Leeds Mercantile Hearing, 29 August 2007

[j.barton1]

EXCELLENT...the leeds Judges are definatly the best i've heard of.

Thanks srfrench xx

[scoobz]

Thanks for that srfrench and well done with your speech in court you were brilliant....wish I had the confidence to do that! I was sat opposite side to you behind those screens near the door. I think it was Jess124 who was sat in front row of jury box..

 

Jen..

 

I didn't get chance to hand anything in and didn't think it was appropriate as the Judge wasn't too happy about people asking for strike outs if they hadn't applied for them properly (I presume there is a form and a charge for this??).

 

I'm still going to use the details I've got of all the A&L settled claims since OFT Test Case and use it for my hearing (if it gets to that stage).

 

I'm not sure if they can still apply for a stay? If they do then I don't think I would appeal as Judge stated that it would be highly unlikely it would be upheld (unless hardship case?) correct me if I'm wrong please...

 

Scoobz

[j.barton1]

Thanks for that srfrench and well done with your speech in court you were brilliant....wish I had the confidence to do that! I was sat opposite side to you behind those screens near the door. I think it was Jess124 who was sat in front row of jury box..

 

Jen..

 

I didn't get chance to hand anything in and didn't think it was appropriate as the Judge wasn't too happy about people asking for strike outs if they hadn't applied for them properly (I presume there is a form and a charge for this??). Yes..think so

 

I'm still going to use the details I've got of all the A&L settled claims since OFT Test Case and use it for my hearing (if it gets to that stage).

 

I'm not sure if they can still apply for a stay? If they do then I don't think I would appeal as Judge stated that it would be highly unlikely it would be upheld (unless hardship case?) correct me if I'm wrong please...as far as i know they can still apply but i doubt it if they have'nt already.

 

I'm really pleased for you...it looks like you have done well out of it.....roll on oct for both of us.

Jen xx

[srfrench]

Believe me I was squitting all the way.... but thanks for that xx

[Lula]

ooooooo he's gonna get all biggedded now lol

[Entitled]

Well it's nice to see such enthusiastic and positive posts. I've been feeling absolutley rotten about the whole thing. Really down in the dumps and Mrs Entitled has just spent the best part of an hour berating me for my poor financial judgement and pathetic skills at getting what I am Entitled to.

 

I was the ashen, trembling, dithering idiot that mentioned "we aren't all trained as lawyers and unlike the Banks we can't afford the best legal brains in the country" to which Judge Behren replied "ah, well that's another good reason to let the OFT test case bear the costs and pay for the top brains"... Uuurrrgghhh, wish the ground could swallow me whole. During the Lunch break I practically dug a hole in the Waiting Area and climbed in... sorry if any of you tripped over me.

 

 

None of us said what was really on our mind;

"Oh please Judge, don't make a Stay! If you make it for trial then the Banks will pay us off... please don't, please don't"

 

 

 

Oh and Mr French was just as I had imagined him to be... Due to the lack of seating he ended up on the very front row where (presumably) all the wiggy Lawyers get to be. Tall and with strong voice, he clearly stated his case and drew the Judge's attention to various clauses and this-that-other, with good humour and not the slightest embarassment (I swear, one of those Credit Card claims was for less than 30p, I'm sure it was).

 

 

 

I hung on till 4pm, too polite to walk out any earlier... yet there were still people in there. Yes I saw Scoobz, another very confident and well-prepared claimant.

 

 

All the Barclays customers filed out at one point as their Bank's Rep had hoped to apply for a Stay verbally today but was told to do so with forms and cheques. Directions were made for hearing, but Stay applications will be most likely completed and granted in the next couple of weeks.

 

 

 

Judge Behrens read the printout that we offered on "argument against a Stay" but only really seemed to notice the first couple of points. He made no specific mention of the parts about Human Rights, etc.

 

 

I have a massive headache now and need to find a rock to crawl under....

[jess124]

And Good Luck ScoobZ. I will be def thinking of you, and will try find your thread to assist in necessary. (Were you the young lady in the Jury section of the Court front row?)

 

Yes sounds like me, I was in the jurors section. Judge has given Lloyds 14 days to pay up in my case or judgement will be entered against them.

 

I was there when you spoke ScoobZ. Think you were right after or before me. You spoke very well, you sounded very knowledgeable!

