Fred_Funk v NatWest

[bobsp]

Would it still be wise to send in, ths CAG court bundle. Basically I am trying to put together my court bundle, which I have to send off to the court and Cahoot before 26th July, and I am getting a little lost...

 

The only think I am doing different is amending the POC. Would I just send that in to the court and Cahoot for now, as I presume the dates etc will change.

 

thanks for your help here JM..

 

Bob

[neddysegoon]

Thanks for the info JM. The case is belongs to a good friend of mine and I'm just helping them out,and picking up some good points from folk like yourself. The update is that my friend has sent back a defence to the claim and it was posted to the Northampton Court. My friend mentioned in the defence section that no breakdown in fees,charges etc were included in the claim. So, let's see what happens next I suppose.

[Fred_Funk]

 

Guys

 

I'm desperately seeking some assistance - at one point, I was fairly versed in all the arguments but this has been dragging on for so long that I'm now more than a little rusty.

 

I initiated a claim against NatWest back in January 2008 which, as you might imagine, has been on hold pretty much ever since. In July I received the attached correspondence from the court which, as I understand it, gives me until December 7 to apply for the stay which is currently in place to be removed or see the claim struck out.

 

In view of the ongoing legal battle being pursued by the Govan Law Centre and others, I'm reluctant to throw in the towel quite yet, especially as my Particulars of Claim relied not just on the penalties argument but referred also to Regulation 5 in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. That being the case, what should I do?!

 

Common sense would suggest I write to the court asking for a further stay pending the resolution of the ongoing cases but the order of July 14 [see attached] seems to suggest my only option is to request the stay is lifted.

 

As ever, I'd be grateful for any advice. Thanks in anticipation.

 

Fred_Funk

[Fred_Funk]

Circumstances have rather conspired against me of late and I've not had as much time as I'd have liked to devote to this. Moreover, definitive answers to questions such as mine seem to be in short supply just now - more's the pity!

 

In those circumstances, this is what I've come up with...

 

I am writing with regard to my claim against NatWest bank [XXXXXXXX] and the court order dated July 14, 2010.

 

With regard to the above mentioned order, having sought legal advice, it is my contention that the claim should be further stayed pending the resolution of Walls v Santander UK plc [which, as you will be aware, is currently stalled pending an application to the European Court of Human Rights].

 

While the Supreme Court decision in OFT v Abbey National plc & others [2006] UKSC6 found that the level of unarranged overdraft charges cannot be assessed for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 [uTCCR], the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Phillips, made it clear that "it remained open to question whether bank charges were fair in relation to regulation 5[1] of the UTCCR [para 80 of the Supreme Court's judgement]".

 

Given regulation 5[1] represents a substantive part of the basis for my claim against NatWest and for the plaintiff's in Walls v Santander UK plc, it is my contention that my claim should not be struck out but remain stayed pending the outcome of the later case.

 

I have to get this to the court by 4pm this afternoon which ain't a problem coz I can deliver it by hand. Nevertheless, that being the case, time is, clearly, of the essence. With that in mind, I'd really appreciate any thoughts anyone might have as to my proposed plan of action; I'm particularly keen to know whether it's legitimate for me to propose a further stay for, while this seems entirely logical to me, it wasn't an option mentioned in my previous correspondence from the court [see opening post].

 

Additionally, assuming I do proceed in the manner outlined above, who should my correspondence be addressed to?!

 

As ever, thanks in anticipation of your help and co-operation

Fred_Funk

[johnnymitch]

Hi Fred .... as time is of the essence I would run with that if i were you ... it should hold the Strike-out and give you a bit of breathing space .... hopefully you will get a decent extension ...

 

Let us know how you get on .... it will help others .....

 

Definitive advice is a bit short on the ground at the moment .... there are cases pending , like the Govan Law Centre ....so until something is definite one way or the other .. delaying tactics are the only option at the moment .... the fact that the banks are keeping their heads down and not screaming for Strike-outs is encouraging though .

[elsinore]

Hi Fred.

 

I agree with JM. It's a perfectly reasonable request and it would be a hard-hearted judge to deny it (what am I saying!). I think the original order is poorly drafted insofar as it made no provision for an extension to the stay.

 

I have it my mind that there are two cases being dealt with by GLC and it would be good to cite both. Perhaps JM can link the other one?

 

The only snag is that the parties are expected to agree when an application for extension is made, so Natwest could object, although one wonders what grounds they would have.

 

Els

[Fred_Funk]

Thanks for your responses guys.

 

With regard to NatWest, would it help if I made it clear in my letter to the court that I'd copied them in to the correspondence?!

