Courts can't suspend all claims - it's against human rights

[un1boy]

I have been thinking that the courts can't suspend the claims for the follwoing reasons:

 

1. You have paid your court fees so are entiltled to have those refunded

 

2. If the courts do suspend them, can we sue them for the costs and interest charged?

 

3. They can't stop you form making new claims either, as the right to take leagal action to settle a disoute is covered by Article 6!!

 

4. The right to a fair trial is a basic humna right:

 

Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial

 

Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair trial in civil and criminal proceedings. It sets standards for the way that proceedings are run. Although you may feel that you have not had a fair trial if you lose your case, there will only be a breach of Article 6 if these standards have not been met.

 

Any court proceedings which are not criminal cases are civil proceedings. Article 6 covers most but not all civil proceedings. Proceedings between private people or organisations to settle a dispute between them are covered by Article 6. Proceedings between a private person or organisation and the Government or a public authority may be covered by Article 6.

 

Certain standards apply in both criminal and civil proceedings. These rights include:

• The right to a trial within a reasonable time.
  
• The right to an independent and impartial judge or tribunal.
  
• The right to a public hearing (although there are circumstances when the public can be excluded)
  
• The right to a public judgment (although this may be restricted in certain types of cases, e.g. family cases.)

In civil proceedings Article 6 also protects the right to take court proceedings to settle a dispute, although this right may be restricted in some circumstances. It may also give the right to legal aid where the dispute is very complicated and you are at a disadvantage because you cannot afford a lawyer.

 

So, as you can see, you are entilted to a hearing within a reasonable time for a start.

 

Comments please!

[baconbuttyman]

This makes a lot of sense, we cannot just sit back and be rail roaded like this, keep the claims going, if the banks hide behind the test case then lets really take the fight to them

[un1boy]

This makes a lot of sense, we cannot just sit back and be rail roaded like this, keep the claims going, if the banks hide behind the test case then lets really take the fight to them

 

I'm gald you agree!!!

 

I will be challenging it, don't you worry!!!

[Camdenite]

Great piece of news. I think the pressure put on the courts by the back-log would be something they would be keen to avoid too. I'm expecting a stay from Abbey very soon and hope the Great & The Good of this board can come up with a suitable template. Gloves off, so as to speak.

[ICY]

Thats good news, although i think it unlikely that there will be a blanket stay anyway

[pt2537]

IMHO its clutching at straws somewhat, i think trying to engage the convention rights laid down in the Human Rights Act is a long shot. Article 6 does not cover all situations in civil court matters and i think you really need to have a long hard think before you start challenging the courts under the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

i dont want to sound like im knocking anyone but i just think its unlikely that there is any reasonable chance of sucess in this line of argument

 

of course thats just my opinion,

 

regards

paul

[baconbuttyman]

IMHO its clutching at straws somewhat, i think trying to engage the convention rights laid down in the Human Rights Act is a long shot. Article 6 does not cover all situations in civil court matters and i think you really need to have a long hard think before you start challenging the courts under the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

i dont want to sound like im knocking anyone but i just think its unlikely that there is any reasonable chance of sucess in this line of argument

 

of course thats just my opinion,

 

regards

paul

 

 

Clutching at straws is all we have at the mo, instead of knocking it, try helping

[Bookworm]

Well, to be honest, we have been telling you all since yesterday to keep to your deadlines and keep on filing, so nothing new there.

 

The media is distorting the information as usual, stating that all claims are to be put on hold, I guess it makes juicier headlines than: "internal" complaints (through bank's own procedure or through FOS) to be put on hold, but the latter is what is actually happening.

 

This site has always recommended the legal route, and still does. As of yesterday, it seems the alternative is not even worth contemplating.

[baconbuttyman]

Well, to be honest, we have been telling you all since yesterday to keep to your deadlines and keep on filing, so nothing new there.

 

The media is distorting the information as usual, stating that all claims are to be put on hold, I guess it makes juicier headlines than: "internal" complaints (through bank's own procedure or through FOS) to be put on hold, but the latter is what is actually happening.

