Transfer from Edmonton County Court to Central London Court

[Spurs9]

We are looking for some advice please.

 

We have today received a General Form of Judgement or Order from the Edmonton County Court stating:

 

"Upon the Courts own motion. The court has made this order of its own initiative without a hearing. If you object to the order, you must make an application to have it set aside varied or stayed within 7 days of receiving it.

IT IS ORDERED - This case be transferred to

Central london County Court....

for consideration of His Honour Judge Collins CBE"

 

The last we knew was that this matter was stayed due to the test case.

Now all of a sudden we receive a letter instructing us that the case has been trasferred. It seems quite out of the blue and a bit of a surprise. The case is for £11k+.

 

Any thoughts? Should we apply to have it set aside varied or stayed or shall we just accept this and wait for the "Test Case" result?

 

Regards,

 

Spurs.

[photoman]

Spurs

 

I suggest you send a PM to one of the Mods who ar interested in building up a general picture of which courts are staying claims and why. I would suggest someone like Zootscoot, or GaryH who are quite involved in this and knows a great deal on the matter.

 

For my own tuppence worth.

I gather that courts like Edmonton are routinely staying Small claims Track cases whilst awaiting the outcome of the OFT case. It is likely that your case has been transferred for consideration of judge Collins to determine whether or not it should be allocated to another track such as Fast or Multi.

This is most likely because of the size of your claim, but could be because of other factors such as the complexity of the case etc. If it does get allocated to another track, then even then it could still be stayed. Central London courts are assessing each case on an individual basis, and then deciding.

If your case is to be allocated to a track other than SCT (Small Claims Track) then this carries some advantages and some disadvantages:

On the plus side, unlike SCT, then the Fast and Multi track cases require "disclosure'. This basically means that the Bank will have to provide (disclose) all relevant evidence pre-trial of how the charges have been determined and what they comprise of. This is something they have vigorously avoided doing so far, as they know they are unjustifiable, and releasing such evidence would prove that they are penalties and thus unlawful. This would condemn them and they would almost certainly lose. It would also set a precedent that would mean all cases following it could call upon it and win instantly. The prospect of this happening is something that the banks have taken great pains to avoid.

On the negative side, unlike SCT, you are not protected from having to pay the other sides costs should you lose, which would be considerable.

 

What is likely to happen next if you do nothing is this. The judge will look at your case and allocate a track and a date. Then dependant upon the points raised in your POC the court will decide if it is appropriate to also stay the case. This really depends upon whether or not you have pleaded anything with regards the UTCCR99 in your POC, and to what extent the court thinks this would be affected by the outcome of the OFT case. This is because the OFT case is based soley upon the whether the terms of your contract with the bank are covered by the UTCCR99.

 

If the case is stayed, then once the outcome of the OFT case is decided your case will resume.

 

If the case is not stayed, then you will get a court date. Which may or may not be before the outcome of the OFT case.

 

Dependant on which of the above happens, and the timing of your case, it will then be determined to what extent the OFT case affects your own. Based upon the CAG approach I presume you have not based your case soley uon the UTCCR99, and have included arguments regards common law principles etc?

In which case, even if the OFT lose the case, then you can still plead the common law grounds.

In either case it presently appears likely that you will get allocated to a track other than SCT, so you would have the opportunity to call for disclosure (the court may even call for it themselves). So, you will then be able to proceed and should fight your case based upon the common law principles. These principles have been set for over a century, and coupled with the facts that the disclosure would produce you are almost certain to win.

 

What I suggest you do, is PM some of the mods, as I say Zootscoot or GaryH are probably a good start, and let them see your POC. They will then advise you as to the pluses and minuses of whether to and how to respond to the letter you have just recieved.

 

It it were myself;

I would wait and see what the outcome of the referral is.

If it gets allocated to Fast or Multi and without a stay, then I would think the Bank would quite soon start to negotiate with you to get a pre trial settlement to avoid disclosure.

If it remains in SCT then you've nothing to lose and may still get an offer.

If it gets allocated to Fast or Multi and also stayed, you may still get an offer, and will then have time to consider your position dependant upon the OFT case (ie; if you think the OFT case could adversely affect your case once it resumes then you could negotiate or withdraw your case).

