Stays

[Castlebest]

The problem with the current judicial "stay everything" view is it is born out of law and the fear of any legal precedent set by allowing a case to be heard might produce. It takes no account of the social consequences of the houses lost due to repossession, the divorces caused, the stress that will be placed on the individual claimants who lets face it wouldn't be getting charges if they had money in the first place.

 

If one single case had been defended in court before the FSA waiver I might have had some sympathy for the banks but the fact remains they did not defend a single case in court and are obviously using the courts in a very cynical way to mitigate their losses.

 

This is not a "get rich quick" scheme, this is real people trying to get their lives back and the delay from the beginning of August until sometime never cannot continue.

 

pete

[jack d]

I'm sorry but that simply doesn't hold true. All claimants are entitled to interest on their claims at the statutory rate of 8% (s69 County Courts Act 1984) from the date their claims were issued. That is far higher than you will get in any deposit account. So it will cost the banks far more to defend the claim than to settle all of them out of court.

 

There is no prejudice in the long run : all claimants will get their money if they are entitled to it, plus interest at 8%.

 

The other problem with hardship is that it can only really be pleaded if you are actually entitled to the money. The fact is the claimants are not entitled to the money unless the court says so.

 

As for the gross hardship you are claiming, do you have an average figure for the size of claim in these actions? Does it ever amount to much more than a couple of thousand pounds ? Even less ? I have seen few greater than a thousand. If for instance you are claiming £10,000 in bank fees you clearly must have been earning a large amount to start with, so I would doubt if hardship is a point of general applicability across the board with this class of claimants, who strike me in general as being rather middle class and well-educated .

 

Less well off people dont pay a lot of bank charges as they have less money to pay charges on. I've met a lot of people of reduced means in court rooms, and to date, I have never head one complain that bank charges has led them to divorce. Mortgage difficulties with exorbitant rates from secondary lenders yes, but bank charges, no.

 

None of which I hope gives the impression that this class of claimants is less worthy than any other, or that there are a small number of individual cases that are tragic. But compared to the gravity of the average divorce hearing and the average possession hearing, these hearings cannot have the same importance by any means.

 

The other fact is that you should never count your chickens before they have hatched. Court rooms are unpredictable. The law is dynamic. You should never bank on courts to give you what you want, and the history of settled claims in this matter is (from a legal perspective) irrelevant.

[Choc-a-block]

pete

 

Where can I find the Leeds Merc judgement?

 

Mike

[Castlebest]

Hiya Choc, its here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1155075.html

 

I used it in my stay appeal hearing because its a judgment made by a high court judge and if its used as a template (which it should be) it will effectively stop the bank from taking any action while the stay is in place.

 

My account is redundant with an overdrawn balance of just less then the charges I'm claiming back (I now have a new account) so they can do what they like to the old account it doesn't affect me in my day to day life and the overdraft will be paid by my claim (yes that means I have the money now) .

 

I wouldn't suggest you aim to do that it could go wrong depending on what happens in the test case, its just the way it has turned out for me and lets say I'm not unhappy about it .

 

pete

[Castlebest]

sorry jack, I've only just seen your post. I agree all claimants are entitled to interest on their claims at the statutory rate of 8% from the date their claims were issued and yes thats is far higher than you will get in any deposit account however the OFT don't have a great track record for sticking to their guns and it remains to be seen what deal they come to with the banks. I believe the judiciary will be forced to ratify any deal through sheer scale of the claim situation, either that or go back to where we were before the test case.

 

The other problem with hardship is that it can only really be pleaded if you are actually entitled to the money. The fact is the claimants are not entitled to the money unless the court says so.

 

Agreed but we need to get to court to prove this. at present this is being denied.

 

As for the gross hardship you are claiming, do you have an average figure for the size of claim in these actions? Does it ever amount to much more than a couple of thousand pounds ? Even less ? I have seen few greater than a thousand. If for instance you are claiming £10,000 in bank fees you clearly must have been earning a large amount to start with, so I would doubt if hardship is a point of general applicability across the board with this class of claimants, who strike me in general as being rather middle class and well-educated.

 

the total of any claim is irrelevant, if a person is on a minimum wage of £5.00 an hour or whatever it is these days that is £200.00 a week so a claim of £1,000 is a months salary. your argument actually supports the FSA's and the MOR's statements that each claim should be viewed individually.

 

As for statements regarding "class" and "education" I believe since the end of the first world war the stated objective of all governments regardless of party is to provide a good education to everyone. I actually fail to see where education or class affects financial position, in fact I suspect with the credit boom of the past few years you will be seeing more and more of the higher wage earners in your court.

 

Less well off people don't pay a lot of bank charges as they have less money to pay charges on. I've met a lot of people of reduced means in court rooms, and to date, I have never head one complain that bank charges has led them to divorce. Mortgage difficulties with exorbitant rates from secondary lenders yes, but bank charges, no.

 

Actually in truth less well of people pay more in charges because they are more likely to run out of money and "break the rules" this snowballs from one month to the next as more charges are deducted and so the problem grows as time passes.

 

I think you will find the banks make no allowance for how much money you have when they charge people, a monthly total charge of £150 to £200 is a far worse penalty to someone who earns £1000 a month than it is to someone who earns £5000 a month.

 

None of which I hope gives the impression that this class of claimants is less worthy than any other, or that there are a small number of individual cases that are tragic. But compared to the gravity of the average divorce hearing and the average possession hearing, these hearings cannot have the same importance by any means.

 

I'm saying you need to be sure these cases arn't one and the same.

 

The other fact is that you should never count your chickens before they have hatched. Court rooms are unpredictable. The law is dynamic. You should never bank on courts to give you what you want, and the history of settled claims in this matter is (from a legal perspective) irrelevant.

 

that is quite obvious

 

pete