 

This site has always recommended the legal route, and still does. As of yesterday, it seems the alternative is not even worth contemplating.

 

is it even worth going thru the prelimenary stages and go straight to court action, and what options do we have if the banks apply for a stay on our own court action because of this test case

[un1boy]

IMHO its clutching at straws somewhat, i think trying to engage the convention rights laid down in the Human Rights Act is a long shot. Article 6 does not cover all situations in civil court matters and i think you really need to have a long hard think before you start challenging the courts under the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

i dont want to sound like im knocking anyone but i just think its unlikely that there is any reasonable chance of sucess in this line of argument

 

of course thats just my opinion,

 

regards

paul

 

This is more of a discussion of the possibility anyway.

 

I don't think that the courts will put a stay on the claims, but it does say of the FSA website that they have waived the timeline and except the courts to suspend the claims.

 

I can't see how they can though!

[un1boy]

and what options do we have if the banks apply for a stay on our own court action because of this test case

 

That's when I would challenge the stay under article 6, personally.

[ICY]

is it even worth going thru the prelimenary stages and go straight to court action, and what options do we have if the banks apply for a stay on our own court action because of this test case

 

 

We still have to show to the courts that we have given them reasonable amount of time to refund, as said we need to carry on as normal, this means using the exact same path we have continued to use

[pt2537]

I agree with Bookworm, we should continue with the court process. the idea of engaging convention rights is not necessary certainly at this stage. i have a claim in progress at present and im proceeding as per the script, on monday i will be asking for the defence to be struck out for failing to comply with directions. if my case gets stayed then so be it i will just think about the 8% interest building up( and before anyone jumps on me , i know ther are others out there who will be left inthe sh*t because of this OFT case causing delays and i sympathise )

 

FAO BACONBUTTYMAN, i didnt want to knock anyone but to even consider the Human Rights Act would be a very costly exercise which has very little chance of success, the basis of the argument is as i see it that you wouldnt get a fair trial in a reasonable time? well it could be considered reasonable to delay the case waiting for certainty from a higher court such as the High Court and dont forget that not so long ago it took upto 6 years to get a case into the ECHR.

 

i thought it prudent to point that out as i didnt want people getting their hopes up

 

im sorry if i caused any offence, remeber im in the same boat as everyone else who has claims in process

 

regards

 

paul

[paulson1985]

I think uniboy has a valid argument, and I agree this is something that needs to be explored furher.

 

Lets face it, what is needed is a way to overcome all this, and to find a way around what to a lot of people is a bobmbshell.

 

And the sooner we group together again and work as one the better for us all.

 

I also think this thing was a long time in coming, and was needed, I dont think the way it is going ahead is right either.

[un1boy]

I agree with Bookworm, we should continue with the court process. the idea of engaging convention rights is not necessary certainly at this stage. i have a claim in progress at present and im proceeding as per the script, on monday i will be asking for the defence to be struck out for failing to comply with directions. if my case gets stayed then so be it i will just think about the 8% interest building up( and before anyone jumps on me , i know ther are others out there who will be left inthe sh*t because of this OFT case causing delays and i sympathise )

 

I agree with you, keep doing hte prelim, lba and entering court papers. I am merely trying to discuss the possibilties that are available if they do suspend all court claims.

 

FAO BACONBUTTYMAN, i didnt want to knock anyone but to even consider the Human Rights Act would be a very costly exercise which has very little chance of success, the basis of the argument is as i see it that you wouldnt get a fair trial in a reasonable time? well it could be considered reasonable to delay the case waiting for certainty from a higher court such as the High Court and dont forget that not so long ago it took upto 6 years to get a case into the ECHR.

 

You are right in terms of the fair trial bit, but also the convention states that you have a right to take legal action against somone to settle a dispute. Again, this is just a discussion about if the courts try to say that new claim annot be entered.

 

i thought it prudent to point that out as i didnt want people getting their hopes up

 

work away mate, open discussion and other people's views are healthy and more than welcome here!

 

im sorry if i caused any offence, remeber im in the same boat as everyone else who has claims in process

 

Paul, please stop apologising, you are entitled to your view and it is more than welcome here.

