Hearing to remove stay

[Castlebest]

Has your Judge granted you a hearing for your claim or a hearing for the stay ? and which court are you at ?

 

pete

[Castlebest]

Right, you need to read all of the info you can find on getting stays lifted I will find some good ones and post them here,

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/94703-hdr-hsbc.html

Dougal won his stay apeal in court

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/85633-castelbest-ii-return-claims.html

post 197 onwards has some strong arguments

 

pete

[Castlebest]

Yes it is I think AGE has a list of settled claims will get her to send it to you

 

pete

[Castlebest]

Hiya Penfold, just realised your at Luton, have a look at this thread, post #93 onwards is the important bit.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclays-bank/76679-johnsworld-barclays-bank.html?highlight=johnsworld

 

If your Judge is favoring keeping the stay in place even after all of your arguments ask that any new charges are also suspended by the bank, John got it for his daughters case (be carefull though this has caused him problems as you will see).

 

pete

[Castlebest]

That looks great Penfold

 

pete

[Castlebest]

I think at this stage we still need to try as many ways as possible to get around this wall.... and we get a success we need to try to duplicate it.

 

pete

[Castlebest]

Well thats an interesting move...

 

Telephone hearings are relativly new, its basicaly a conference call between the Judge, you the claimant, and the defendant HSBC/DG. It does say at Luton CC so I think you need to phone the court to see exactly what the judge wants.

 

DG normaly are ordered to set them up but ive only seen 2 or 3 of these directions, and all before the test case was announced Johnnymitch had a telephone hearing listed for his claim but they settled as they always did. will ask him to have a look at your thread to see if he can add anymore .

 

will be interesting to see how DG react to this

 

pete

[Castlebest]

K, penfold's is too

 

pete

[Castlebest]

Here you are PJ

 

I have Heynes v HSBC but only a paper copy, yes the judge did uphold the stay and no further directions were made against the bank BECAUSE Heynes said he would clear the balances of his accounts.

 

A much better reference case is Carlisle v Clydesdale. again the judge upheld the stay BUT stated that if the bank took any measures against the claimant to recover the debt or report defaults in the period of the stay he would immediately lift the stay and the case would go to hearing. I have a PDF version of this if you PM me your email addy I will send it to you.

 

pete

[Castlebest]

I have heard of them but never seen them I think Auburn tried to get copies but never succeeded. I dont see how a senior judges views in an email can have a baring on a case in county court... on the other hand how do you tell a judge that .

 

pete

[Castlebest]

Thats actually very true, don't forget your a litigant in person your submission and knowledge doesn't have to be perfect your not a professional lawyer (are you? ), just ask the judge how this can have a baring on your case.

 

and I almost forgot the very best of luck tomorrow and come back and tell us all how it worked on the telephone!!!

 

pete

[Castlebest]

Well done Prabs !!!

 

will have to read up section 187... I would have been inclined to say all of the claim

 

I think it will be worth while telling the Judge as soon as he put the phone down HSBC refused to talk about a settlement.

 

and the two successes were due to defects in the claimants submissions not due to the banks defence, in fact I believe for both cases the bank weren't even represented in court.

 

again well done

 

pete

[Castlebest]

They are lawyers they play the game "yes your honour no your honour" but screw you because your just a customer.

[Castlebest]

Address it directly to your Judge

 

Dear District Judge Hewetson-Brown,

 

Further to our telephone hearing this morning at XX o'clock I would like you to be aware that further to your instruction to discuss a settlement with Mrs. Watt of DG Solicitors after you left the conference call, she made it clear that neither she or HSBC had any intention of doing so. I was very disappointed with this attitude as I have already supplied the Court with ongoing settlements occurring as we speak. It seems unless HSBC and their representatives have been given no choice, but to defend they will not settle. I am disappointed with her attitude and also the professionalism of such an establishment.

