This forum ...

[lynzpower]

Ive been moved over to the mercantile as well, recieved letter on friday.

 

bank fodder & dave are fairly confident it shouldnt be a problem as the bank has alreqady offered me the money + conditions- i was not going to accept the conditions.

 

Look the banks have chosen hundreds upon hundreds of times not to show up in court to defend.

 

One way they could stop clogging up the courts, is paying up at the LBA stage, in that this will avoid cases getting stayed/ mercantiled or what have you.

 

In any case, if I have to pay court costs, then it will be a quid a month, cos I just dont have it to give them, and I gave up stressing over money i dont have a long time ago.

 

Lets just chill and ride this one out?

[JonCris]

What are the conditions?

 

Also you need to write to the Mercantile court along the lines suggested by BF

[Number6]

 

Lets just chill and ride this one out?

 

I sincerely hope things work out OK for all of us, but I have a passionate distrust and hatred for "the establishment" and that includes the legal system which is usually only concerned about lining it's own pockets just like the banks.

 

I'm being the self imposed Devils Advocate here.

 

Will you and others still be so chilled out when cases are being stayed for months on end because the banks are exploiting the longer timescales of the Mercantile Court process?

 

Personally I can do without the additional stress involved and time and money lost, I simply can't afford to take time off work to go and sit around a Birmingham or London courtroom; I have kids to look after, to take to school, to pick up from school and to try and earn a crust in between times from my self employment - do I just put my kids in deep freeze for a day or two while I drive to and fro the court?

 

Pete

[JonCris]

Ive been moved over to the mercantile as well, recieved letter on friday.

 

bank fodder & dave are fairly confident it shouldnt be a problem as the bank has alreqady offered me the money + conditions- i was not going to accept the conditions.

 

Look the banks have chosen hundreds upon hundreds of times not to show up in court to defend.

 

One way they could stop clogging up the courts, is paying up at the LBA stage, in that this will avoid cases getting stayed/ mercantiled or what have you.

 

In any case, if I have to pay court costs, then it will be a quid a month, cos I just dont have it to give them, and I gave up stressing over money i dont have a long time ago.

 

Lets just chill and ride this one out?

 

Read BF's very recent sticky on the subject & do as suggested

[lynzpower]

yes, Ill do the letters and send by recorded delivery today

 

My opinion is once you start panicking its increasingly difficult to think straight.

 

So Im trying not to panic - thats all

[Jfd100]

Does this not cut both ways ie if a bank is claiming debt from a customer which is wholly or partly made up of penalty charges - then won't/shouldn't their cases be stayed as well?

[Number6]

Does this not cut both ways ie if a bank is claiming debt from a customer which is wholly or partly made up of penalty charges - then won't/shouldn't their cases be stayed as well?

 

No because the banks are not trying to put their cases in front of a Judge.

 

It's only court cases that will be stayed.

 

Pete

[Number6]

Can I ask all those that have had their cases transfered to the Mercantile Court.....

 

..... what exactly did you put on your allocation questionare under "Other Information"?

 

Pete

[JonCris]

If a claim from a bank against a customer for debt made partially of charges was entered in court then the defendant would enter a defence virtually the same as the claims made against the banks for that portion of the claim....and thus I think it may be stayed in a similar way.

 

Correct. The claimant bank is hardly going to put "we are claiming as part of the debt our unlawful bank charges" So unless the DJ is aware that their claim does fall into that category he/she wouldn't know to stay it would he. To the court its just a claim by the bank for an unpaid overdraft/loan

 

We have to tell them & after pointing out their claim consisted of disputed unlawful bank penalty charges you could actualy request the matter be stayed on the basis of the hearing due in the higher court. That will pee the banks off particularly if the debt only includes a small portion as charges

[lynzpower]

I cant copy in what I wrote in my moneyclaim form as its in a PDF

[JonCris]

Retype it in Word then cut & paste

[JonCris]

ooooo you just gave me a great idea

 

Thanks !

 

What idea, like to share

[Number6]

I cant copy in what I wrote in my moneyclaim form as its in a PDF

 

Acrobat reader has a text select tool. Use that, select your text and then copy and paste in the usual way.

