Leeds Mercantile Case mgmt conf - 12 December 2007

[oidhche]

If it helps, here is what I have just written and am trying to learn (without wanting to sound like it's too rehearsed tomorrow):

 

I do not agree with the defendant’s request for a stay since the Overriding Objective requires that my case is dealt with in a way that is proportionate to the amount of money involved, the importance of the case, the complexity of the case and the financial position of each party. It also requires that my case is dealt with expeditiously and fairly. To grant a stay would prevent me from recovering my money, but would not prevent the defendant from levying its charges or interest on debt comprised of those charges. The order of the court would therefore have the effect of favouring a powerful and well-resourced institution over an individual claimant.

 

I propose the direction that my case is re-allocated to the Small Claims track. The sum of money involved – £2272.11 plus costs – is trivial to the defendant but is a significant amount to myself. I am also concerned that should this case be prolonged for any period in the Multi-Track the cost to myself will increase considerably and disproportionately to both the cost to the defendant and the complexity of the case. There is no complicated issue of law with this case, since the common law relating to contractual penalties is settled law since the late 19th century and has been reinforced as recently as the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The Small Claims track is the most just and fair way of handling this case based on the principles of the Overriding Objective.

 

The details of my claim are based not only on the fairness or otherwise of the charges applied by the defendant to my account, but also on the lack of uniformity and logic with which these charges have been applied. I submit that the value of these charges has been decided arbitrarily and without consideration to the actual effort required by the defendant, or to the defendant’s own terms and conditions.

 

I also have a sample list of 142 cases brought against the defendant complete with County Court reference numbers of which I am aware and which have been started since February 2006. All of these cases have been settled by the defendant before hearing. It is submitted that the pattern of cases settled so far suggests very strongly that the banks are merely using the judicial system as a publicly funded means of intimidating their customers and dissuading them from pursuing their legal right. It is submitted that this is abusive of the judicial system and the public resource.

 

I also propose a direction that the hearing for this case is scheduled for the earliest date possible after 1 March 2008. The outcome of the OFT test case, for which the hearing is scheduled for 14 January 2008, will be known by this time.

[syds mum]

hi oidhche... try this link

claim details post OFT

its has all post OFT cases that have been settled....it was started of the back of my claim cos i needed cases settled after test case was annouced and we couldnt sort em all out from all the settled cases listed... thought it may be useful love good luck tommoz...

 

debbie xx

[syds mum]

link wont work love..will try again...

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/114301-claim-details-post-oft.html[/url]

 

if it dont work again try looking on my thread

hsbc bank charges **WON in COURT post-OFT!!!**

page 11 post 208.... sorry but i cant get any links to work....

 

debbie xx

[oidhche]

That's brilliant - thank you!! I was just giving up wading through all the success stories and was about to go to bed, I'm glad I didn't now!

[syds mum]

no probs love... good luck for tommoz... let us know how you get on!!!

 

debbie xx

[syds mum]

hi love hope all goes well today... let us know as soon as you can so we can get moving on your fight in small claims... cos i am sure it will get reallocated to small claims!!! everything crossed love!!!

 

debbie xx

[syds mum]

hi oidhche... how did it go then love???

 

debbie xx

[oidhche]

Hiya - well, it didn't go as badly as it could have but also not as well as I'd have wanted! The judge had made his mind up about what was going to happen before the hearing even started - ours was the third in Leeds court relating to banks' applications for stays, so we had those two precedences to overcome which was practically impossible. The judge has ordered a stay pending first instance (i.e. as soon as the first result of the OFT test case is known the stay is lifted and banks will have to re-apply if they want them continued), with the condition that the banks cannot enforce or recover any debts from customers that are related to bank charges being claimed. They can continue normal operation of accounts with the exception of the first condition, though.

 

It was quite good though - he let everyone who wanted to have their say, and for some unknown reason I stood up and said something about the Overriding Objective and asked for an adjournment to a fixed date rather than a stay. The judge said something but I can't remember entirely what he said, I was so nervous I was focussed on stopping my legs shaking!

 

I'm glad I had prepared thoroughly, though, as I understood all that the (very young and shiny) lawyer speaking on behalf of the banks said. And it was good meeting other forum people there - Mike969 and a lady on the Barclays thread, although I'm sure others there must have been on the forum as there were probably around 65-70 people in the court room (out of 133 - most of whom didn't show up because they either didn't oppose the stay or had settled).

 

Thank you to everyone who has helped with advice, now I guess we just need to sit back and wait until January to see what happens next...

[Castlebest]

Well done oidhche for having a go, at least you know how a court works now

 

pete

[zootscoot]

Good for you for turning up but unfortunately the odds were stacked against you. Hopefully the new year will bring some good news