Leeds Mercantile Hearing, 29 August 2007

[jansus]

wel done Marty

 

Jan:p

[Rtech]

Following the above hearing and susbsequent stay,all went quiet,UNTIL this week,when my daughter received a letter from Abbey dated EARLY OCT,but obviously not sent then.

Her original OD is due for renewal on 1st Dec,and they want to drop it to a £100(Balance currently OD £900)all penalty charges and a stay on her claim for over £2300 for previous charges.

She being very sensible,had opened a parachute account,so all day to day activities now go through that one,and the 'disputed'account is not used.

Should they implement this reduction to a £100,the onlly effect would be to incur further charges on the balance,so I am ata loss as to the reason for them not keeping the status quo as it is until after the OFT case!!!.

She spoke on the phone to them,and of course got no sense.

After careful consideration,I feel she should let them do what they want,hope they then try and chase the OD Balance,which,would then ignore the conditions laid out by the Judge in that the Banks should not make any recovery attempt,until after the OFT test case.Would this then be grounds for having the stay lifted,as I am sure that was what he stated??

 

Anyone had anything similar,or maybe can suggest another course of action???

[caro]

Post 173 above has a pdf of the judgment. Page 4, para 11 states that if the overdraft is made up entirely of charges, they cannot enforce it or the stay will be lifted.

 

I would suggest that your daughter contacts the court, tells them about the letter, and asks if that is sufficient to lift the stay, and if not, seeks clarification of the definition of enforcement.

[Rtech]

Thanks for that Caro,had read it,and as far as I can see 'enforcement'would be trying to recover the charges they have illegally made,so until they try and do that ,I dont think we can do anything(but of course I may be wrong)

As she had the parachute account,and as her salary etc now goes into that,no deposits are made into the Abbey account.As far as I am aware OD limits are determined to some extent by the amount deposited per month ,thefore they may well be within their rights to reduce the limit.

 

All fun and games,will be glad when someone makes real decisions

[caro]

Surely by reducing the overdraft they are implying that they want £800 back. I think that might be seen as enforcement if they are removing the authorisation for the larger overdraft, although I will try and get a second opinion. That would be the gist of my argument.

[Lula]

I would agree Caro and actually this would/should be enough to get the stay lifted, it depends on what route she wants to go down, she could just let them do it and then they can pile on the charges and then she can go back to the court and create merry hell, at this point , I think that Abbey will cave rather dramatically and pay up OR she could remind them of the terms of the stay and tell them that, in her opinion, any reduction of o/d (which is made up purely of charges) and subsequent charges incurred will, be a breach of the stay conditions and that she would seek to have the stay lifted in the Merc.

 

If it was me, I would let them start the charges and then watch them cave and ultimately pay up, but then I am a stubborn cuss who enjoys them squirming

[caro]

I wasn't suggesting she remind the bank of the terms of the stay. They should already know them, and if they don't they should suffer the consequences. I was just proposing she check with the COURT if withdrawing most of the OD is a sufficient breach of the terms of the stay to get it lifted now. If so, they may cave sooner rather than later.

[Lula]

LOL I was just outlining her options, IMHO, if the o/d is made up of penalty charges, then the removal of the o/d is a breach of stay conditions

[caro]

Doh. Sorry Lula.

[Lula]

Roflmao

[Rtech]

Lula and Caro,thanks for the input,will sleep on it,and get an update from my daughter tomorrow,and will take it from there.

[caro]

Pleasure Rtech. It would be a real tonic to see a stay lifted and somebody get some money in time for Christmas.

[Rtech]

After doing a lot of research this morning,it would seem that as usual things are not as straight forward as we think they are.

 

The term 'enforcement ' has a lot of different interpretations, and of course the legal one as in the Court Order,may not be as simple as we think.

It seems to mean(although I am still not 100% certain)that the Banks cannot take 'enforcement' action through the Courts...ONLY..(eg Bailiffs.attachment of earnings etc to recover the supposed debt)and what they do outside the legal system,may not be termed as 'enforcement',although it may be contrary to the Bankers Code or OFT.s Debt Guidance and Collection Directive.

 

I suppose I really needs a Legal view of the term,and for example ...If the Bank does ask that the supposed debt be settled prior to the OFT.s case being resolved,would that constitute 'enforcement'

 

Anyone you know who could advise??