court ordered claim cancelled

[elsinore]

One swallow doesn't make a summer.

 

Until there is evidence that such a move is going to be widespread we should continue as before.

 

However, if it does prove to be a widespread initiative, will the banks enter defences to all claims in the belief that cases will be stayed?

 

Will a bank want to risk a judge not ordering a stay and thus be required to defend?

 

If pre-court settlements dry up can we take it that the banks know something that we don't?

 

Elsinore

[rbrears]

It may not be a problem for the banks - I don't think there will be a risk that a district judge might not order a stay. If there is a test case in the High Court there may well be an order from that court that all such claims in the county court are stayed - then they will all be put on hold as a matter of procedure - district judges will have no discretion in the matter.

[clayts]

If the small claims court works in the same way as Employment Tribunals, then I believe the court will be able to issue a stay of its own motion - ie the claim is served, maybe with a covering letter advising parties that the case is stayed pending the outcome of the test case, and thus no requirement to enter a defence or settle claims.

 

Anyway, let us not get ahead of ourselves...8-)

[clayts]

Sleep is for wimps :grin:

[elsinore]

Yes, absolutely true, rbrears, in which case we'll know sooner rather than later

 

Elsinore

[MARTIN3030]

But they would not need to defend if stays were ordered on all cases.

Besides as been said they have not settled that many before the actual court papers are in their hands.

 

Just have to wait for more info..........and there wont be much of that coming at 2.25 in the morning !!!

 

 

Just had a quick look on the other sites and nothing there.........looks like an exclusive for CAG again but one most of us were not wanting to see.

[Guest Zooman]

May I also point out just because a case may be listed with the Mercantile Court.

 

#1) the defendant wins.

#2) the claimant wins.

#3) the defendant settles out of court.

#4) the claimant withdraws the claim /and has to pay costs.

 

If I am not mistaken Mercantile Court is not cheep and IMO will result in #4 and maybe #3 if the case was passed over to the Mercantile Court by the County Court. Is this not just a good example why you should not keep you claim under £5k. I personaly belive that if what has been written here is true, that what we will see is the effective end of claims of over £5k.

[Hedgehog]

Are we sure this guy isn't a mole from the banks trying to scare us all off? I suppose only court letters in the next few days will tell that?

[clayts]

With a contested multi-track trial and possible appeals a test case could take years

 

Sadly, this is true. I have been involved in the administering of over 60,000 claims in the Employment Tribunal (backdated access to pension scheme for part time workers). Started in 1995.....still going after countless referrals to Court of Appeal, House of Lords, European Court of Justice. All hinged on a few very specific points of law, and this is what causes the delay, I'm afraid.

 

Not that I'm saying it'll take that long, of course (he says with 'glass half full' head on)

 

Anyway, we'll let Bankfodder read, inwardly digest, sigh and then mutter incoherently under his breath first before we all do a Corporal Jones....

[clayts]

Are we sure this guy isn't a mole from the banks trying to scare us all off? I suppose only court letters in the next few days will tell that?

I somehow doubt the person is a mole, given the comments by pauli.

[Guest Zooman]

No one without the funding is going to take this to the Court of Appeal never mind the House of Lords. Court is costly and most can not afford to appeal and appeal again and no silk will take on a brief is they do not believe the money is ready to pay them or they can win easily. IMO again someone felt lucky and claimed 20k a defence was lodged then a Judge (of his/her own back) has sent is to the Mercantile Courts and one of the two parties will drop out. And that is if it is true.

[clayts]

Spot on Zooman - without the facts, it's fairly pointless speculating at so early a stage.

 

Proof will be in the pudding over the next few days I suppose, as new claims are lodged.

[BankFodder]

Well it is a bit of a mystery. At first I wondered whether perhaps the OFT hadn't started an action but then I realised that this was hardly possible in the mercantile court which is really a specialist County Court.

 

I suppose that the most likely thing is -- as has been already suggested here -- that someone has started a large claim which has been put immediately onto the multitrack and transferred to the mercantile court. Of course it does mean that there will be standard disclosure and this would bring the whole story to an end one way or another.