 

Regards

 

PM

[Spurs9]

Many thanks indeed Photoman for your comprehensive response.

I will PM one of the mods as suggested.

Will keep all updated.

[hevbut]

Hi Spurs my claim was transferred from my local court in Merseyside to London civil justice centre back in may and i have been waiting since then so get some kind of response from them, my claim is for 10k so similar to yours. Finally after many phone calls to them over the last 5 months i have been told the claim is being stayed until after the test case, so frustrating considering that they have had it since may, anyway good luck and hope you dont wait as long as me

[Castlebest]

I think from now until the start of the test case everything will be stayed because if a case did go to hearing the judgment even if it didn't set precedence could set, a "template" for other cases to follow which would have to be argued and disproved in subsequent cases... even the test case.

 

pete

[Spurs9]

An update....we have just received a "Notice of Hearing" wording as follows:

 

TAKE NOTICE that the Hearing will take place on

.. January 2008 at ..:..PM

at Central London County Court, Civil Justice Centre, 26 Park Crescent, London W1N 1HT

When you should attend

1 HOUR has been allowed for the Hearing

 

Please Note: This case may be released to another Judge, possibly at a different Court.

 

 

This Notice does not give anymore information and as a result we are a bit flummoxed as to what the exact purposes of this "Hearing" is. Presumably it is a directions hearing-but the case had already been "stayed" by Edmonton County Court (ECC)??!!??

We rang Central London County Court (CLCC) who advised that they still await the paperwork from (ECC) and therefore could not tell us the reason for this hearing.

We are claiming contractual interest+charges incurred over 6 six years ago.

We will leave it a few days and ring CLCC again and hopefully they would have received the paperwork. Seems strange that a Notice of Hearing could be issued without the case file having being transferred (altough we were told over a month ago that this case was being transferred to CLCC) - see General Form of Judgement or Order issued by ECC during mid-Oct 2007 as detailed in 1st post.

 

Not sure what is going on here and would dearly appreciate your thoughts/comments/advice.

 

Possibly a good time to nudge SCM, or leave things as is?

 

Thanks,

 

Spurs

[Spurs9]

"Bump"

[elsinore]

Hi Spurs9.

 

This might just be the London Courts spreading the load, perhaps influenced by the value of your claim.

 

Did you omit the day and time from the order for security?

 

I don’t think there is anything else you can do (or need to do) at this stage, except to contact the court again for clarification. The claim will remain stayed and will only be allocated to a track/court when the stay is lifted.

 

Els

[Spurs9]

Hi Els,

Thanks for your message.

Yep, I am being a bit paranoid in omitting the date and time.

I guess you're right and will therefore leave it for a few days, then contact the court again for clarification.

 

Regards,

 

Spurs9

[TUTTSI]

Hi Spurs9

 

My lift of stay case on hardship grounds originally at Barnet CC has also been transferred to Judge Collins and I am also awaiting a date. I understand this is to be a block hearing.

 

DS

[Spurs9]

Hello DS,

Very interesting!!...a block hearing?? the plot thickens!...but what exactly is the reason for the "block hearing"?

 

We also opposed the stay (at Edmonton CC),but not on hardship grounds as you did, but on the other grounds as per the helpful advice on this site.

 

Then we were advised that the stay had been granted...then the case was transferred to Central London CC...then an allocated date for a hearing...we are still unclear as to the reason for our hearing and will speak to the court in the next few days in an attempt to obtain some clarification.

 

Regards,

 

Spurs9

[TUTTSI]

Hi Spurs9

 

All I know is I turned up at court for my hearing to lift the stay and DJ said that she had received a directive from Judge Collins in Central London CC that all bank charge claims cases were to be referred to him for bulk hearings.

 

Also, when we came out of the court room, the Abbey barrister handed to me a judgement of four cases that were heard in Canterbury back in August I believe also by a Civil Judge and this Judge referred in this Judgement to Judge Collins being a senior Judge.

 

Let me know when you find out exactly what you hearing is about and when you receive your hearing date. I bet we will have the same date.

 

Also, I know that with the other cases Abbey and the other banks all had barristers representing them. The Canterbury four (cases) did not stand a chance.

