Innocent vs LLOYDS TSB CLASSIC CURRENT (CONTRACTUAL INTEREST)

[innocent]

Hi all,

 

(actually remaining positive so )

 

Well I'm going to submit form N244 on Monday to apply to remove the stay.

 

This is an early draft version of sectionC: and I would appreciate any comments: (Im not very good at legal 'chatter')

 

Claim Number: bla bla

 

 

In the Portsmouth County Court

 

 

Between:

 

 

 

Innocent

 

Claimant

 

 

-and-

 

 

 

 

LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC

 

Defendant

 

 

 

 

I strongly object and respectfully request that the order of a stay which was ordered by District Judge Jolly on the 17th August 2007 be removed in respect of the claim detailed above upon the following grounds:

 

 

Human rights

 

 

It would infringe my rights under the European Convention on Human Rights directly and as enacted in the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 6.1 of the Convention provides that;

 

 

“1. In the determination of his civil rights… everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.”

 

 

It is submitted that the ordering of a stay is not reasonable. The 8 banks involved in the High Court test case have recently published identical statements on their websites informing customers that they expect the test case to last for over a year. Moreover, the nature and gravity of the case is such that any judgment is highly likely to be appealed to the Court of Appeal and possibly even then appealed further to the House of Lords. It is entirely conceivable that a final resolution may not be reached for 2 – 3 years or perhaps even longer. It is thus submitted that the period of the stay, ultimately, cannot be accurately predicted and would therefore in effect be indeterminate, which is contrary to the right of entitlement to a fair hearing within a reasonable time as provided for by Article 6.1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

 

The Overriding Objective

 

 

The Overriding Objective requires that my case be allowed to proceed speedily so that a just settlement may be obtained by the parties to this case. Dealing with cases justly includes ensuring that this case is dealt with expeditiously and fairly and in a way that is proportionate to the amount of money involved. It is submitted that the imposition of the indeterminate stay in a small claims track case involving a relatively small sum, at such an advanced stage in proceedings, is not just, nor is it expeditious, nor is it fair on a claimant who has outlaid sums by way of court fees in pursuit of a legitimate right to seek a remedy.

 

 

Balance of convenience

 

 

The sum claimed is insignificant to the bank but it is highly significant to me. Furthermore, although a stay prevents me from recovering my money, the defendant bank is not prevented from levying its charges or interest on debt comprised of those charges so the order of the court has the effect of favouring a powerful and well-resourced institution and does not place any restriction on their continued application of charges which I say are unlawful. Further, many banks are now routinely closing the accounts of their customers who commence claims against them. This amounts to a sanction for seeking a ruling from the justice system and as such is a basic denial of citizenship. I will remain at risk of such action despite the fact that my remedy has been placed on an indeterminate hold.

 

 

Additionally, the defendant remains at liberty to enter my name on the default register which it and other banks routinely do in respect of unlawful penalties which are unpaid by their customers. The banks have direct and privileged access to this register. They have no need to obtain a County Court judgment before they may enter a default on the register. This default remains on the register for 6 years and causes enormous damage to reputations. Were my name to be entered on the default register I would find it impossible to get credit or a mortgage and I would have to pay higher fees for any credit which I did manage to obtain. The banks would also remain at liberty to bring legal proceedings against me for the recovery of any debt which mostly or entirely consists of penalty charges, penalty charges which are contended to be unlawful, but which consumers would be helpless to challenge in the event that stays are imposed on any claim where a customer is seeking to dispute the lawfulness of them.

 

 

It is submitted that the stay may potentially mean great difficulty for myself, the claimant, and yet be insignificant for the defendant bank. In fact a stay is supportive of the banks litigation strategy which is to frustrate justice by repeatedly taking the claimant to the door of the court and then to settle the claim.

 

 

The Claimant would like to highlight how far advanced the case in question is, and highlight how the Defendant has still not complied with the last directions order, ordered by District Judge Manuel on the 13th June 2007 that request the parties agree directions by the 4th July 2007. The defendant, both during and prior to this litigation, has ignored all attempts to narrow the issues in dispute, or otherwise engage in meaningful dialogue which may have facilitated an amicable settlement to these matters. It is submitted that the defendant has attempted to frustrate and delay proceedings continuously which again is supportive of the banks litigation stragedy.