 

Pete

[lynzpower]

The claimant has had account ****** with

Lloyds TSB bank since 26.8.99 which is run

on their standard terms and conditions. The

claimant is claiming £1247 taken by the

defendant in way of charges over the last 6

years. The bank charges are a disproportionate

penalty and therefore unenforceable as they

are contrary to common law. Further as a

disproportionate penalty they are invalid

under the unfair (contracts) terms act 1977

s.4 and unfair terms in consumer contracts

regulation 1999. para 8 and sch.2(1)(e). In

the event that the charges are not a penalty

then they are unreasonable within the

meaning of the Supply of Goods and services

act 1982 s.15

The bank has been asked to justify their

charges but have declined to do so. The

claimant claims interest under S.69 of the

county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% a

year from the date of each charge to june

2006 of £215.37 and also interest at the

same rate up to date of judgment or earlier

repayment at a daily rate of 0.022%.

 

Heres what I put in line with advice off the forum

[lynzpower]

Im trying to do the letters now

has anyone started thiers yet?

 

Lynz

[Number6]

Isn't that what you put on the (N1) claim form?

 

I actually want a peek at what you put on the Allocation Questionare (the bit that arrives with the banks defence) under the "Other Information" section.

 

Any chance?

 

Pete

[lynzpower]

sorry yes, that is off the N1

 

my mistake

 

erm I dont think i have a copy of the allocation questionaire although I have a blank infront of me here, and looking at it, I dont think I put anything in that section .

[Number6]

OK, no worries. I was just trying to see if anything on the AQ might have sparked this transfer business off.

 

Pete

 

(Formerly Worcester4x4)

[tigger26]

Under section H of the AQ (I had N150 & I know some others had N149 - this could be 1 reason); I used Jonnie2bads template but this is what I wrote

The defendant has claimed that no details of the account or precise date of charges have been given, I have sent a Schedule of Charges, titled such, to them 3 times now. Plus as my banker, these details are available to them permanently.

I am respectfully requesting that my claim be allocated to the small claims track. This issue is not a complicated one; it is an issue of fact and not of law. The issue is only whether the money levied by the defendant in respect of its customers contractual breaches exceed their actual costs incurred. I am happy to pay them their actual costs and I am surprised the defendant did not counterclaim for these, because I would have paid them without argument.

However, the continuing problem is (in common with 100s of other cases currently being brought by other bank customers) that the banks refuse to reveal the details of their penalty charging regime. As the banks have a fiduciary duty towards their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly and in utmost good faith.

Accordingly, I would respectfully ask that the court in this case, not withstandng allocation to the small claims track, order standard disclosure. I understand that it is the courts discretion to do so. I believe this would bring a rapid end to litigation.

As I said I copied from the template section.

[LIZHAJI]

I to have been moved the the Mercantile, in my allocation questionnaire under other information I also sent a copy of the schedule of charges applied to my account and finished off with

 

"However, the continuing problem is, (in common with the 100s of other cases currently being brought by other bank customers), that the banks refuse to reveal the details of their penalty-charging regime. As the banks have a fiduciary duty towards their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly and in utmost good faith.

 

I would respectfully ask that the court in this case, not withstanding allocation to the small claims track, order standard disclosure. I understand that it is in the courts discretion to do so. I believe such an order would bring a rapid end to this litigation ."

 

This was copied from a template on the site.

 

liz

[lynzpower]

liz & sarajane

 

have either of you started the letters that bankfodder is requesting/ recommending we do ? Im hitting a brick wall as to what t put in them, I do want to gert them off today

[LIZHAJI]

Look on my thread I have just but a draft on to the court and OFT

 

Lz

[Guest bluecloud]

I have been reading through the forum and have become a little confused. Can anyone answer the following questions for me please?

 

Why would a case be referred to the Mercantile Court?

 

Who is suing who? (Assuming it is a law suit)

 

I've seen a few references to out-of-court settlements; who are they made by and to whom?

 

I'm trying not to appear thick but if a bank offers an out-of-court settlement, I'm assuming that the bank is offering a sum to a (disgruntled) customer, then if the customer refuses to accept the settlement would the case not be forced to go to trial?

 

Would it not be in the interests of the general consumer that actual charges are disclosed so therefore in the interests of the OFT to support a test case involving a bank and a customer disputing applied charges?

 

Thanks to any and all for replies,

 

bluecloud

[Michael Browne]

Why would a case be referred to the Mercantile Court?

 

See here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mercantile-court/announcement-size-4-center-has.html

[Guest bluecloud]

That answers the first question for me, well sort of :o), anyone want to have a crack at the rest.

 

TIA