[un1boy]

I think uniboy has a valid argument, and I agree this is something that needs to be explored furher.

 

Lets face it, what is needed is a way to overcome all this, and to find a way around what to a lot of people is a bobmbshell.

 

And the sooner we group together again and work as one the better for us all.

 

I also think this thing was a long time in coming, and was needed, I dont think the way it is going ahead is right either.

 

I agree with you.

 

It's interesting to learn that some people complaining to the OFT have (apparently) threatened to take legal actiona agasint them for not getting involved in this sooner and taking any action. I wonder if that's why they have decided to act now.

 

It's also interesting to learn that everyone that has been able to deal with these claims at the banks' solicitors seems to have been on holiday all week - I reckon the OFT told the banks about it.

 

The FSA's waiver ruling is just to benefit the banks - afterall, they are a limited company who's budget comes from the banks anyway. Same with the OFT (although they aren't a limited company).

[pt2537]

Ok No more apologies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

the main thing which would concern me is the issue of the high cost involved if anyone were to take up the challenge using the human rights act, i know its not a problem if you win but what if you were to lose?

 

i have posed the question regarding Human Rights to an experienced human rights barrister who i know through doing my law degree, i hope he will get back to me shortly with an answer. hopefully it will offer some clarity to this nightmare situation whihc the OFT has kindly dropped on us from a great height so to speak.

 

regards

paul

[Bookworm]

Well, looks like we all agree now, ain't that nice.

 

Group hug anyone?

[un1boy]

Ok No more apologies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Good!!

 

the main thing which would concern me is the issue of the high cost involved if anyone were to take up the challenge using the human rights act, i know its not a problem if you win but what if you were to lose?

 

I understand, and that's what we should discuss!!

 

i have posed the question regarding Human Rights to an experienced human rights barrister who i know through doing my law degree, i hope he will get back to me shortly with an answer. hopefully it will offer some clarity to this nightmare situation whihc the OFT has kindly dropped on us from a great height so to speak.

 

Great, thanks a lot - let us know as soon as you hear!!

[un1boy]

Well, looks like we all agree now, ain't that nice.

 

Group hug anyone?

 

lol.

[deadlykiss]

lol is group hug ,, hope someone van find lop hole will be good and also some kind of template regarding judges putting a stay on cases

[ICY]

If the judges start doing that then, a plan of action can be devised to combat, its better to wait until the attack to know what you are defending rather than trying to shoot blindly, no i do not mean lets go shoot the judges it was a figure of speech lol

[deadlykiss]

lol @ shoot the judges ,,, well im due to hear from courts early next week regarding claim from halifax so will just wait and see what happens ,, but will keep you all posted

[overflow]

what a great thread this is.

I think there are lots of people blowing this up out of all proportion,

I personally started to panic when I first heard about the test case ,but then I think that if you are ignorant of the true facts then this response is only human.

The more people read threads like this one then the less we will panic.

Lots of common sense and straight to the point.

Come on we are all fighting for the same thing so lets all show the banks that we intend to carry on even in the face of adversity.

No stopping the CAGers

United we stand etc etc

[sansho]

I think it is time for a proper civil demonstration outside the offices of the FSA and OFT regarding this new development. It is a slap in the face of the CAGers and bank penalty charge claimants at large, to have their claims stayed pending the outcome of a test case, whilst the banks are still allowed to levy the charges that is the subject matter in dispute. This is completely underhand and does not represent a fair approach to dispute resolution.

 

There have been many prior test cases i.e Mercantile Court, Cardiff etc brought forth regarding bank penalty charges recently that have been blown off course, by the banks refusal to attend hearings and choosing instead to settle claims. Why would this test case be any different and what guarantees are there that it would seen through to logical conclusion....

 

Bank penalty charge claimants and their interest have again been put at the bottom of the pile of matters to be considered, even before the test case has begun. This is typical of british establishment behaviour and we have to push back hard, and rebuke these kinds of inconsiderate decisions that appear to give reprieve to the banks.

 

The waiver given is not measured or balanced, our civil rights cannot be flounted in this manner....