 

 

The Claimant respectfully requests that special directions be ordered, as previously submitted to the court, and the defendant. The Claimant proposes these directions in mind of the Overriding Objectives, and in particular the duty of the parties to help the court further them. The issues outlined are the crux upon which the claim rests, and the proposed directions identify these issues and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously.

 

 

The Status Quo

 

 

The stay does not maintain the status quo. As submitted above, a stay favours the bank by preventing the claimant’s pursuit of its legitimate remedy without placing any restriction upon the banks activities which I submit are unlawful and/or retaliatory.

 

 

Furthermore, as submitted above the present case concerns a relatively small sum and is at a late stage in proceedings, and therefore I submit that to impose the indeterminate stay is unnecessary, inappropriate, not in the interests of justice and further, is detrimental to my rights in a way which is unfair and inequitable.

 

 

In the alternative

 

 

In view of the preceding paragraphs, if the court accedes a stay notwithstanding these objections, I respectfully request that the court issues the following injunctions:

• That the defendant bank is prevented from applying further penalty charges to my account until the final settlement of the matter.
  
  
• That the defendant is prevented from applying interest charges to any outstanding amounts which are comprised of penalties until the settlement of the matter.
  
  
• That the defendant is prevented from closing my account.
  
  
• That the defendant is prevented from making any entry on its own systems or from communicating any similar information to any third party about any matter insofar as it relates to penalty charges until the final settlement of the matter.
  
  
• That the defendant removes any derogatory entry on its own records insofar as it relates to penalty charges. (The Court has the power to do this under the Data Protection Act 1998 )
  
  
• That the defendant arranges the removal of entries from the records of any third parties to whom it has previously communicated information insofar as it relates to penalty charges. (The Court has the power to do this under the Data protection Act 1998.)
  
  
• That these injunctions remain in place until the settlement of my claim.
  
  
• That should my claim proceed to a hearing that a decision should be made at the hearing as to whether these injunctions should be made permanent.
  
  
• That if the matter should not proceed to a hearing because the defendant decides to settle outside court, that these injunctions should become permanent.

I, the Claimant, believe all facts stated to be true.

 

 

Signed:

 

Dated:

[innocent]

The actual N157 'Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing)' form read:

 

dated 17 August 2007

 

DISTRICT JUDGE X has considered the statements of case and allocation questionnaires filed and allocated the claim to the small claims track.

 

1. The Claim be submitted to the Small Claims Track.

 

2. The Claim be stayed until 1st April 2008 to await the outcome of the OFT test case in the High Court. If no application to extend or lift the stay is filed by 4.00pm on the 21st April 2008, the claim will be deemed to have settled and struck out automatically.

 

3. Liberty to apply.

 

4. This order has been made without a hearing under Rule3.3 and any party affected by it may apply to have it set aside varied or stayed. Such a party must apply within 14 days of service of this order.

 

[GuidoT]

I will have a proper look tomorrow, PM me if I forget.

[innocent]

Guido

 

Put simply....

 

I don't know how to thankyou enough for your knowledge and support

 

 

Innocent

[GuidoT]

Have a read around here:

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Banks still being sued over fees

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/112990-hearing-remove-stay.html?highlight=stay#post1111513

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cases-stayed-pending-oft/

 

 

Your stay words in post 101 are I think identical to this. Are you aware there is an alternative here. Either is fine.

 

You should open the application with an outline of where your claim is, i.e. you filed on x and the Defendant has breached order x ..... The idea here is to get across that your claim is advanced and that Lloyds have show disregard for the legal system already.

 

There have not been too many hearings thus far regarding the stays, therefore it is difficult to reach any firm conclusion regarding how matters will pan out.

 

You need to watch the 14 day period to apply, as the stay order is dated 17 August 2007, but the 14 days runs the date you received it.

[John72]

Hi Innocent

 

Just to keep up to speed - i'm in almost exactly the same position as you and have submitted an application to have my stay (made on the court's own motion) lifted. I started my claim at the beginning of March and notwithstanding several letters, orders etc (all of which I complied with) I have heard absolutely nothing from LTSB or SC&M. They certainly do now how to play the system!

 

John