H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***

[landy_alert]

Have you seen the 'breaking news' on the Robertson Holbrook site (apologies useless at links!) - hand down expected on 19th November;)

Edited October 29, 2009 by landy_alert

[landy_alert]

So as someone who only paid her £200 AQ fee yesterday, all is definitely not lost?

[landy_alert]

As a relative novice to claiming bank charges (having only filed my N1 in the last month and got my AQ in yesterday), if we are now going to use Regulation 5 of the UTCCRs as the way forward do we need to amend our POCs at all please?

[landy_alert]

HOT NEWS JUST IN FROM LLOYDS

 

We be asking the County and Sheriff Courts to apply the Supreme Court judgment to dismiss any claims they currently have on hold.

 

 

Can they do this and do we have no say in the matter?

[landy_alert]

If we amend our POCs as per the new amended template in the templates library what are the chances our claims will still be struck out - is there any way we can avoid this happening?

[landy_alert]

I would have thought they will (if they do this and I've seen nothing say they will other than bank spin at present) do these en masse, its not really practical to pick individual claims.

 

If they do send you notification that the case has been dismissed I'm guessing a letter to the court manager stating why the case should be re-instated and if that doesnt work then an application for the case to be re-instated.

 

EDIT: Just seen the announcement... wait for the CAG letter

 

S.

 

Thanks Shadow - there's so much to read and inwardly digest today!

 

Trouble is my case has not even been allocated to a track yet - I only paid the AQ fee yesterday:( so I'm worried it will get struck out before it even gets that far!

[landy_alert]

Just where is this contract I have NEVER SIGNED SUCH or indeed seen such.

 

PF

 

Same here PF:(

[landy_alert]

Ditto:D

[landy_alert]

Thanks Alan. There's absolutely no danger of having our cases struck out in that time is there? I spoke to my CC yesterday regarding a removal of the stay and they recommended moving swiftly as the bank was likely to be requesting all cases be struck off. I'd like to think he was. Just trying to be helpful, but I'm slightly concerned that the banks are ready to pounce on theSe stayed claims.

 

Quite agree Camdenite.

 

My case is giving me cause for concern because it is only just in the process of track allocation having paid the AQ fee in person on tuesday, so not yet stayed even..........

[landy_alert]

I think it would be very foolish for the banks to take that approach before they have considered their position, especially where the claim is clearly under Clause 5. The bank could end up with thousands of wasted cost claims if they try getting a claim dismissed on the basis of a judgement on irrelevant case-law.

 

Actually they do not have to do anything other than sit back and hope that the claimants don't bother to seek the lifting of the stay. A few months down the line the courts will no doubt have a tidying up sessions and dismiss those claims that are still on hold, or the banks will apply en bloc.

 

The other thing to remember is that the courts will be unlikely to process any request from the bank within a couple a weeks. It would no doubt have to be referred to a judge, and that will take probably 6-8 weeks minimum.

 

Thank you Alan - this is very reassuring and most appreciated!

 

So the info being posted on banks such as LTSB's websites regarding ordering courts top dismiss all claims on hold, you would see as banks scare-mongering in the hope we'll all discontinue our actions and is to be ignored as the pure drivel it obviously is:D

[landy_alert]

 

Everyone with a claim must, must, must now go back to their paperwork and review the Courts orders - mine say that I must inform the Court of my intentions of how I want the claim managed within 28 days of the final determination of the OFT Test Case. It's important that everyone complies with the Courts directions, as they risk having their claims struck out, potentially without liberty to apply to reinstate, if they don't. This would make life a hell of a lot easier for the Banks.

 

Hi Chris:)

 

Should this info be put in a prominent place on the forum, just in case a lot of people don't check their paperwork from the court and in doing so risk getting their claims dismissed - just as the banks are hoping will happen?

 

My 2p;)

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

[landy_alert]

I think many should be aware that it won't be long before the 'damage limitation' letters start rolling out of the banks. The main thing is to hold firm and not be directed by well versed (probably trained for weeks) bank employees telling you what they want you hear and do.

 

To me if the banks think they got away with it then they should be reminded otherwise. This is a big problem of banks once being respected and believed to what we have now, apparantly the exact opposite with professionals drawn in for the 'spin'.

 

Michael

 

Let's hope so Michael. It's great news that top barristers are prepared to fight our corner on this.

 

Unfortunately as someone said earlier on this thread - I think it was Middenmess - a lot of people are still going to be fooled by the mis-information being pushed out by the banks in the hope the poor little consumer will give up and go away.

 

My Father, a pensioner with no access to the internet (and no bank charges ever fortunately), called me yesterday with the news that according to the tv and newspapers he had seen it was all over for the bank charge victims, the banks had won - end of. He assumed that there was no point in me continuing now.

 

There must be stacks of other people out there who are just going to fall for the banks' weasel words and let the banks throw out their claims. Just because they don't have access to, or know about Cag and the other sites there is a chance the banks will ride roughshod over them again.

