Stays - what did Master of Rolls say?

[Docman]

I have a disputed credit card case coming up in a couple of weeks where the bank's solicitors have added my overdraft to the claim to bring total claim just above Small Claims limit, even though overdraft was NOT in default (surely not to charge costs, hah hah!).

 

When I checked statements, all 'overdraft' due to penalty charges. I counterclaimed for unlawful charges but Bank then got a stay claiming the OFT test case. I have applied to challenge on grounds that this is a credit card claim but I understand my local court is automatically staying everything the banks put before them.

 

I believe the Master of the Rolls stated somewhere that there could not be an automatic stay but it was up to individual courts to decide what to do. Does anyone know where I can find what the MR actually said, so I can use his words?

[maroondevo52]

Hi, Docman.

 

Just found this........

 

 

Freedom of Information: Right to know request

 

Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), for the following information:

"… a copy of FSA's letter of 26 July to The Master of the Rolls recommending that claims be stayed."

 

Following a search of our paper and electronic records I am writing to tell you that we do not hold the information you are seeking. The FSA has never written to the Master of Rolls recommending that claims be stayed.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Roisin Traynor

Information Access Team

Financial Services Authority

 

 

Interesting, not sure if it helps you much.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

[Stoked]

It wasn't the Master of the Rolls but the Deputy Head of Civil Justice - The Right Hon Justice Moore-Bick. This is his response to colleague who wrote to him on the subject.

 

 

 

15 Nov 2007

 

Dear Sir

 

Bank penalty charges - credit card accounts

 

I am afraid your understanding is not entirely correct. Following the commencement of procceedings by the Office of Fair Trading in the High Court I informed the Designated Civil Judges around the country of the existence of those procceedings and invited them and the judges in their areas to consider whether in any particular case it would be sensible in the interests of justice to stay further procceedings until an authoritive decision had been made. As I made clear at the time. however, it is for the judge in each case to decide what course to take in the light of the issues in the case and the circumstance as a whole.

 

I do not know whether or to what extent any of the credit card cases raises issues which are the same as , or similar to, those which arise in the OFT case and I have not expressed a view one way or another as to whether consideration might usefully be given to imposing a stay in such cases. Again, it is for the judge who deals with each case to decide what course to take in the light of the evidence before the court. However, I imagine that one thing that judges will wish to take into account ia the existence of the OFT procceedongs.

[smutley]

I have a disputed credit card case coming up in a couple of weeks where the bank's solicitors have added my overdraft to the claim to bring total claim just above Small Claims limit, even though overdraft was NOT in default (surely not to charge costs, hah hah!).

 

When I checked statements, all 'overdraft' due to penalty charges. I counterclaimed for unlawful charges but Bank then got a stay claiming the OFT test case. I have applied to challenge on grounds that this is a credit card claim but I understand my local court is automatically staying everything the banks put before them.

 

I believe the Master of the Rolls stated somewhere that there could not be an automatic stay but it was up to individual courts to decide what to do. Does anyone know where I can find what the MR actually said, so I can use his words?

 

After trawlling over back threads, came up with this

Following a request from the OFT and the banks to put a stay on all Bank Charges cases (i.e. to halt them until the test case is finished); the Master of the Rolls decided not to issue an order staying all outstanding cases.

Instead he asked the Deputy Head of Civil Justice to write to all Designated Civil Judges, (which he has done) inviting them to consider staying outstanding claims on a case by case basis as appropriate.

Designated Civil Judges are the senior circuit judge responsible for a group of courts. (S)he may agree arrangements with the district judges sitting at each individual court. Therefore whether as case is stayed or not is a matter for the Judge in the individual case."

[Docman]

Thanks for this and the FSA quote. Do you know where the quote/information on the MRs instruction to the judges comes from? I want to be able to produce some evidence that there is no automatic stay of ALL cases.

[smutley]

~~## Stays info and guidance ##~~ have a read through this information, contains reference to MOR etc., I actually wrote to the MOR and have a reply letter from him, if you want a copy pm me your email address and I will scan in and forward to you.

[maroondevo52]

Hi, Docman.

 

There's a bit here.........

 

Well the FSA finally got around the reviewing the widely derided 'waiver'.

 

Nothing to see here - please move along says the FSA. Lets look at it in a bit more detail:

• An effective stay of proceedings in the courts of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is in place;

- Well Yes but as far as I understand this has nothing to do with the

waiver. The FSA simply wrote to the Master of Rolls who then

wrote to county court judges suggesting that they ignored bank

cases - regardless of the legal conditions contained within. And much

to the delight of the FSA they did.

• The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is likewise staying cases about unauthorised overdraft charges;

Fair enough - The FSA asked the FOS to roll over and play dead -

and they did.

• Firms granted the waiver are complying with its conditions, including the need for clear communications with customers and appropriate handling of financial difficulty cases; and

Err - no. Lloyds changed their charges. Many people will now be worse off as a result. And I can think of no one who has had a case of

financial hardship dealt with since the waiver. And by dealt with I mean a return of money to their account. There is only one way to help someone in financial hardship - give them their stolen money back and stop future charges. Anything else is window dressing. If I'm wrong will

someone please post and prove me wrong (I hope you will).

 

• The continuation of the waiver remains appropriate to assist the test case.

If by appropiate you mean that it allows the banks to be completely

let off the hook while letting the misery of charges continue then YES

great job FSA. Thanks for treating customers fairly!

 

 

"The FSA will be closely monitoring how any change made by a firm will affect customers in practice and whether this amounts to a breach of the waiver."

 

Ahhhhh - this was the purpose of the review. And customers are getting nailed by charges and suffering terribly as a result. Banks are basically doing what they like. What is the point of a review if you just say that you will continue reviewing.. especially when conforonted by so many breaches...........bonker s.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

 

[Docman]

Many thanks Scott,

 

for what's it worth, I think the whole test case is driven by the FSA itself. If the banks had wanted a test case, they could easily have got together with their mouthpiece at the British Bankers Association, picked any one case, agree to fund both sides, and then appealed up to the House of Lords.

 

Instead, up until six months ago, the banks were not defending cases but paying out 'as a gesture of gooodwill' or because it was the better option commercially. That argument stood whilst we all thought the banks collectively may have shelled out 20 or 30 million. But with HSBC publishing its interim results last July showing it alone had shelled out 114 million in six months, and the other banks also paying out multi-million pound amounts, the farce of 'goodwill payments' or commericality would have been untenable any longer.

 

The only organisation who would have had advance notice of all the banks interim results, and therefore have been able to assess the collective 'goodwill gesture' payments, was the FSA. They are not daft at the ivory tower in Canary Wharf and the people at the FSA would have known that one bank announcement after another all showing multi-million pound payments, would have built up a head of steam to force change. The floodgates would have opened and the banks forced to immediately repay all penalty charges, potentially causing havoc in the financial system.

 

An 'orderly' solution was needed and that is what we have got. A freeze until the mess is sorted out and the banks have accumulated enough extra dosh to pay out all claims - around 2 years I guess, just about the length of the appeals etc in the OFT test case. Or is it that I have just become so cynical of British banks over the last couple of years of trying to resolve my own financial problems? Time will tell.