 

Srfrench, I thought you were great, you've obviously really done your research and I think you did yourself proud, you really came across so well, and annoyed Miss Dainty at the same time too I think!! Result lol!!!

[jansus]

Entitled - dont feel bad - most of the rest of us would be the same if not worse than you. Do you think the judge may have meant by his comment - that by us "ordinary" people having to go to court - there is always a risk of loosing the case as when you get to that stage there is always the possibilty of a small mistake leading to a case going the wrong way.Therefore the OFT case may be the best outcome in the long run because it may mean all claimants - not just the ones as brave of you getting some sort of result. Lets face it - none of us wanted to get to the court stage and seeing that that has happened must have put a lot of people off, who are also entitled to their money- so maybe his comments were not meant as a critisism.Just a thought. At least it seems you were all treated as individuals to a certain extent. I just think a fairer outcome all round would have been that all claimants all ready in the court system should have had their chance and put a stay on all those that had not paid the fees. But I suppose the risk with that is that there would be an important judgement before the OFT case (and they would not have liked that!)

Well Done all of you for what you have attempted to do today

 

Jan:)

[srfrench]

Just remembered something else that was "given" to me by His Hounour Judge Behrens.

 

In one of my credit card claims (may have been both?) I was awarded an order for the Bank to disclose their Administrative Costs as that is a key part to my claim!

 

I have a clause in my POC that demands the disclosure otherwise I cannot settle the monetary side alone!

 

As such within 6 weeks I will either have their "true" costs and the floodgates open or they will have to settle way more than my original claim! Yippppppeeeeeeeee

 

 

Thanks to all for your extremely kind comments today, believe me I felt the same as the others who first stood up to argue against a stay....... only I'm... believe it or not.......deaf!

[Lula]

Thanks to all for your extremely kind comments today, believe me I felt the same as the others who first stood up to argue against a stay....... only I'm... believe it or not.......deaf!

 

I can confirm this, and he doesnt just mean "man deaf" either

[jansus]

I really wish I could have been there - you obviously gave the barristers and bank reps a run for their money - Well done again and especially SRfrench - could be a landmark disclosure or exposure! ( no double entendres intended )

 

jan

[srfrench]

LOL at Entitled by the way....

 

Don't ever feel bad at anything you did. Believe me, no matter what you or anyone said today, barristers and solicitors will always attempt to twist it.

 

The outcome was always going to be a stay..... so no-one should feel bad. HOWEVER, the big plus, and because the claimants argued both for and against a stay and other arguements the stay had conditions imposed on them. The Banks didn't like that one bit especially after the Barrister was told in no uncertain terms that if they wish to appeal the Stay is automatically lifted. That totally shut him up! (Hope he's not being paid on results!)

 

The Hearing today was the best of both worlds. Either way at least the interest still mounts and we get a little breathing space now.

[caro]

Sounds like a fascinating day, and you all did really well. Some interesting times still to come I think.

[scoobz]

I think we should all be proud of what we did today and especially those who stood up and put their case forward (srfrench & entitled)! The whole experience I feel was very daunting and I for one would not have dared to stand up in front of 120+ people and state my case (at least it was pretty empty when I had to speak)...

I think it had already been decided before we even entered the room that stays would be granted but it was just for the judge to decide if it was to be a blanket stay or case by case...

Jess.... I did speak just before you and I was shaking like a leaf and I'm sure I was talking a load of babble! If it wasn't for all the help we get from peeps on here then I wouldn't of had a clue what to do or say!! You spoke very well too and the Judge acted well in your favour - make sure they pay up or else!!

Anyway nite nite everyone its been a long day..

Scoobz

[caro]

Nite nite Scoobz. Sleep tite.

[johnnyjoeflyer]

Hi Guys, yes a very interesting day with some very interesting points made by all, most of which have already been covered so I wont repeat them.

The annoying gobby little oike representing HSBC and who spoke on behalf of all the banks was a Daniel Toledano. Also why was it that the lady who dealt with srfrench first(not sure but think she was from HSBC as well), felt that she had to put on a strange voice for speaking in court. I had heard her during the lunch recess speaking outside and she seemed to speak quite normally, strange!!!

I was going to leave earlier than I did but when the judge started to give Miss Dainty who was also dealing with srfrench a hard time, I had to stay and watch her squirm, it was GREAT. She fluctuated between white and bright red and the hammering she was giving her pen was unreal. I was amazed that the judge did not pull her up for lying to him and the court as I clearly heard her state twice that an amount had been previously paid to srfrench to settle his claim earlier in August. When srfrench produced his bank statement and gave it to the judge to prove that no such amount had been paid, the look on her face (now white) was priceless. Just goes to show the banks and their representatives will stop at nothing, including lying to judges. Banks and integrity, what a joke.

Anyway will now wait till OFT case.

[jess124]

Hi Guys, yes a very interesting day with some very interesting points made by all, most of which have already been covered so I wont repeat them.

The annoying gobby little oike representing HSBC and who spoke on behalf of all the banks was a Daniel Toledano. Also why was it that the lady who dealt with srfrench first(not sure but think she was from HSBC as well), felt that she had to put on a strange voice for speaking in court. I had heard her during the lunch recess speaking outside and she seemed to speak quite normally, strange!!!

I was going to leave earlier than I did but when the judge started to give Miss Dainty who was also dealing with srfrench a hard time, I had to stay and watch her squirm, it was GREAT. She fluctuated between white and bright red and the hammering she was giving her pen was unreal. I was amazed that the judge did not pull her up for lying to him and the court as I clearly heard her state twice that an amount had been previously paid to srfrench to settle his claim earlier in August. When srfrench produced his bank statement and gave it to the judge to prove that no such amount had been paid, the look on her face (now white) was priceless. Just goes to show the banks and their representatives will stop at nothing, including lying to judges. Banks and integrity, what a joke.

Anyway will now wait till OFT case.

 

Yes it did make enjoyable viewing lol, my did she squirm!! Serves her right for telling porkies, if I was the judge i'm of given her a right telling off!

 

And I definately know what you mean about the Irish ladys voice, god that was weird, she seemed to draw every word out to twice it's normal lenght when she was addressing the judge! Maybe that was her charm offensive....

[jamie9dh]

HI all,

Thanks to all who replied previously, i went to court with my friend, all was fine. Met a few really nice people. Well done to srfrench i particulalry like when they tried to make out that they had paid you in full, when she said she was trying to strike out your claim and then you said you where applying to strike out the defence that was particularly impressive, also thanks to the gentleman who got the round of applause for basically having a go at the hsbc guy!

 

On a more serious note, as the barclays rep. didnt notify people about the application for a stay and didnt apply in court, or couldn't!, he is going to do so in the next week, is anyone else going to object, templates on the website coming in very handy again, i think he thought we all were going to consent to the stay. Any thoughts appreciated

 

Regards and thanks again!

[caro]

I'm so glad you and your friend went. I'm sure it must help enormously to know that others are all in the same position and that you can support each other.

[Entitled]

Caution: Long Post approaching!!

 

Now that I've had a night to think about yesterday, and read other people's impressions, I think it might be good to write it out in as clear a way as possible. This will possibly (probably) contain some errors and ommissions, so I would very much like people to comment;

 

At Leeds Mercantile Court on 29th August, Judge Behrens presiding, a Case Management Conference was held in the matters of some 150 Claimants that had broadly similar cases against Banking Institutions over the matter of "unfair charges". Of the 150 cases listed, some 30 had apparently been settled prior to the Conference. Of the 120 remaining, there were several (a handful?) of non-attendees, including one who had been listed for Aug 29th and also Oct 4th. There was one attendee who had not been listed (was on the Oct 4th list), but was dealt with on the day.

 

The very first matter before the Judge was nothing to do with the Bank Cases - and this must have confused more than a few of us - we witnessed the "death" of Airfix and Humbrol, whose progression from "Administration" to "Liquidation" was ordered by the Court in agreement with the Administrators.

 

The Judge made his opening remarks, where he outlined his task. He would be looking at making any Directions necessary for the next stage of the cases before him, to assist in the expeditious resolution to the cases. He understood that there had been some formal applications to the Court for Stays in a majority of the cases. He explained later that some of the applications had been made at very short notice (I received my notification from the Court on the Tuesday morning, to be decided on the CMC on Wednesday 10.30), partly due to the Banks seeking guidance from the Court as to how Leeds wished to treat the applications. Leeds had forced the Banks Representatives to apply for a Stay for each and every claim separately, on separate forms, with separate cheques (chortle).

 

Judge Behrens explained that the OFT had launched a Test Case to be heard in London in January and that the Master of the Rolls had declined a request from the Banks to apply any "blanket Stay". Instead the guidance had gone to Judges that they could decide how they wanted to deal with the cases (I'm not clear on Judge hierarchy, but I think it went down to Districts, with all lower courts taking their lead from the Judges up their respective chain). Leeds had decided to listen to each case. Judge Behrens was going to give the Bank Reps and the Customers their chance to explain their reasons for a Stay, or reasons for opposing a Stay.

 

As there were so many people in attendance it was decided that one of the Bank Reps, Mr Toledano, would go through the "General reasons for a Stay" on behalf of all of them and the Judge then invited Claimants to make comments as to why they might oppose a Stay. It was clear that many of the Claimants wished to oppose the Stays. Hands were raised and a succession of Claimants rose to make specific points which they thought would be reason to oppose a Stay. Several Claimants referred to the document reproduced from CAG opposing a Stay and the Judge was given a copy to read.

 

Questions were raised about the Banks intentions with regards to "Enforcement" of debt-recovery, the continued application of charges and any Default Notices or notification to Credit Reference Agencies during the course of the Stay. Judge Behrens asked the Bank Representatives their position and they asked for time to seek "Instruction" from their Clients. They agreed to respond after the lunchtime adjournment, with as definitive an announcement as they could get in the limited time.

 

By 1pm, which the Judge mentioned had been "later than I had anticipated", the Judge felt ready to adjourn the conference and that on his return, he would give his decision.

 

At 2pm the court filled again (with several people unable to return due to work commitments, there was now space for nearly everyone to sit down). First, the Bank Rep Mr Toledano gave the Banks response to the points raised earlier. I've attempted to summarise below;

 

The Banks reserve the right to persue debts during the course of the Stay, as in the vast majority of cases, those debts did not comprise solely of "disputed" charges. An example was given of a £20k overdraught, where £200 might be made up of disputed charges, the Bank would certainly oppose any restriction on them being able to persue their entitlement to recovery of the debt.

 

The Banks reserved the right to apply new charges as and when they are appropriate (as described in their Terms and Conditions). They would oppose (appeal?) any restrictions that the Court might impose.

 

The Banks explained that in the case of Credit Reference Agencies, or certain other 3rd Parties, there were Agreements that could not be broken with regards to sharing information. Some things that they HAD to tell each other, and some things they weren't allowed to tell each other. These agreements could not be broken.

 

 

Judge Behrens then gave his Decision regarding the applications for Stay. He summarised what had been said in the morning, quoting remarks that had been made and going through the arguments. He decided to grant the Stay to all those cases in which Stays had been applied for. He stated that, on an account where the entire debt was made up of disputed charges, any attempt by the Bank to "Enforce" a debt recovery would automatically cause the Stay to be lifted. He repeated that his intention had been to allow everyone to have their say and that he would continue to hear each and every case that came before him.

 

Mr Toledano sought clarification on whether future cases could be assumed to have a Stay, or that group applications could be made. Judge Behrens repeated that he would require individual applications, for each and every case.

 

A claimant asked whether they still had the right to "appeal", by which I think he meant, do we have the right to request the Stay to be lifted. The Judge said we had that right, but then went on to say that as it was a decision made on the Court's discretion, any overturning would require there to be some evidence of a change in the situation or that his decision had not taken something into account that he should have done*. As the same Claimant (RTech?), mentioned outside the Court during the adjournment, such an application costs £35 in the County Court, but is £135 at Mercantile Court.

 

Barclays Reps had not applied in advance for Stays, and the Judge refused to accept the application orally. After the Decision, Barclays customers were invited outside to discuss the way forward. On his return the Barclays Rep arranged with the Judge for directions to continue... but it was then revealed that it was the Bank's likely intention to seek Stays in the next few days, which the Customers had been made aware of.

 

The Conference carried on to deal with those remaining cases which either did not require a Stay, or for which no application had arrived.

 

 

 

 

* I wish I had sought some additional information on what kind of grounds might have been considered adequate for Removal of Stay. I heard One Rep stating that "Terminal Illness" might be one such, but to be honest it sounded very much like any Reversal of the Decision was unlikely to succeed. Having said that, it was stated very clearly that the Judges in Leeds will continue to consider each and every case and , at the moment, did not consider a "blanket Stay" to be appropriate, although he might well change his mind in the future.

