THE BIG CLAIM-

[BankFodder]

Forgive what might appear to be a naiive enquiry - but as you have issued a Part 8 (I believe 'money only') Claim against this list of banks, surely you must have a personal cause of action against them, to bring such an action - rather than seeking a declaration on behalf of the consumer in general ? Perhaps you could clarify please ? Many thanks.

 

Part 8 claims are in principle non-money claims and which do not involve any substantial question of fact.

 

I have to say that the problem of locus intrigues me as well.

Stephen was quite emphatic that as the point was a matter of public interest he was entitled to bring the action.

 

He is apparently supported by a local solicitor and an Exeter barrister.

[Barrie Stir]

 

As it happens, your recollection of the interview is incorrect. There is a full recording of it available in the Library on this forum.

 

Noted - I did say I 'was' almost asleep when my ears pricked up !

No offence or intention to mis-quote intended.

[Russe11]

"I will not back down, not even for a million"

 

A stupid thing to say

[Guest stephen]

"I will not back down, not even for a million"

 

A stupid thing to say

 

 

Why stupid?

 

Sorry but money is not why I brought this action.

Russe11 maybe your right it was a stupid thing to say, but if the truth is stupid then so be I!!

[Russe11]

so you should of got quoted along the lines of "this case has no monetary value to myself"

[Guest stephen]

Russe11 it is a part 8 claim, this means it is of no monetary value. The reason I said that I would not back down even for a million is because I know what the banks will offer to try and avoid this action. My statement was aimed at the Banks. I.e. do not come up with offers to avoid this action, as no matter what you offer me it want be enough.

 

 

I am sorry if you miss understood my statement,

[Guest stephen]

Russe11 it is a part 8 claim, this means it is of no monetary value. The reason I said that I would not back down even for a million is because I know what the banks will offer to try and avoid this action. My statement was aimed at the Banks. I.e. do not come up with offers to avoid this action, as no matter what you offer me it want be enough.

 

 

I am sorry if you miss understood my statement,

[Russe11]

you think that the bank would pay a million ?

 

so anyone can do this, they would have to fight somwhere along the line ?

[Russe11]

you think that the bank would pay a million ?

 

so anyone can do this, they would have to fight somwhere along the line ?

[Guest]

What is a million pounds to an organisation that wracked up 2.3 BILLION in one year alone? Seriously - it's just a drop in the ocean to them.

 

No, someone has to take a stand against them because otherwise they'll go on appeasing the shareholders by stealing from the rest of us. £5,000 or £10,000 offered in a tax free payment to an individual is a huge amount; most people would drop any sort of action if offered that. Stephen's making clear that he's not going to be bought off.

 

Remember that the banks stand to lose astronomical amounts of money if they do lose a case like this, because it affects previous years as well as current and future profits. If their future plans are based on the profits they have got in recent years through something that ultimately ends up being ruled illegal, they have to COMPLETELY rethink their entire plans which for worldwide institutions is going to hurt. It's going to hurt badly. They will pay a HELL of a lot of money to defer this, and I'm quite expecting them to fight dirty if Stephen does drag them kicking and screaming to court.

 

They'll try carrots and sticks. They'll try and find ways to bribe him to drop the case, they'll try and bluster him into thinking it isn't worth it. But in the end it will be.

 

Edit: Grammar... must keep a better check on my grammar...

[Guest]

What is a million pounds to an organisation that wracked up 2.3 BILLION in one year alone? Seriously - it's just a drop in the ocean to them.

 

No, someone has to take a stand against them because otherwise they'll go on appeasing the shareholders by stealing from the rest of us. £5,000 or £10,000 offered in a tax free payment to an individual is a huge amount; most people would drop any sort of action if offered that. Stephen's making clear that he's not going to be bought off.

 

Remember that the banks stand to lose astronomical amounts of money if they do lose a case like this, because it affects previous years as well as current and future profits. If their future plans are based on the profits they have got in recent years through something that ultimately ends up being ruled illegal, they have to COMPLETELY rethink their entire plans which for worldwide institutions is going to hurt. It's going to hurt badly. They will pay a HELL of a lot of money to defer this, and I'm quite expecting them to fight dirty if Stephen does drag them kicking and screaming to court.

 

They'll try carrots and sticks. They'll try and find ways to bribe him to drop the case, they'll try and bluster him into thinking it isn't worth it. But in the end it will be.

 

Edit: Grammar... must keep a better check on my grammar...

[smithz]

Bankfodder has highlighted that "Part 8 claims are in principle non-money claims which do not involve any substantial question of fact".

 

The key issue here may be the 'substantial question of fact'.

 

The banks will almost certainly deny the plaintiff's 'facts'.

 

Their position will likely be that their charges are a reasonable pre-estimate of their losses; or are the cost of a service (citing the international position etc.,). We disagree of course.

 

However, the only way the court can ascertain 'facts' which are in dispute is to allow a trial. So the banks argue that Part 8 is the incorrect procedure.

[smithz]

Bankfodder has highlighted that "Part 8 claims are in principle non-money claims which do not involve any substantial question of fact".

 

The key issue here may be the 'substantial question of fact'.

 

The banks will almost certainly deny the plaintiff's 'facts'.

 

Their position will likely be that their charges are a reasonable pre-estimate of their losses; or are the cost of a service (citing the international position etc.,). We disagree of course.

 

However, the only way the court can ascertain 'facts' which are in dispute is to allow a trial. So the banks argue that Part 8 is the incorrect procedure.

[Guest stephen]

Smithz there is no question of FACT they apply the charges and both side accept that they do this.

 

There is a Question of LAW that is are these charges legal or not!

[Guest stephen]

Smithz there is no question of FACT they apply the charges and both side accept that they do this.

 

There is a Question of LAW that is are these charges legal or not!

[Guest stephen]

Finaly had the Court send me the claim forms back and the banks have untill the 8th March to Submit a defence

[Guest stephen]

Finaly had the Court send me the claim forms back and the banks have untill the 8th March to Submit a defence

[BankFodder]

I suppose that they will acknowledge and get an extra 14 days

[BankFodder]

I suppose that they will acknowledge and get an extra 14 days

[Guest stephen]

Nope

 

 

"The defendant must file an acknowledgement of service with the court together with any written Evidence to be relied on within 14day of service of the Claim form"

[Guest stephen]

Nope

 

 

"The defendant must file an acknowledgement of service with the court together with any written Evidence to be relied on within 14day of service of the Claim form"

[BankFodder]

excellent

[BankFodder]

excellent

[mjones]

Smithz there is no question of FACT they apply the charges and both side accept that they do this.

 

There is a Question of LAW that is are these charges legal or not!

 

Right, so you say as a question of law these charges are unlawful. I agree.

 

The banks say, as a matter of law we are entitled to apply charges that are a genuine pre-est of our loss; and it will not be an unfair term of contract to charge for actual loss & costs etc., That is correct legally.

 

But you say, no these are not genunine pre-est. You are making either profits or are off-setting other costs. The banks say, no, we are not.

 

So the dispute between the parties becomes a question of fact.

 

You need to investigate the evidence, scrutinse their accounts and so and so forth.

 

To suggest this issue is unconnected with factual issues would suggest your 'big claim' will fall at a competency hurdle - I hope it does not, but we need to be realistic and anticipate lines of defence.

 

That said, good luck.

[mjones]

Smithz there is no question of FACT they apply the charges and both side accept that they do this.

 

There is a Question of LAW that is are these charges legal or not!

 

Right, so you say as a question of law these charges are unlawful. I agree.

 

The banks say, as a matter of law we are entitled to apply charges that are a genuine pre-est of our loss; and it will not be an unfair term of contract to charge for actual loss & costs etc., That is correct legally.

 

But you say, no these are not genunine pre-est. You are making either profits or are off-setting other costs. The banks say, no, we are not.

 

So the dispute between the parties becomes a question of fact.

 

You need to investigate the evidence, scrutinse their accounts and so and so forth.

 

To suggest this issue is unconnected with factual issues would suggest your 'big claim' will fall at a competency hurdle - I hope it does not, but we need to be realistic and anticipate lines of defence.

 

That said, good luck.