 

This cannot be allowed to happen:eek:

[landy_alert]

The funny thing is I only just filed my AQ (Tuesday) and today I received a notice from the court (dated 26th) that if LTSB don't file their AQ and pay their fee before 4pm on 3rd Dec their defence may be struck out - now wouldn't it be hilarious if they get so carried away with sending out propaganda letters saying they'd won, that they forget to file their AQ:D

 

Unlikely I know, plus the court would obviously allow them a bit of extra time, but wishful thinking never hurt anyone!

 

Landy x

[landy_alert]

Why would the court allow them extra time, there is no reason to

 

Hi Sammy:)

 

Not sure really, other than when I was filling out my AQ I was advised by another member that courts could be a bit lenient over the filing date and to get it in a little late would possibly be overlooked - not sure of the truth of this though. I just thought that knowing my luck the bank would be allowed extra time:(

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

[landy_alert]

Don't be lulled into a false sense of security. as despite what the untrained court staff say if you don't keep to the letter of the schedule your opponents WILL try to get your claim struck out & each time your required to argue your case it'll cost you more money. ........... One of their intentions is to wear you down so that you give up IF they are given latitude by the court (as they so often are) argue that your case will be prejudiced in that you would not have been granted the same amount of latitude by the court

 

You respectively ask that their case or defence be struck out

 

Thank you JonCris, your advice is most appreciated;)

[landy_alert]

could always stand outside a lloyds/tsb and hand out flyers lol

 

Oooh I'd love to PF - although I'd be tempted to hand something else to the staff, courtesy of my 4 feline friends:lol:

[landy_alert]

I for one have already asked for the terms and conditions applicable to my Lloyds current account opened in 1994. Strangely they've not been able to supply them yet, awkward when they state that such charges were agreed by me/all of us when we opened our accounts. Merely hearsay until they can prove otherwise. Their time will come, of that I have no doubt.

 

That's good news for me too then emandcole, as my account with LTSB also dates from 1994;)

[landy_alert]

Although with the best of intention (I'm sure), much of this thread has now, I would suggest, moved way beyond the 'average' bod who IS prepared to stand up and be counted, in a court of law if required (court bundles -gawdelpus!).

All that we 'average' bods will need is:

i. guidance on court procedure in order to progress and, certainly in my case,

ii. an idiot's guide on amending pocs

iii. obviously the revised templates.

Luck I ain't asking for but the tools I need so, Banky et al., all the VERY best for 2010 and future years; respect and thanks for past efforts and I hope you have come through the post OFT trauma intact.

Ken

 

Hear Hear!

 

I only have till 26/2/10 to request that my stay be lifted, so am hoping the expected advice arrives in time:confused:

 

Landy x

[landy_alert]

My account dates from the mid 1990s and I have no recollection of ever receiving any t&cs - there were certainly none included in the SAR info received early in 2009:confused:

 

I do know that any increases to the authorised o/d facility were done verbally, either over the phone or in person and again as far as I'm aware nothing was ever signed or any t&cs provided.

[landy_alert]

At an earlier time I seem to recall we were inputting (horrible term) any t&cs we could lay our hands on. I expect someone on the forum compiled a list of sorts (although - yes, I do realise you admin folk have lives also).

 

If there is some kind of list or library of historic T&Cs this would be most useful/interesting to see.

 

If a customer of a bank has no recollection of receiving any T&Cs at the time of opening their account/receiving their o/d facilty, is the onus on the bank to prove that the T&Cs were ever issued or is it sufficient for them to maintain they would have been given to the customer?

 

Landy x

[landy_alert]

Hi everyone:)

 

I received a letter including the following wording from Jatin Patel, LTSB Director of Current Accounts this morning (my claim is stayed at court until end of Feb) -

 

'I promised to keep you up to date about any developments that affected your complaint about unplanned overdraft charges. Your complaint has been on hold while we and some of the other major UK banks have been in legal proceedings with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) about the level, fairness or unlawfulness of these charges.

 

These legal proceedings came to a conclusion on the 25th November 2009 when the Supreme Court decided that, as long as they are clearly set out, the level of unplanned overdraft charges cannot be assessed for fairness under the consumer fairness legislation known as the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations.

 

What this means for your complaint

 

We understand your complaint is that the charges we made are penalties and/or are unfair because you believe they are too high. The outcome of the legal proceedings means that the bank charges you've complained about are not penalties and the Supreme Court has also decided that the consumer fairness legislation means that the level of the charge is not a reason for finding them to be unfair.

 

As a result of these rulings we will not be upholding your complaint or be providing a refund of the bank charges that you complained about.

 

We hope this answers the points you raised with us about your bank charges complaint and you feel there is no need to reply to this letter. If you come back to us and we cannot come to an agreement, I'll give you details of the Financial Ombudsman Service in case you want them to consider your complaint independently.

 

If there's anything other than the level of the charges that you're concerned about, or if there is anything else we can do to help, please contact us. If I haven't heard from you by the 9th March I will close your file.'

 

Last time I had a letter from a LTSB related company (C&G - regarding a mortgage charges complaint) which included the wording 'if you come back to us and we cannot come to an agreement', I wrote one more letter and my charges were refunded - this was in December 2009, btw. I can't see it happening in this particular instance, but who knows..........

 

Landy x

[landy_alert]

An interesting point rdm! I'll send the bank the Govan letter, linked here

 

Govan Law Centre: Unfair bank charges: free help to amend existing complaint letters

 

As regards my particular claim, I'm thinking of going down the route of applying to the Court to have the stay lifted, and asking for permission to ammend my Particulars of Claim.

 

However, I have to admit that I have a few concerns about this course of action, especially in light of the fact that the Govern Law Centre et al seem to be having significant problems in compiling a revised 'particulars of claim' - they have been promised within 2 weeks for the best part of 6 weeks now and still haven't appeared!

 

 

I'm concerned that if they don't appear within a very short time then the claim will be struck out, given that Ipswich county court have (unilaterally!) only given me till 10th Feb to apply to lift the stay. I'd feel far happier proceeding in this way if the new POC's were actually available. Does anyone happen to know if it is permissable to ask the Court to continue the stay beyond 10th Feb, pending the gathering and compilation of new evidence with specific reference to the UTCCR's and Consumer Credit Act 1974 which was not covered by 'The Test Case'?

 

 

I am also concerned that if only a few people proceed in this way, especially if the new POC's don't appear, there is a very real chance of having to face Abbey / Santander's top notch leagal seagulls in Court, which I don't actually relish doing, and if we loose, being ordered to pay the bank's huge legal costs. Does anyone have any views on that?

 

Totally agree with you on your last points Adam - I'm in a similar situation but with LTSB and have until late Feb to apply for my stay to be lifted - my claim is for far more than the small claims limit and the thought of having to pay the bank's costs if I lose is terrifying:eek:

 

I've sent a personalised version of the Govan Law Centre letter, but have yet to receive a reply - that's if they even bother to respond, which I severely doubt.

 

Good Luck with whatever you decide to do!

 

Landy x

[landy_alert]

IMHO it would be foolhardy to apply for your stay to be lifted unless you know how to proceed once the case gets going again.

 

In fact, I wonder if it may not be better to seek an extension to the stay as the test case has posed further questions.

 

Some of the courts are also asking what action has been taken to resolve the matter, and if no real attempt has been made to settle, and you went on to (shudders) lose, you risk the bank and/or court seeking to make an example of you with large costs.

 

Think carefully before deciding your next move.

 

Hi Caro:)

 

Thank you, it had crossed my mind to do that. Do you think I have any chance of the court agreeing to extend the stay based on the fact that the test case result has posed further questions? I guess its worth a try!

 

Landy x

[landy_alert]

Hi everyone:)

 

Well I also sent a personalised version of the Govan Law Centre letter to my bank (LTSB) and today received the standard template response, ie, 'We're very sorry to hear you have some concerns.........we will get a response to you as soon as we can'. There's no reference to any of the points I raised pertinent to my individual circumstances - no surprises there then!

 

Like Adamc6671 before me I will now copy my letter to the court and respectfully request that I be allowed an extension of my stay as per Caro's suggestion. As I had previously written to **** in an attempt to reach a settlement as per the DJ's Order and this letter was ignored I feel I for one (unlike Lloyds!) have been willing to negotiate/settle.

 

Landy x

[landy_alert]

MSE money expert has issued some (some) guidance , mainly for financial hardship cases.... this needs to be stepped up in some way those with cases in court or those not yet in financial hardship and all those who just pay these charges and are unaware to be helped....... Just the other day a family friend brother passed away , when his relatives looked at his bank statement they found in 12 months nearly £1200 was taken out of his account in charges.... He was an elderly guy and he just kept moving money from his savings to make sure he had money.... He did not know about CAG, or court case, or even that he could do much about it... I dont even think he read his statements. How sad, something has to be done immediately time for talking and arguing has to stop... They are laughing at us all and many are on here giving obstructive or keep calm advice....not for me.... I advise every one to switch banks and let them chase for overdrafts, loans, credit card debts etc... especially if you are not likely to want or need credit in the future (OAP's) this will give them some pain , like they have inflicted on us and with support of regulators, courts are just putting 2 fingers up to us all.....

 

As Fergal has pointed out, most of the current guidance on MSE is for claims yet to start and those in financial hardship.

 

Unfortunately I had a claim in with the FOS for financial hardship prior to filing at court. Our situation fitted most of the criteria, particularly priority debt arrears and substantial drop in household income - with a drop of over 60%. Having been pushed from pillar to post by LTSB with no hope of success, my OH was forced out of self-employment back into the workplace and we subsequently asked the FOS to put the claim on hold. I then filed at court - which I now deeply regret.

 

The 'new' FOS criteria includes being stuck in a cycle of charges you cannot break out of - charges on charges - this would have fitted my situation perfectly and I may have stood a chance again with the FOS, but instead I'm lumbered with the court route and potential huge costs if I lose:sad: