Mercantile Hearing, Leeds, 26th April 2007

[BankFodder]

Sky News thinks the bank-charges story is one of great public interest and, as such, we are giving serious consideration to covering Thursday’s “Case Management Conference”. Is there any chance you might put us in contact with one of the claimants? I should imagine that many are members of your web forum! We would be keen to interview them, in advance of the hearing, about their experience with their bank.

Joel Hills

Business Reporter

Sky News

07920 781 071

....

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Subscribing

[zsazsa]

Hi there - I've been helping my mum with her claim against Lloyds which was moved into the Mercantile court & the directions hearing for tomorrow 26th April & after no correspondence whatsoever from Lloyds they were in touch by letter today advising of a partial settlement.

 

I've made a super cock-up though - I didn't realise I'd have to file the CMI thing & so haven't & although the claim had been partially settled there's still just short of 2k outstanding & we're intending to be at court tomorrow.

 

How badly will my cock-up affect me & what are the chances I'm off the inclusion list now & will I be able to to file the required form tomorrow?

 

Please help - I'm kacking myself now!!!!

 

Zsazsa

[JulesTools]

Hi all ,

I`m hoping I can manage to attend tomorrow , work permitting , seeing as I didn`t get the chance in February , due to YB settling my claims in full. Looks like they are trying to push the boundaries a little bit further to see what Judge Kaye has to say . I know many attending tomorrow will be scared witless , but remember its only a Case Management Conference nothing to be scared of . In fact the banks are probably more scared than every claimant put together . Good luck if I can`t get there .

 

p.s I look just like my avatar but will leave the spanner in the van

[barnett]

Thanks Jules. Did you get my pm?

[Aireman]

Hi there,

 

My name's Joel. I'm a journalist at 96.3 Radio Aire in Leeds and I'm hoping to speak to anybody going to the mercantile court today who would be willing to talk about their attempts to reclaim bank charges.

 

If anybody is willing to do this, please send an email to aire.news@radioaire.com and leave some contact details asap.

 

Thanks very much

[TUTTSI]

I just heard that there is going to be a test case with Citi Bank, from todays hearing is this correct!!

DS

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Has anyone heard anything?

[Bookworm]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-charges-print/85602-did-you-see-calendar.html#post773450

 

is all I've seen so far.

[lillboy]

Any News today how many actually settled.

[caro]

I've heard they all did but don't have details.

[thereshope!]

Any News today how many actually settled.

 

25 out of 30 settled

[Calculator]

Don't forget that the full listing for this hearing was originally 77 cases. I assume that the reference to 25 out of 30 cases being settled were those that were still outstanding on the day of the hearing and that 47 had already been settled out of court in the days/weeks before the hearing.

 

There is an article in this mornings Yorkshire Post, extract as follows:

 

'Most of the claims were settled out of court, but a handful have been adjourned so technicalities can be ironed out.

Judge Roger Kaye QC had earlier told the consumers that one of their claims - a potential trest case - could be taken to trial.

But the judge then adjourned the hearing for two hours so representatives for Lloyds TSB, Barclys, RBOS and Halifax could speak to the customers. Most customers were smiling after the break, having been given assurances that their claims would be settled in full.'

 

Will anybody who attended give as a run-down of what happened please.

[zsazsa]

Hello all - firstly thanks to everyone for all your support, I really appreciate it.

 

Well - yesterday - 40 plus claims I think, all packed in - of the claims there, all the reprsentatives of the banks were there - settling like mad - except Lloyds & Abbey National.

 

HH Judge Kaye took time to explain what potentially is a minefield, in very accessible terms for the lay people & seemed keen to have something left at the end of the day to push forward towards being a test case. Both the Judge & all the court staff were extremly helpful & minor errors with forms/ammendments etc were dealt with easily, in order that this may be the case. Just my take on it - but they seemed sympathetic to the litigants in person & are very keen to see something tried so a definitive ruling can be made.

 

One claim from Yorkshire I think it was, was dismissed as the claimant wasn't there, but far worse the YB legal representative requested that costs be awarded to them for him , & the judge ruled this was acceptable & in view of him not turning up proper.

 

WARNING - anyone who does have their case listed at one of these hearings MUST attend no matter how ill prepared they think they are!

 

I submitted my CMI sheet & an ammended shedule of charges for my claim ditrectly to the court staff & the judge allowed this so my claim is still ongoing. The balance is inthe region of 2k. LTSB, in a letter to the court, stated that as my claim had been partially settled it should be removed to the small claims track - this was refused.

 

The 4 cases left are to re-appear before the same Judge at 1000 on 21 May 2007. Obviously if they've settled it won't be applicable, but if not, as far as I could tell it will be a matter of further directions..? I think? LTSB not being there didn't go down too well for them & next time costs rulings will be made.

 

Regardless of how accessible things are made it's still bloody scary standing up in open court & let's not forget this is High Court! & having to speak up & out - my nerves were shot! I will be nothing less than completely prepared for the next round to compensate.

 

Somehow I have the feeling LTSB will settle in full sooner rather than later now for me.

 

Zsazsa

[zsazsa]

Me again - just remebered something whilst reading another thread that mentioned the 6 year issue.

 

This was touched upon yesterday by HH Judge Kaye & it was so interesting I wrote it down - In his instructions/talk to the Court & Litigants one of the issues when deciding the outcome was to assertain whether SOLA 1980 applied - however, the Judge did say that if the bank had made a payment, any payment, partial full whetever that you may go back beyond the 6 years for claims - presumably that's on the basis that the 'deception' had just been discovered. Claiming anything again, I'd certainly have a go getting statements as far back as possible & then claiming the lot back regardless of the 6 years.