[srfrench]

Well I received a letter from the lady at DG Solicitors representing HSBC this morning and dated yesterday! Not sure if it was from the same lass in Court or from one of the other minions?

 

Either way, it made no mention of the Case Management Hearing or the Court event yesterday. It was basically a revised offer letter (downwards!) and the veiled threats and intimidation as I'm sure a number of others have received.

 

So in reply I wrote the following:

 

DG Solicitors

12 Calthorpe Road

Edgbaston

Birmingham B15 1QZ

30 August 2007

srfrench v HSBC Bank PLC

In the High Courts of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division

Leeds District Registry Claim No: AAAAAA

Harrogate County Court Claim No: BBBBBB

Our Ref: In a Land Far Far Away!

Dear Ms. Tomlinson

Thank you for your letter dated 29th August 2007, received today 30th August 2007.

I have noted the contents of your letter and your points therein.

I feel I have no choice other than to unequivocally reject your offer. Any attempt to insert funds into my account without my consent in an underhand attempt to settle my claim will be brought to the Judge’s attention.

You are more than welcome to hold a considered, if somewhat flawed, legal viewpoint on the issues contained in my claim, however I do not appreciate the tone of your letter or its intentions.

I would like to correct your viewpoint that, and I quote from your letter, “…we believe that the most that you could expect to recover would be £8.00 per charge of £20.00, which is the difference between the £20.00 you were charged and the £12 figure provided for in the OFT statement. We do not believe that you will be successful in recovering any of those charges of £12.00 each that you have claimed, these being equal to the amount found by the OFT to be an appropriate charge in any event.”

I would strongly suggest you re-read the OFT statement again.

The OFT made a ruling in early 2006 that it would impose a limit on what the Banks could charge their Credit Card users in the way of penalty charges. This was set at £12.00, being the MAXIMUM your organisation could charge upon admitted breaches of contract. However, this still does not make it lawful! Any incident whereby an organisation charges its Client more than £12 per breach, the OFT would automatically fine them!

This in no way makes the ruling that £12 is the lawful amount your organisation can charge for a breach in contract. As such, once again, if you intend (as I sincerely hope you do) to defend your stance in a Court of Law, I will require a breakdown of your true administrative costs by way of disclosure.

As for your other arguments, I claim the added interest under Unjust Enrichment, where there is already case law to support it whole-heartedly.

Please re-read my Particulars Of Claim as it would indeed be a shame for you to continue to waste Court Resource and abuse Court Process.

If indeed you wish to make a genuine attempt at full settlement unconditionally, please let me know at your earliest.

The Court Hearing I attended yesterday (Case Management Hearing) has effectively given you 6 weeks to sort yourselves out or face the consequences.

Yours sincerely,

I await the response......

[Lula]

ROFLMAO, you sure do write a good letter Frenchy

[Rtech]

I was the chap who unfortunately got the 'round of applause'..much to the embarrassment of my daughter.

I also made the foolowing observation....At the start two people(I presume solicitors) stood and stated they were representing a group of 25 and a group of 2 claimants.Their contribution was woeful,and I shudder to think what it cost those claimants!!

As my daughter has rec'd a letter from her Bank stating they may have to withdraw and recover her overdraft,due her change in banking methods ie,as she opened another account as a 'parachute account' just in case,and her wages now go into that.

The OD limit and outstanding amount would be wiped out by the disputed charges,and although Entitled and srfrench,have stated that the Judge said '''no enforcement action should take place,involving disputed amounts',it would seem,that to get a copy of the judgement made in this case,the cost is not cheap..quoted was £1.58 for every 72 words .

Surely everyone is entitled to a free copy of this as they have already paid court costs when submitting their claim.and if her Bank tied to implement the action referred to in their letter,would this be construed as 'enforcement'??

[caro]

Do you mean they plan to withdraw from the case? I'm not sure they have that option as defendants. I suggest that you take the letter to the court and ask them to check if the bank can take this action, or if it contravenes the courts orders.

[Rtech]

Sorry Caro,i have confused you...I meant they have threatened to withdraw the OD facility,and therfore any amount would be immediately payable...I think that is 'enforcement'??