court case. However, this doesn't seem to apply to them all, depending on how far the case has already gone. All I can do is put the trigger back on now, and make sure the case goes upstairs and see what happens" Oh well? I forsee another phone call to the courts in a fortnight.... Yours anticipating Innocent

Barclays announced their results today and also announced that they put aside a large amount for repayments of overdraft penalties (£87million?) Seems that that do think we will all win "eventually" Innocent

BIG CONGRATULATIONS!!!!! ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC NEWS..... & WELL DONE :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: to both of you..... 'pen and elsinore' "what a team" Innocent

BIG CONGRATULATIONS!!!!! ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC NEWS..... & WELL DONE!!!!! :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: Everyone seems to be winning by default..... incl me? Um not yet... Reminds me must phone the court tomorrow to get some news (of the next delay lolol) Enjoy ur win Innocent

Hi Please see: Contractual Interest - precedent lost Ok...... if it goes to court you will win only the charges, plus overdraft interest +8% and potentially IMHO I would continue if you have not been offered this too date........ IFFFFF you have been offered all of the above then IMHO you have some serious thinking to have to decide..... I have an ongoing Lloyds case where I am asking for CI and hope to win via default because Lloyds are making so many delaying mistakes and tactics People have won large sums of money with CI but this was before the precedent was set above Money has been short and I have not continued this monument claim at the moment but will resume this shortly....... I too have some serious thinking to do with regards to whether this is a CI claim Innocent

CONGRATULATIONS & A HUGE WELL DONE!!!! Innocent :-D :-D