 

In the meantime of course there are other issues. Seminole pointed out that this should mean that if you are being sued by your bank and that there is an element of charges involved, that you should be able to apply for a stay on exactly the same basis.

Of course in the meantime the banks will keep on charging and in many cases extreme hardship will continue, accounts will be closed, people will be defaulted, people will continue being unable to apply for credit of mortgages. Having a sort of open ended stay in this way has a pragmatic basis which of course is fully understandable but on the other hand it is quite offensive to the issue of citizens rights.

 

 

If there is a large claim going through at the moment, then as Zooman has pointed out, there is no guarantee that it will continue through the courts and the case will actually be heard. All our experience shows that the bank will settle rather than disclose the information which we are all looking for. What happens then?

 

If this does turn out to be another damp squib up then I don't think that the courts could ever impose another stay again in this way. However suspending hundreds of actions simply to have the bank called out at the last moment would, I think, oblige the OFT to step in and to settle the matter once and for all.

 

I suppose that we will have to wait and see if there are any more stays.

It is possible to challenge the stay of course if you want. I think that the application would cost you £35 but if you lost then you would lose your £35.

Also I agree with Rbrears that if there are orders from on high then it will not be possible to challenge any stay. It is a great shame that they are not fully open with this information

 

As far as your court fee is concerned I think that you would have to talk to the court about having it returned to you. As the state has been made on the court's own initiative, they may allow you to withdraw your claim without any disadvantage to you.

 

 

For the moment I think that people should continue lodging their claims. It really is all too vague and there is no other incident of this happening so far. In particular if you are going to be time-barred because some of your claims go back to the six-year limit then you must put in your claim now whatever happens. Once the claim is issued then you have secured your six year period

[BankFodder]

Just to add, that it is very encouraging to see that the judge has actually given liberty to apply to set aside the stay. This does indicate very strongly that it really is on his own initiative and that he is not following orders from on high.

I would recommend that the stay be challenged. There are lots of good arguments

[jifjaf]

Thanks for all the advice so far

 

here are a few more details,

i used the template from bankchargeshell.co.uk changing it to suit and then putting in my details(credit card version).

case number 6GL01287 croker vs Clydesdale Financial Services

 

 

i will apply to remove the stay, if i know what to put as my arguement

 

regards

 

phil

[BankFodder]

I have just sent you a PM about this.

[BankFodder]

Another good reason for starting claims even though they might be stayed is that if there is a test case and the banks start making refunds without court action is being started then it is likely that no interest will be paid.

 

 

However if you start a claim now and include your section 69 claim for interest, then the interest will keep on mounting up until the date that the matter is settled or that a judgment in your case is actually given.

 

 

I would also say now that more than ever there is a case to include the contractual rate of interest rather than the section 69 rate of interest. However in order to hedge, I would say that the contractual rate of interest and the statutory rate of interest should each be claimed in the alternative: --

• • Claim total charges
    
  • Allege implied term that the bank must pay to you the same rate of interest which they reserve themselves (the contractual rate)
    
  • Calculate total of contractual rate of interest
    
  • " Alternatively if the court finds that there is no implied term as to a contractual rate of interest as alleged above, then the claimant seeks interest pursuant to section 69 County Court Act 1984... blah blah blah."

[gordonhall]

Has anyone contacted Northampton to see if they are still accepting claims this morning?

[Guest Alison82]

How long could a stay last?

[gordonhall]

Until the final outcome occurs in teh higher court I would expect

[Guest Alison82]

Are we talking more or less than 6 months?

[Guest Alison82]

Ok, I'm jumping ahead a bit; It's just that I have included the removal of a default entry in my claim and I dont want to have to wait months (or even a year0 for it to be removed.

 

What excatly is a test case? (i know by the name but..) how do they doing about finding one?

[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.

[lee6370]

Jifjaf has stated that he/she intends to appeal against the stay, so at least until his/her appeal has been heard then it's business as usual.

[Guest Alison82]

Ok business as usual