stonedecroze v halifax 2

[**Tilly**]

Almost as much as SSL and Tilly on their CAG Tour I should think.

 

 

 

 

[overflow]

Hi Stone,

 

Congrats on the nice shiny snot.

 

Lookin good.

 

Thank you x

[sea-sidelady]

Almost as much as SSL and Tilly on their CAG Tour I should think.

 

Im shocked.....

 

We were on lemonade, i swear. :grin:

[**Tilly**]

awww thankoo stone

[ja-de]

Same goes for me, thank you stone.

[**Tilly**]

to you and mrs stone:D

[deadlykiss]

hey Stone ..

Happy New Year to you and marion

 

all ok here just plodding along gonna write to my Mp regarding my claim got letter off him b4 xmas re test case ect,, says if i need any help get in contact so im gonna see how he can ,, lmao he was prob being polite but 1 can try ,, still gettting chrged having probs with council paying my reant ,, lol list is endless so will go through MP ,,

 

hope You both had great xmas , sorry never phoned phone been put out will tlk soon ,, take care lots of huggs and stuff xoxoxoxo

[stonedecroze]

Hi DK tyvm as they say no news is good news will be in contact soon

[stonedecroze]

Marcus Agius | Credit card fraud

 

Did anyone else see this. DON`T YOU JUST LOVE IT !!!!!

[Kelvid123]

Nice one. What would have been even better is if by £10k being drawn from his account he had gone into the red and been charged for it. Now that would have been justice, lol. You ready for the test case which starts soon? What do you reckon will happen?

[stonedecroze]

To be honest I think it will drag on and on with banks using alsorts of delaying tactics, and take a lot longer than the 8 days the legal profession are expecting. I am not going to hold my breath I am just going ahead with prepareing for my hearing on 29th as if were not going on

[Kelvid123]

Is that your hearing to have the stay removed?

[stonedecroze]

Indeed it is Kelvid, having recently attended a similar case before the same DJ (see here for more details) I am now more confidant ofgetting the stay set aside regardles of how the test case is going

[ja-de]

Hi stone, just been & had a look at that newspaper article, wow what a load of plonkers, them at Barclay's are! I gotta say that I agree with kelvid, it should have been his own bank account, & gone into unauthorised overdraft, now that would have been soooo good.

[stonedecroze]

here we go again, back to work boys and girls, Here is the first rough draft of my skeleton argument

 

 

 

1. Delaying tactics:

It is my strong belief that the Defendant has used unfair delaying tactics in an attempt to slow down the proceeding in this case all along the line from my first approach on 23 April 2007 requesting copies of all my monthly statements,which caused me to issue a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office on the 05 June 2007. They finally did supply SOME of the information after some 73 days had elapsed, thus enabling me to commence with these proceedings. I finally received copies of all of my statements after 103 days, I had also requested copies of all correspondence to me in regard to the account and a copy of the original terms and conditions that I signed when I first opened the account. I have now given up hope entirely of ever receiving this additional information. It is my contention that at this time the defendants were in negotiation with the FSA, OFT and other Banks in regard to the “test case”, and were deliberately employing this privileged knowledge to my disadvantage. This I believe could be likened to “Insider Dealing” which we all know is illegal.

 

 

 

When I submitted my N1 Claim form to the Court on 20 July 2007 the Defendant filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 30 July 2007 this gave them 28 days from date of service to file their defence, this expired on 27 August 2007. I requested a judgment by default in view of the Defendant's apparent failure to file defence by the required date, this was returned on 31 August 2007 as the claim was stayed on the Courts own motion on 24 August 2007. The defendant filed defence on 14 August 2007 of which I received my copy from the Defendant`s solicitors on 16 August 2007, The same day that the court notified of the Acknowledgment of Service.

Furthermore, it is my belief that the defendant had considerable prior knowledge of the Test Case being brought by the FSA to the High Court regarding unauthorized overdraft charges, and the agreed waiver on future claims until this case has been resolved and has used this knowledge to an unfair advantage to me. In my opinion in this the defendant has played “fast and loose” with regulations governing their business practices and has used the legal system to its own ends i.e. profit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Halifax Plc.:

the Defendants,Halifax Plc./ HBOS have already settled 100 similar case to my knowledge prior to the announcement of the “test case”, in the attached list the Court will see that HalifaxPlc/HBOS. were the defendants in all of these cases. These are figures gleaned from on of several web based forums and there must be many more cases that I am not aware of. In some of these both actually filed defences and returned their allocation questionnaires, obliging the claimants to do the same. However in every one of these cases, they have either settled at the “11th hour” or even in the court , where they stubbornly refuse to prove the justification of their penalty charges. Of the very few claims that have failed have been due to poorly presented claims never on the grounds that these charges are indeed lawful In some cases the court has even ordered standard disclosure against defendant bank but those bank have then gone on to settle rather than reveal the details of its contractual penalties.

It is further submitted that the defendant in the instant case has no intention of going to a hearing.

It is submitted that the pattern of cases settled so far suggests very strongly that the bank is merely using the justice system as a publicly funded means of intimidating their customers and dissuading them from pursuing their legitimate right.

It is further submitted that this is abusive of the justice system and of the public resource.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Human rights

 

The stay would infringe my rights under the European Convention on Human Rights directly and as enacted in the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 6 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 as proposed 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 any proposed stay 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 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

 

4. The Overriding Objective

 

The Overriding Objective requires that my case is 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 an 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.

 

 

5. 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 as has happened in my case. This amounts to a sanction for seeking a ruling from the justice system and as such is a basic denial of citizenship.

 

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 a stay may potentially mean great difficulty for me 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.

 

6. 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 an 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. In the alternative

 

In view of the preceding paragraphs, if the courts decision is to uphold the stay notwithstanding these objections, I respectfully request that the court issues the following injunctions:

• 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 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:

 

 

 

As usual comments and suggestions are more than welcome. I plan to keep it as short and concise as possible, as I have learned from experience DJ will just quickly glance though it and then expect me to expand on it with my arguments, and I propose to spend most of my time researching these and getting as many answers to any thing that Howard and his mob care to throw me. "I have a cunning plan" Hopefully having nothing to do with turnips

[stonedecroze]

.......

 

 

 

 

[stonedecroze]

Do I have to get my skeleton argument to court and Howards mob before the hearing ?

 

 

 

[stonedecroze]

Is there a list anywhere of stays aet aside and the reasons or where stays have been upheld but conditions attached ie. no more charges applied etc ?

[**Tilly**]

stone i know the bank are meant to send you one and i think but not 100% sure you take yours with you im on the case:D

Skeleton argument for stay hearing

[**Tilly**]

stone i think you have to file or take your skeleton argument to the court 7 days before have a look in this link

Skeleton arguments - preparing for court

[stonedecroze]

TY Tils, just that in the recent case I was involved in DJ and defence spent quite some time reading skeleton and then DJ asked me if I had anything further to add. In my case I have a lot more to add in my complete argument at hearing. have you got msn working yet?

[deadlykiss]

hi Stone ,

how goes it with you ?

[**Tilly**]

hi stone yes i see what you mean

and as for msn grrr no still not got it working it wont let me sign in

[deadlykiss]

ohh hi Tilly ,

is 1st time i been here when peeps have been about

[deadlykiss]

have you tried repair on the control add andremove programs tilly ?