 

I have included a photocopy of the special delivery slip confirming my arguments were sent to DG Solicitors. This can be checked on the internet and you will see that they did indeed get it on the 16th October. This allowed them over a day to get it to the Lawyer/ Barrister who would be dealing with the call. I would like it noted that they only supplied my copy via facsimile at 6.22pm on the evening of the 16th as well.

 

With regards the Court Copy of my arguments and submissions, I can only apologise and hope these have now been found? I do believe that the Court does confirm receipt of it on the 11th October.

 

I will try to address the specific points you raised regarding the figures involved with Section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. More needed

 

I also hope you will see on reading the Judge Behrens case (specifically section 12 on page 101 of my bundle) that HSBC’s continued reporting and adverse notices on our credit files are indeed relevant here unlike the simple dismissal Mrs. Watts tried to imply. You will also see that our Court submission answers nearly all the Defence’s argument in full and we have further answers prepared should your Honor wish to see them.

 

With regard to the two cases which have been "won in court" by the banks I believe both of these cases involved Lloyds TSB and the judgments were arrived at due to deficiencies in the claimants submissions rather than the strength of the defendants arguments. In fact I believe in both cases the defendant was not even represented in court and mealy won by default.

 

I trust the forgoing answers all of the queries you raised during the telephone conference hearing.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

 

 

Penfold

 

How does that sound ?

 

pete

[Castlebest]

That looks fine Prabs, add it in and your ready to go

 

pete

[Castlebest]

well there's nawt new there I hope the banks are getting value for our money with all these high flying barristers they are hiring

 

pete

[Castlebest]

In my honest opinion I think the banks will come up with some sort of "clever" charges scheme. The OFT will buckle and make agreements with the FSA and the banks, the judiciary will have no choice but to ratify it into law because of the overwhelming mass of claims in the system and the banks are hoping they will get it retrospectively too .

 

in other words a sell out by the OFT the FSA and the FOS backed by the judiciary.

 

pete

[Castlebest]

[Castlebest]

is it a proper hearing this time or another telephone one ?

 

as for the date its happening more and more these dates are going into next year... if you win your appeal your case hearing date is likely to be after the test case's first instance judgment

 

pete

[Castlebest]

Until they get into court all of this sort of thing is just gamesmanship designed to maneuver or put the other side off or even to pacify the people who are watching them (us).

 

I assume as the silly statements have stopped from the OFT their legal team are now in charge of any statements and press releases .

 

pete

[Castlebest]

Bless, I just got home to find their skeleton argument against the stay (exactly as before) sitting on my doorstep. I assume that that without organising the hearing would not persuade the judge against setting aside the stay?

 

Penfold

 

Just cant see what good this does their case... they failed to comply with the courts directions and by sending this to you they have confirmed they did it on purpose and it was premeditated.

 

pete

[Castlebest]

Hiya Prabs, do you know if your judge has asked for another telephone hearing or is he actualy booking court time?

 

pete

[Castlebest]

My only thought was your Judge wants to get someone from the bank into a court room to give them a rollicking before he kicks out the defense, but its just a thought

 

stick with it prabs

 

pete

[Castlebest]

Hiya prabs, I think as Aud's says they will find 1001 excuses why they can suddenly find your statements but have destroyed everyone elses .

 

If your going after them using the CCA the statements will only be a minor part of this, the main thing is the true copy of your credit agreement which if they haven't produced after 12 days plus 30 days means they are committing a statutory criminal offense.

 

If they now start to find documentation I would look at it very closely, are they copies or reproductions? if they are true copies (or even true reproductions) you can always go back to plan A and claim your charges.

 

pete

[Castlebest]

you can but you will be comming very close to questioning a judge's judgment, this would have to be reviewed by another judge and you could possibly end up with a hearing to hear your complaint which if your lucky will be your April date.

 

we have seen by all of the court reaction stay appeals to date the judges just want this to go away even when there is evidence of abuse of process, I think with the test case starting next week you might be better waiting to see what happens.

 

pete