Bad news about Hardship case

[jansus]

I understand there has been a recent case about hardship in Torquay - apparently a stay was lifted and a hearing scheduled.

 

It was apparently a definite hardship case - but despite the fact that the banks solicitors filed a skeleton argument at the last minute the stay was re-imposed. The judge also indicated that the reason was that the case stood no chance of succeeding.

 

The claimant is now trying the FOS route - and also trying to get publicity for the case as the solicitor allegedly tried to ban the local press.

 

The questions that this throws up are - are the courts the right place to consider these cases - or should the FOS be the correct route?

 

How do you define "hardship"?

 

Has the hardship got to be caused by the charges ? Or if the claimant is just in a severe financial position is this an adequate argument?

 

This is a case not on this web-site by the way.

 

Jan

[jansus]

HERE IS THE NEWS REPORT FROM DEVON

CLAIRE TO FIGHT ON IN BANK CHARGES ROW

3 readers have commented on this story. Click here to read their views.

11:00 - 02 November 2007

A paignton mum has lost the latest round of her David and Goliath court battle with one of the biggest banks in Britain.

 

Claire Gardiner was due to have her case against charges imposed by NatWest heard at Torquay County Court, but a judge ruled that proceedings should be put on hold until a national test case is concluded next year.The 34-year-old from Queen Elizabeth Drive is hoping to reclaim £4,848 in bank charges, plus interest, from NatWest.

 

Her case is one of many thousands across the country in which customers claim the banks imposed unfair charges on them.

 

But the consumer-driven revolt against bank penalty charges has been largely halted because of the test case being brought by the Office of Fair Trading against seven banks and a building society at the High Court in January 2008.

 

Mrs Gardiner, who works part-time as a cleaner, believed her case against NatWest should have been processed early and argued 'severe hardship'.

 

She argued the banks should not have been able to take the money as it was social security benefits paid to her by the Government to help look after her children.

 

And the 'stay' had been lifted for the case to go ahead but NatWest successfully applied to have it reinstated and therefore halted the Torquay proceedings.

 

Judge Bernice Meredith ruled Mrs Gardiner should wait until the test case because the likelihood was that the bank would appeal should she win, and the money would not be handed back to her until the appeal was resolved, if at all.

 

If she did not win, and the Office of Fair Trading case was successful, then Mrs Gardiner would have lost out.

 

Solicitor George McPherson, on behalf of NatWest, told the judge Mrs Gardiner wanted £4,848 bank charges back from the bank plus £838 interest.

 

He said: "There's no reason why the claimant shouldn't wait until after the test case. The bank says she will benefit from the delay.

 

"A stay is in accordance with dealing with the case justly. We say she is not going to suffer any financial hardship."

 

In the hearing, Mrs Gardiner said the only option she was given by the bank to repay her charges and get her out of her overdraft was to take out a loan, which in turn led to more charges.

 

She told the judge: "It's a situation which I find frankly disgraceful. I made a mistake by going over my overdraft limit but what we are arguing is that the price the banks are charging is not relevant to the actual cost to the bank.

 

"If you are on a low income then that initial small charge snowballs. A large proportion of what I'm claiming has been taken out of benefits money and the Office of Fair Trading test case isn't going to address that issue."

 

Judge Meredith said: "It's not going to avail the claimant of anything if the case goes ahead. In general terms it's more to her advantage for the case to wait until the outcome of the Office of Fair Trading test case.

 

"The hardship argument doesn't work because it's pre-supposing you're going to win."

 

Mrs Gardiner, who acted as a 'litigant in person' by representing herself, was praised for preparing her case well and thoroughly.

 

But Judge Meredith said the claim should have been made on the grounds of her benefits being unfairly taken from her account, which she felt wasn't clear enough in the legal documents.

 

After the preliminary hearing, Mrs Gardiner declared: "I'm not beaten yet. I'm going to amend the particulars of my claim then take the whole situation to the Financial Ombudsman Service."

 

She hopes the ombudsman will uphold her case as one of 'genuine hardship', which are meant to be exempt from the waiver granted by the Financial Services Authority to banks until the test case is resolved. She claims to be such a case because her husband Mark broke his ankle in February and subsequently lost his job

[angnnig]

I hope she has more luck than me with the FOS.Iv,e asked them to look at my hardship case and the taking of my benefits for my children and the FOS have told me that the bank is under no obligation to pay me my charges back and that i should wait until the outcome of the test case.So i am now forced into going to court. regards angnnig

[indebtstudent]

This hardship is poorly defined, if you are in any kind of money trouble how could hundreds of £££'s worth of charges do anything other than place you in hardship.

 

The claimant doesn't assume she will win she is just pointing how blatantly absurd it is to allow the charges to pile up when she has no hopes of clearing them, and no way of challenging. Another day in rip off britain ticks by.

[jansus]

You need to read the new conditions of the waiver .

 

I know of at least three or four cases that have had their charges partially refunded because of hardship in the last two or three months.

 

Not a lot but some are better than none.

[angnnig]

Thanks jansus will read up on that it might help me with taking my bank to court.

[angnnig]

Hi Jansus,just tried to find the "new conditions of the waiver" not having much luck ,could you point me in the right direction ,thanks.regards angnnig

[Trilby274]

This link may be useful

Bank Charges Reclaiming News: Result in the High Court test case!...

It is the Martin Lewis contribution and gives a lot of details about the case including the hardship waiver

Edited November 8, 2008 by Trilby274
incomplete