 

If I think of anything else I'll post again & of course with having attended if anyone wants to know anything else I haven't mentioned ask away.

 

Zsazsa

[caro]

Thanks ZsaZsa.

[matreb]

To try to draw together the earlier comments, and tally them with my own notes of the hearing, results from yesterday were as follows:

1. 77 cases listed; by start of the hearing Judge said 32 had settled according to their list.

2. Banks were able to confirm, at the start of the hearing, that another 35 had settled, leaving approx. 10. Seems settlements were recent hence no papers with court to confirm.

3. By my reckoning all but five cases were settled by 3.30.

4. Judge gave two of these (same claimant) another half hour to settle, otherwise these would be adjourned for a month.

5. Remaining three/four were asked to reappear on 21 May.

 

Other points to note:

- In two cases the banks sought leave to transfer the claims back to the small claims fast track - refused.

- Yorkshire Bank wanted to stay all their cases until the OFT report is finished (ie until end of year). Judge made it clear he was unhappy with this, but by my reckoning all the YB cases were settled so this became academic.

- Judge did underline potential for a test case as being one way to resolve the whole issue, but also that it was the "least bad" of the options available.

- Banks seemed better organised than the previous hearing, in that most were represented, and they had lists of cases etc.

[TUTTSI]

I heard that a Citibank case yesterday at Leeds was going for a test case! but so far no evidence to this!

[matreb]

I only saw one Citi case. The open question is whether the customer, by accepting a payment several years ago, did actually settle his bank charges claims up to that date. Directions were given on the day, but if it does go to trial it will be on this narrow point (ie not whether the bank charges claim itself is valid).

[TUTTSI]

Thanks Matreb, I knew their was a problem with a Citibank case but did not know the reasons, I have just been filed me in on the principle of the case and from my informants knowledge through the lawyer world, they believed that yesterday this case would be the test case. But we will have to see now what happens.

DS

[matreb]

Intrigued that this could have been a/the test case. Citi were originally trying to get the case passed back to small claims on its own (on basis that facts were different to the others) and venue changed to Citi's local court. Both were refused by the Judge pretty much out of hand.

 

After the main adjournment Citi's lawyer had with no notice to the court or the sole claimant gone back to Liverpool, to be replaced by an agent. Amid mild hilarity the agent explained that he was Citi's lawyer's cousin, here on a non-paid basis as a favour. More astounding, he was also solicitor to two of the claimants!

 

This could still be a test regarding Citi's obligation to pay anyone if there has ever been a previous payment/refund of any level of bank charges. Perhaps if they have previously made a policy of repaying a small amount of charges to most customers they think they have a good defence strategy up their sleeve?

 

I would be intrigued to hear what your contact said (via pm if you prefer) in case I missed a subtlety of the case. The case is not finished and I may be able to contact the claimant.

[TUTTSI]

From what I understand Citibank have previously paid the diff between £12 and what they actually charged. the Claimant has like all of us held out for the whole amount. They apparently reckon that it cost them £12.88 - don't know where they get that from and obviously no evidence to substatiate this! so are they prepared to defend on this basis and go for a full blown hearing - this would then be a test case.

 

Yesterday morning, I knew nothing about Leeds and this hearing and now I am intriged like you what actually happened. Obviously, my informant heard through the grapevine and as we all know thats how Chinese whispers start.

 

My informant in this instance was just a casual conversation with a lawyer whilst chasing my cheque from one of the banks and in a chatty way told me what he had heard, I felt like a journalist talking to him and he only relayed what his team had told that department yesterday.

 

He had told me earlier in the week that there will be a test case before long and that they and other banks are preparing the way. That could just be putting the frighterners on but I think he was pretty genuine in what he was saying. I found that he was down to earth and I did not pick up any bad vibes from him. In fact my hubby has just got a court date for August which has taken since February when he sent back the AQ and this guy has told me that if he calls on his dedicated line on Monday he will sort my hubbys claim out so he can get paid, how cool is that.

 

That is all I know for the time being but should I pick up any snippets I will PM you.

 

Refards

ds

[zsazsa]

Interesting....the specifics weren't gone into about the citibank case yesterday in open court, but the amount was considerable. Next time I'm there on 21May though I'll see the chap concerned & make sure I get the gen & suggest he joins forum himself & tells his own story, but if not I can certainly find out more details.

 

Zsazsa

[TUTTSI]

Thanks, that would be good. From what you are saying he is probably not a CAG member!

I wish you well with your claim - do you think it is likely to be settled before you get back to court!

DS

[Bookworm]

From what I understand Citibank have previously paid the diff between £12 and what they actually charged. the Claimant has like all of us held out for the whole amount. They apparently reckon that it cost them £12.88 - don't know where they get that from and obviously no evidence to substatiate this! so are they prepared to defend on this basis and go for a full blown hearing - this would then be a test case.

 

That is not what I said to you. Citi have produced an estimate of costs by which they have reached the amount of £12.88 as their real costs. They used it for the 1st ime successfully in Northern Ireland:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/citicards/9085-citi-cards-request-repayment-11.html

is the case.

and I am aware of one other case where the judge accepted that figure. And a few more where he didn't.

It really depends on how sure they are of themselves that their figures would stand up to scrutiny. In NI, the judge wouldn't let LTWFB get a look at it to refute it, and they produced it on the day of the hearing itself, which rather put LTWFB at a disadvantage... I doubt very much that they would get away with springing this particular rabbit out of the hat at a High Court hearing, somehow.

 

Time will tell... 8)