court ordered claim cancelled

[Seminole]

Did she say who was bringing the test case?

[Seminole]

If this is correct then one has to wonder who is bringing the test case. A quick look on the court service website shows that Mercantile court cases are automatically assigned to the multi-track.

 

Presumably if cases are to be stayed that must also apply to any case being brought by a bank in which it is seeking to recover monies from someone which include potentially unlawful charges.

[Seminole]

Would this mean there is now an order for all cases involving penalty charges to be stayed until the test case has been heard and a ruling made ? or would this be a coincidence that these two judges are of the opinion there is a test case due ?

 

I know its too early to say, but would we possibly be looking at holding off on filing claims for the moment ?

 

No, I don't think it works like that. We should be able to start to clarify things in the morning.

[Seminole]

If there is any underlying move to stay claims, it puzzles me why it didn't happen when Stephen brought his "wunch" claim. One might be a little suspicious that that wasn't the sort of claim that the powers that be wanted to go forward as a test case.

 

I've seen test cases used (on a much smaller scale) with tame litigants to examine a point of law. Who wants to bet that the disclosure in any test case here wouldn't cover the sort of ground that we might want it to cover?

[Seminole]

But if its a test case.. surely they should allow some publicity to ensure a fair representation....

 

Sorry, I've joined in the speculation over something that we know very little about and may not amount to much anyway. Even if it does, it's by no means the end of the story,

[Seminole]

I suppose that the other aspect of this matter is that if the cases are being stayed because the legality of these charges is in doubt, then the banks should volutarily refrain from levying any further charges pending the outcome of the case. Yeah, right.

[Seminole]

Before everyone gets too excited about this please remember that we are talking about a "likely" rather than an actual test case. We have no idea what this is based on and, as BF says, it sounds very improbable that any direction has come down from on high.

[Seminole]

Jifjaf has been presented with a real conundrum. Does he argue against the set

aside or accept it? Before he can make a reasoned judgement, he really needs to

get more information from the Court.

 

When is the case? how long will it last? Could there be interminable appeals? What

is the case about? who is bringing it? why is it being held in that Court? How will

the decision affect my case? What if I want my hearing in August anyway, could

the decision in the higher Court later affect my result? If I want to set aside,

can the bank stall and stall until the other case is heard?

 

And once you get answers to those questions, it mat be that a whole raft of other

questions will arise.

 

You do need to find out as much as you can from the Court. At least one bank must know what is happening, and possibly all of them now know, in which case

it is equitable that you are furnished with the relevant details prior to making

your decision.

 

The actual wording of some the stay by the Court is quite vague and there is a

possibility that if it is a large claim against a bank, they still might decide not to

contest it. On the other hand this could be where the banks take a stand and

fight their corner. Hopefully the person they are up against is well equipped to

handle it. Though if the banks are taking a stand, it probably means they have

chosen their victim carefully.

 

Good liuck with your decision.

 

Bear in mind that such a case would be brought at the behest of a bank or several banks. They've had plenty of opportunities to defend claims over the past few months but have declined to do so. It's very unlikely, in my view, that such a case would be a genuine claim by a member of the public. I would be surprised if the banks are going to allow a point of law to be tested in such a way that it exposes them to serious risk, and they would certainly be seeking to avoid disclosure.

 

I suspect that the best we can hope for is that it is some sort of consumer group that is bringing this case (has anyone asked Which?).

[Seminole]

This is all very worrying. I am supposed to be filing today on MCOL.

Has anyone else had their case put on stay?

 

Absolutely none that I have heard of. For the time being this seems to be an isolated incident and there is no reason to delay submission of other claims.

[Seminole]

Where did Maverick post this?

[Seminole]

Interesting chap...

 

A good judge of character - 21 June 2004

[Seminole]

Which court was the case being dealt with by?

[Seminole]

Is the wording of the stay the same as the other ones?

[Seminole]

" The claim is stayed pending the determination of the Elliot v Lloyds TSB 6UB01701 currently pending in the London Mercantile Court, in which similar or the same issues appear to arise."

 

Seminole; any idea re; does it affect me if my claim seem to be already settled or can the settlement be voided following this order?

 

I'm afraid that I don't know the answer to that but hopefully we will be able to advise.

[Seminole]

So had you submitted an allocation questionnaire already? Had you been given a court date?

[Seminole]

If it's the latter then all hell will break loose, believe me.

[Seminole]

It's a real shame the test case isn't someone from this forum. I hope this Elliot has a good understanding of what's going on or has people that do know helping him/her!

 

We really need to find out who it is, and Dave, BF and the rest can help prepare a case that should it go all the way will leave the banks crying into their £50 notes.

 

We're trying to do this.

[Seminole]

Joa, please could you tell us your claim number either here or by pm.

 

Thanks

[Seminole]

OK. We've tried calling Uxbridge County Court and also the Mercantile Court. Uxbridge confirmed that the case had been transferred to the London Mercantile Court and that Elliot did not have a solcitor. The Mercantile Court curiously doesn't seem to have any record of the case but I expect that this is just an oversight. Unfortunately we've not been able to get any more information yet but we'll rethink our strategy and have another go next week.

 

Please don't all start ringing the courts and asking the same questions!

[Seminole]

At this stage, we have no way of knowing. That is why we are urgently trying to contact Elliot.

 

It is worth stressing, once again, that there is no general stay on claims and that whilst three have been stayed, dozens if not hundreds have not. Moreover, each of the thress stays is being vigorously challenged.

[Seminole]

Just to reiterate this point:

 

There is no reason for anyone to delay putting in a claim.

[Seminole]

And to add to the reassurance, there is a *lot* going on behind the scenes and we will have full contact details for Elliot and details of his claim within the next 24 hours.

[Seminole]

This could be a daft question but should I carry on with my claims.

I am just at the stage of filling in spreadsheats?

 

There is absolutely no reason for you to stop.