 

Also, I read in the Canterbury judgements that it was the banks who have put pressure on the courts to request these bulk hearings.

 

It was also just before my hearing when the Abbey barrister went through in the direction of the DJ chambers and I have a sneaky suspician that he already knew what was going to happen well before I did.

 

I also believe that Edmonton, Willesden and Barnet are on the same circuit for DJ's.

 

If you hear of any other cases let me know.

 

I have to ask do you support SPURS.... I grew up in Edmonton and that was my team.

 

DS

[Spurs9]

Hi DS and everyone else,

Yes I do support Spurs...always have...always will...

good result today vs Man City.

Anyway, we are still trying to obtain a definitive reason for the hearing. I will post once we get this confirmed. However, the hearing is listed for 4th January 2008 at 2:00pm...Does this confirm the "bulk hearing" theory?

 

Any thoughts/comments? We really want to attend fully prepared hence the need to ascertain the exact reason for the hearing.

 

I will post again once I hear further from Central London Civil Justice Centre.

 

Best regards to all,

 

S9

[TUTTSI]

Hi Spurs9

I see you already have your date for a hearing on 4th January 2008, I have not heard yet!!

 

It was unfortunate I was not able to watch the match yesterday but understood it was a great result for Spurs. Although I am a Spurs fan and have been for many many years, with my job I work I meet Footballers and had met Mikah Richards recently, he plays for Man City.

 

DS

[Spurs9]

Dear All,

We have today received from SC&M a "skeleton argument on behalf of the defendant" which basically requests a stay until the resolution of the proceedings commenced by the OFT.

 

In all probability it seems that a stay will in fact be granted during this upcoming hearing. What is annoying is that we will have to arrange time off work to attend the hearing, only to be told that the matter will be stayed.

 

Edmonton CC had already stayed the matter anyway??!!??

 

Further, despite numerous calls to the Central London CC, we have been unable to ascertain the exact reason for the hearing and hence, we do not have the foggiest idea, as to:

a)how to properly prepare;

b)what documentation we ought to provide.

 

Any ideas/thoughts/advice?

 

Cheers,

S9

[TUTTSI]

Hi Spurs9,

Have you sent a PM to one of the Moderators for some help! Zoot scoot is normally very good and I am sure she will advise.

 

DS

[photoman]

Spurs

It does indeed sound like it is a hearing to just decide whether or not a stay is appropriate or not.

The fact it is a bulk hearing with only an hour allocated to your case makes this sound likely.

However, your right to be cautious. There have been several cases where a claimant has turned up expecting the hearing to be about 1 issue, and it turns out to be about another, or about several.

As your claim also includes charges pre 6 years, at the same time, the defendant may also ask that your claim just be time barred.

So you should also be prepared to present your arguments, reasonings and case law to prevent this happening.

 

Keep in touch with the courts, and try your best to narrow down what aspects of the claim the hearing is about. If you cannot get this info, then I'm afraid your going to have to prepare for every eventuality, and compile a full bundle to deal with such.

 

PM

[Spurs9]

Thanks PM and DS for your advice. I am NOT 100% sure that it is indeed a "bulk" hearing. I think someone suggested in earlier posts that it could be the case.

My fiancee now recalls a telephone conversation (earlier this week) with an admin gentleman at Central London CC who advised that the file is still with the judge.

Another phone call later a few days later and a different admin chap at the same court then advised that according to their computer records the hearing is a "directions hearing".

 

So it seems like we need to prepare for a "directions" hearing, bearing in mind our case is for just over £11k & involves charges pre 6yrs??

Advice please?

Please point us in the right direction re: "directions" hearing preparations.

To err on the side of caution i guess we really ought to prepare the court bundle?

 

But if it is likely that the judge will just "stay" the case then it seems a ridiculous waste of everybody's time turning up only to be told that the matter is to be "stayed"

 

Thanks to all again.

S9

[GuidoT]

All of the above is a bit confusing but this should help either way:

Prelim or Main Hearing Instructions

 

I agree that it is likely the 4th will be a waste on time and the matter will continue to be stayed. Central London CC are administratively one of the worst courts.