 

Also, can anyone advise me as to exactly what the etiquette is for this sort of thing.. is it simply a case of depositing my letter with the court? Is there a fee to pay [i assume not]? And finally, who should I address the correspondence to [the court manager is my best guess at the minute]?!

 

Thanks again

Fred_Funk

[caro]

Just got your message Fred as was at work today. Looks like you've been in good hands the JM and els. Fingers crossed the stay is extended.

[elsinore]

Thanks for your responses guys.

 

With regard to NatWest, would it help if I made it clear in my letter to the court that I'd copied them in to the correspondence?!

 

Also, can anyone advise me as to exactly what the etiquette is for this sort of thing.. is it simply a case of depositing my letter with the court? Is there a fee to pay [i assume not]? And finally, who should I address the correspondence to [the court manager is my best guess at the minute]?!

 

Thanks again

Fred_Funk

 

I think you answered your own questions, Fred.

 

The Court should always look favourably on efforts to comply with procedure and to inform the other party.

 

It will be interesting to see how Natwest react and how the Court frames an order.

[elsinore]

The only snag is that the parties are expected to agree when an application for extension is made, so Natwest could object, although one wonders what grounds they would have.

 

This won't help!

 

http://govanlc.blogspot.com/

[Fred_Funk]

Sincere thanks to elsinore and caro for responding to my request for advice.

 

Delivered my letter to the court and have now received a reply, which reads as follows:

 

I confirm receipt of your letter dated December 6, 2010.

 

Any further request for a stay requires a fee of £40 before it is referred to the judge.

 

Once again, I'm a bit bemused by this and would appreciate any thoughts anyone might have. Firstly, I'd like to know if this is a legitimate response to my request for the stay to be extended [see above] or an ill-conceived one put together by a junior member of the civil section. I rather wonder if it's the latter as: (1) it doesn't stipulate any date by which I must do this; and (2) I've done a bit of Googling and am unable to find any references to anyone having to pay a fee to request a further stay [see, for instance, http://www.google.info/forums/showthread.php?t=21527] though I appreciate this may have something to do with the court order of July 14 [see opening post] failing to offer this as an option.

 

I'm anxious to resolve this as soon as possible - ideally, I'd like to visit the court office on Monday, ie December 20 - and, that being the case, would welcome your thoughts, particularly with regard to the two questions posed above.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

[manchesteruni]

You need to formally apply for an extension to the stay using the N244 application (available from http://www.hmcs.gov.uk) as the post you have linked to states, and use the grounds you have outlined in your letter - the only other thing I would add is the s.140 CCA grounds being proferred by Govan. The post you have linked to is quiet old now and didn't rely on the Govan Law cases at all. There are a few people who have gained extensions / had strike out apps disallowed due to Walls v Santander, I'll look some up for you later on if that would help, though few and far between.

[manchesteruni]

Can't edit my post but just to add, it seems as though your letter has done the trick in that your claim wasn't automatically struck out on the 7th. I would get the application in Monday though (and check with the court while you are there that you havent been struck out as you may need to amend your application slightly to overturn the strike)

[elsinore]

I appreciate this may have something to do with the court order of July 14 [see opening post] failing to offer this as an option.

 

 

Hi Fred, yes I think that's the case. Because the order did not give you the option, which could have been exercised by letter, you are required to make an application to vary the order, which incurs a fee.

 

Your letter was worth a try (some courts would have accepted it, I believe) but you're out of luck here.

 

On the other hand, if the Court had required you to make an application on notice, it would have cost you £75.

 

Els

[Fred_Funk]

elsinore, manchesteruni et al

 

Thanks for your responses, they're much appreciated. At the same time, I'm still not entirely clear what I should do now... doh!

 

I guess my letter of last week constitutes 'an application to vary the order' but that, in light of the most recent correspondence from the court, I should resubmit it, asap, with a cheque for £40. Yeah?!

 

However, I'm not clear if I'm required to do as manchesteruni suggested and 'formally apply for an extension to the stay using the N244 application' or if this is not now necessary and would appreciate further clarification.

 

Furthermore, what ought I to do should I be told my claim has been struck out [given I contacted the court before its December 7 deadline and have only just received its response]?!

 

Once again, thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

[elsinore]

I think the answer to both your questions is to contact the court. They must tell you whether or not an N244 is required and also confirm the current status of the claim. If you can make it to the court, pop in and talk to them, in my experience they are more likely to be helpful than not.

 

Els

[caro]

I don't know your personal circumstances Fred but it may be worth checking if you are eligible for exemption from court fees, for example if you're in receipt of certain benefits. Again, the court will be able to advise on this.

 

The N244 is simply an application form, but as els has suggested, check with the court if you need to complete it.

[Fred_Funk]

Once again, I'd appreciate the help of my fellow CAGgers.

 

Further to my earlier posts, in response to the court's letter of December 7 [see post no.9], I filed an N244 to apply for an extension to the stay.

 

Unfortunately, I have now received a General Form of Judgement or Order which states:

 

The claim already stands struck out by virtue of paragraph 3 of the oredr [sic] dated 14 July 2010.

 

You can see Para 3 for yourself in the opening post of this thread. It says:

 

If no application to remove the stay is made by 4pm December 7 2010, the claim shall then be struck out without further order.

 

Of course, I did write to the court before the December 7 asking not that the stay should be removed but that it should be extended [pending the resolution of Walls v Santander UK plc]. The court office wrote back after the December 7 deadline, acknowledging my letter but adding that 'any further request for a stay requires a fee of £40 before it is referred to the judge'.

 

I immediately visited the court for confirmation that, having met the original deadline to avoid a strike-out, my claim would not now be struck before it was referred to a judge and was assured that it wouldn't.

 

This being the case, you will appreciate my dismay on learning that my claim had, contrary to the reassurances I was given, been struck out.

 

So, the $64,000,000 question, is what should I do next?!

 

Having initiated my claim way back in 2007, I'd like to know what options, if any, are available to me to contest this strike-out [given I have correspondence from the court confirming I met the original deadline]?

 

As ever, thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

[johnnymitch]

Hi Fred Happy New Year , I hope ....

 

You don't say whether or not you paid the £40 .... and does your confirmation letter say that your application will be referred to the Judge ..

 

I would contact the court again ... in person if possible ... and find out what is going on ..i.e . . who made the decision to strike it out ... and why was your application for extension rejected (given that it was awaiting the outcome of another case ).......... and why are they quoting Para 3 if you have writtern confirmation that that has been complied with ...

 

Hope this helps ... let's know how you get on with it ..as it'll help others in the same position ....

[Fred_Funk]

Hi Fred Happy New Year , I hope ....

 

You don't say whether or not you paid the £40 .... and does your confirmation letter say that your application will be referred to the Judge ..

 

I would contact the court again ... in person if possible ... and find out what is going on ..i.e . . who made the decision to strike it out ... and why was your application for extension rejected (given that it was awaiting the outcome of another case ).......... and why are they quoting Para 3 if you have writtern confirmation that that has been complied with ...

 

Hope this helps ... let's know how you get on with it ..as it'll help others in the same position ....

 

I didn't pay the £40 but that was only because I qualified for help with my court fees [for which I filled in all the relevant paperwork].

 

My guess, is that while I did meet the court's December 7 deadline - as the response from the court office, below, confirms - that when I did as instructed, and submitted an N244, this was treated in isolation and it didn't occur to anyone in the court office to inform the judge I had already written to the court, as instructed, before the cut-off date.

 

What makes this doubly frustrating is that throughout this process, I continually sought and received assurance from the court office that my claim wouldn't be struck out before my N244 was considered.

 

I will, of course, do as johnnymitch suggests and seek an explanation from the court office; at the same time, I'd like to know exactly where I stand before I embark on that discussion. That being the case, I'd welcome the thoughts of my fellow CAGgers.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

 

 

 

[DemandFairness]

subbing

 

DemandFairness

[caro]

Just bear in mind Fred that if this doesn't go your way you're leaving yourself open to potentially large costs. Did the claim reached AQ stage?

[Fred_Funk]

Hi guys! It's like this...

 

I'm looking to make a claim against a company, London Scottish Bank, that is now in default meaning I can, as I understand it, do so via the Financial Services Compensation Scheme [FSCS].

 

On the FSCS website it says they're unable to look at claims for mis-sold PPI dating from before January 14, 2005 [when PPI sales were first regulated by the FSA].

 

However, I was wondering whether this remains the case given: [1] The FSA website states that the codes of the Association of British Insurers and, from 2001-2005, the General Insurance Standards Council were applicable to sales of PPI; and moreover [2] the judicial review brought by the BBA has now upheld this approach by the FSA.

 

If the rest of the banks were to go the same way as Lloyds and decide not to challenge this judgement would this open the way for the FSCS to look at mis-sold PPI claims dating from before January 14, 2005?!

 

Thoughts please.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

[dx100uk]

there are quite a few good threads on this lot

 

use the advanced search top right

 

and sse the new faq pdfs on the fos website

 

dx

[Fred_Funk]

dx100uk

 

Hi! And thanks for your speedy response.

 

I'd already used the search tool and found a few threads mentioning London Scottish Bank. Unfortunately, I couldn't see any which were asking the same question as me.

 

Namely, now that the Judicial Review has upheld the FSA's approach to mis-sold PPI claims does this mean the FSCS will now be prepared to look at cases dating from before January 14, 2005?!

 

Once again, thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk