Grant123 Vs BOS/HBOS.

[grant123]

Hullo

Here's the N1 POC I used for my claim. I live in Scotland but sent the N1 to the court next to HBOS HQ.

THIS IS FOR COMPLETING THE N1 FORM

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/c...ms/n1_0102.pdf

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

At the ........................ Court

 

Enter your local County courts name

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Claimant

 

Quote:

YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS

Defendant

 

Quote:

THE BANKS NAME

THE BANKS REGISTERED OFFICE ADDRESS

TICK NO TO HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brief Details of Claim

 

Quote:

Money claim for return of penalty charges applied to the Claimants bank account by the Defendant

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Value:

 

Quote:

Charges £xxx.xx

Overdraft Interest £xxx.xx

Interest under s.69 County Courts Act 1984 £xxx.xx

Court Fee £xx.xx

 

TOTAL £ xx.xx

 

Plus interest pursuant to S.69 County Courts Act 1984 from date of issue to date of judgement/settlement at £xx.xx per day [(enter daily rate here - (CHARGES+OD interest)x 0.00022 = pence per day)] OR at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Quote:

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

 

1. The Claimant [has] [had] an account 1 ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around 2 [and closed on or around 2 ]

 

2. During the period in which the Account [has been] [was] operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

 

3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.

 

4. The Claimant contends that:

 

a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

 

b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) and the common law.

 

5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

 

a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £ 3 and any interest charged thereon;

 

 

b) Court costs;

 

c) The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year, from [date when the money became owed to you] to [the date you are issuing the claim] of £ [amount] and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of [enter the daily rate of interest]

 

 

I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true

 

 

Signed: DON'T FORGET TO SIGN IT

 

 

Date:

[grant123]

Letter to Judge re stay.

Dear District Judge XXXXX

 

I respectfully request that the further stay for settlement, which was ordered on the 4th October 2006, be removed.

 

It is submitted that 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. There is no complicated issue of law. The common law relating to contractual penalties is settled law since the late 1800s and has been reinforced as recently as the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 which itself is the result of a European Directive.

 

The defendants, Barclaycard (Barclays Bank PLC) have already settled 5 similar cases in the last two months. I am aware that in the majority of these cases the defendant has actually filed a defence and returned the allocation questionnaire, obliging the claimant to do the same. In each case Barclays settled the matter before the hearing. I have attached a list of these cases for your perusal. (Which I got from the site)

 

I have attempted to contact Mr Jeremiah, representative of the defendant, on several occasions since the initial Stay for Settlement was ordered. My attempts by email, letter, and telephone have elicited no response. Although the court ordered sufficient time for both parties to enter negotiation the defendant has declined to do so. I am unsure as to why the defendant would ignore my attempts at contact, but do not imagine that an extension of the Stay Period would produce a satisfactory result under these circumstances.

 

If the court does agree to my request for a removal of the stay, then I respectfully request that the case be allocated to the small claims track but that the defendant be ordered to make a standard disclosure. It is submitted that an order for standard disclosure will assist greatly in bringing these and other similar claims to a speedy and just conclusion. The matter is suitable for the Small Claims Track as it involves no issue of law – the law is well established. It only involves issues of fact – in particular the true costs of the banks default charges system. The OFT has already formed its conclusion about this. Standard disclosure will put the matter beyond doubt. As I rely upon the bank as my fiduciary it is clear that they have a duty to act in utmost good faith in relation to their conduct of their contract with me. I submit that they do not act in good faith in relation to me or their other customers in the matter of penalty charges.

[stonedecroze]

Good luck with this Grant.

 

I will be following closely as I am about to send a similar letter to my court and I also plan to show that Halifax have been bending rules and in my opinion abusing the legal process to delay making payments to customers under UTCC`s which have no relation to the test case which is in reference to Unfair OD charges.

[grant123]

Or I may use this letter if my claim is stayed,

 

Claim Number:XXXXXXX

 

In the XXXXXXXX County Court

 

Between:

 

 

 

[YOU]

Claimant

 

 

 

-and-

 

 

 

 

XXXXXXX BANK PLC

Defendant

 

 

 

I strongly object to the proposed order of a stay in respect of the claim detailed above upon the following grounds;

 

Human rights

 

It 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.

 

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 reletively 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.

 

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. This amounts to a sanction for seeking a ruling from the justice system and as such is a basic denial of citizenship. I will remain at risk of such action despite the fact that my remedy has been placed on an indeterminate hold.

 

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.

 

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.

 

In the alternative

 

In view of the preceding paragraphs, if the court accedes to the defendant’s application for a stay notwithstanding these objections, I respectfully request that the court issues the following injunctions:

• That the defendant bank is prevented from applying further penalty charges to my account until the final settlement of the matter.
  
• 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 closing my account.
  
• 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:

Dated:

 

 

.

.

 

© Reclaim the Right Ltd.

If the court has already ordered a stay and you want to apply for it to be lifted using form N244 - http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/c.../n244_0400.pdf, this should be the part C statement and you will need to amend the wording slightly in places to reflect the fact that you are applying for a set-aside, rather than opposing the banks application. The application costs £35.

 

Here's a guide to filling in the N244;

 

Quote:

Top left hand box:

 

1. Tick c), without a hearing (with a hearing if you prefer, but it costs £65)

 

Ignore 2, 3 and 4

 

5. District or Deputy District

 

6. Defendant

 

Top right hand box:

 

The claim details, todays date.

 

Part A:

 

I ***** (the claimant)

 

(that....) removes the order of a stay imposed on the above referenced claim.

 

(because....) the claimant objects to the stay on the grounds set out in part C of this application notice.

 

Part B:

 

tick 'evidance in part C' box

 

Part C:

 

Please find attached;

 

- Part C statement

- Any other supporting evidence

[grant123]

Hi

 

Does anybody know........

 

Does the forty day limit on an Sar request mean forty calendar days or forty working days.

 

I'm getting prepared in case the Bank of Schisters put's a stay on my case.

 

Cheers

[stevokenevo]

40 calendar days

[grant123]

Hi

 

Does anyone know if Hull County court is the same place as Hull and Holderness magistrates court, I can't find Hull county court on the HMCS website?

 

Cheers

[grant123]

Hi

 

I've a claim in at Hallifax court, I called today and they say they are staying all claims, booger.

 

I've another claim to process, does anybody have an opinion on this... I'm thinking about processing my claim through Hull court which is carrying on as normal.

 

Any ideas ?

 

Cheers

[grant123]

The FSA's ''light touch'' style of regulation was set up by Gordon Brown as Chancellor. It was and is proof of New Labour's pro business policy. Which is why the worlds bankers and brokers want to do business in London and not New York where, post Enron, tough regulation is seen as neccessary.

 

Here are 6 depressing facts uncovered by Harvard professor Howell E Jackson in a dispiriting compare and contrast exercise with the FSA (Fundamentaly Supine Authority) and it's US equivalent the SEC

(Securities & Exchange Comission).

 

1 In the period 2002 to 2004 The SEC took out 3624 enforcement actions against financial institutions compared to the FSA's ..err ..72.

 

2 The FSA employs less than 15 percent of the staff of it's US counterpart.

 

3 40 percent of SEC staff work on enforcement compared to just 1 in 10 at the FSA.

 

4 Insiders describe a general malaise of low morale an high staff turnover. It's own staff have described senior management as being ''asleep at the switch'' especialy on the enforcement side.

 

5 Last year the SEC filed 46 insider-dealing cases including some against British firms. And the FSA? Try none.

 

6 In 2005 the FSA did manage to fine hedge fund traders GLG Partners £750.000 for 'market abuse' while the SEC imposed a £1.7 million fine on GLG this year for the lesser charge of 'trading ahead of bond shares'. FSA Chairman Sir Howard Davies resigned shortly afterwards to take up the post of 'advisor' to ...GLG Partners.

[grant123]

Join Date: Jul 2007

Posts: 41

 

 

Re: Grant123 Vs BOS/HBOS.

Hi

 

I've a claim in at Hallifax court, I called today and they say they are staying all claims, booger.

 

I've another claim to process, does anybody have an opinion on this... I'm thinking about processing my claim through Hull court which is carrying on as normal.

 

Any ideas ?

 

Cheers

[grant123]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/67412-halifax-terms-conditions.html?highlight=HALIFAX+TERM+CONDITIONS

[grant123]

Dillema

 

I live in Scotland and have accounts with the Bank of Scotland.

 

I've put a claim into Halifax County Court for £3,263. This court is now putting stays on all cases.

 

I've an N1 claim form £4,909 printed out ready to send i was going to send it to Hull County Court, who at the moment are not automatically placing stays. Although this could change.

 

I'm now debating whether to send my latest N1 or just put a claim in throught FOS, and wait it out.

 

Any opinions would be welcome.

 

Cheers

[rory32]

Is that Kingston-upon-Hull Combined Court Centre? If it is it seems to be business as usual.

 

A lot of stays seem to be for a couple of months, presumably for the judge to see how the test case progresses.

[grant123]

Yes mate that was Kingston Upon Hull.

 

I have'nt sent it yet, becuase I've already got one in, in Halifax.

 

This is all getting very messy !!

 

Cheers

[grant123]

Petition to Downing street regarding charges debacle, fill your boots.

 

 

Petition to: follow the Bank Charges Reclaiming Charter, which aims to end both the current suspension of reclaiming & the financial misery caused by unfair penalty charges.

[rory32]

Obviously no one can guarantee that you won't get a stay, but we certainly have had none reported at that court.

 

Personally I would get my N1 in ASAP as you never know when things might change. We are still getting courts not entertaining stays and awarding judgement for the claimant. I don't see the FOS as an option at the moment as goodness knows when they will start dealing with claims again.

[grant123]

Hi Everyone

 

I've just posted my second N1 to Hull and Kingston county court, the 1st went to Halifax County Court.

 

I've also just posted a letter of complaint to the information commissioner regarding how long it took HBOS to respond to my SARS. It took them seventy six days.

 

Now the waiting begins.

 

Cheers

[grant123]

Hi Everyone help needed re T & C's.

 

 

I've been raking through my files tryning to find T and C's for a current account I opened in 1995 with the Bank of Scotland. And a budgetplus account I opened in 1999.

 

I'm getting my court bundle ready !!

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks

[rory32]

Grant you only need t&c's for the period that you are claiming charges from not from when you opened the account.

[grant123]

Thanks Rory.

[grant123]

Hi folks

 

I'm need of BOS T and C's from December 2002 up to today, can anyone help ??

 

Thanks

[sea-sidelady]

This might help...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/101412-document-library-work-progress.html

[grant123]

Hi

 

SSL I had a look at that yesterday, not sure if I could use Halifax t and c's for my claim, i'm 50/50 on that one any ideas ??.

 

So far only you and Rory have replied re t and C's I'm going to ask family and friends if they have any, after that I'm kinda stumped !!

 

Any suggestions would be appreciated !!

 

Cheers

[grant123]

Placed a want it on EBAY for t and c's.

 

You never know !!!

[grant123]

Complaint info for FSA re Waiver.

 

E mail to follow.

 

Therefore I would suggest that any complaint as such should be directed

to the person responsible for introducing the waiver. Then you know the message is getting through:

 

Clive Briault

Managing Director

Retail Markets

25 The North Colonnade,

Canary Wharf,

London E14 5HS