My claim is on hold and yet....

johnnynonails

Premier wrote: »

Just give them the claim number and the specific court in which it is currently stayed

i gave her the claim number told her the court, and said i would send her a photo copy of what i had , she said i need to get a up 2 date 1 from the courts i have 14 days to sort it or they takin us to court unless i pay sum kind of money each month , mite do that just so we dont go to court thanks jill

Premier_2

As the defendant, they can get whatever info from the court they need ... well the same info you can get.

What are they going to do if you don't give them the information and don't pay them any money over a debt you dispute? Get the suit cleaned & pressed!

worldupstairs

Premier wrote: »

As the defendant, they can get whatever info from the court they need ... well the same info you can get.

What are they going to do if you don't give them the information and don't pay them any money over a debt you dispute? Get the suit cleaned & pressed!

I agree !!!!!! them, the phone call I had today with 'iqor' surprised me in the way I was spoken to, I'm not used to be spoken to in an aggresive manner. Luckly I was able to keep calm and told them I will seek advice and then contact them. Which I will in the next week with the information they will need. I'm sick and angry with this bully boy tactic, Is there anything I can do to really make things harder for them?

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

I think what they mean is that the banks won in the Supreme Court in November.
Unfortunately, they were wrong and they will have to pay out soon again. They won on a narrow issue relating to price/level of the charges. That does not preclude a challenge under UTCCR 1999, section 5(1)
"5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."
You have to prove that the term is contrary to the requirement of good faith and that it causes a significant imbalance in the parties rights and obligations arising from the contract. This would be the individual contract between the bank and the individual customer. MSE might have taken one step backwards on this but there is a good case that 5(1) IS APPLICABLE and therefore is not about price/level of charges. Remember, the banks sought a declaration under UTCCR 1999 and failed to get it.
That, of course, does not mean they have won each and every claim in all courts in the land, but they are applying for (and in many cases are being granted) that such claims are struck out on the basis their is no case in law to answer on the basis of the original POC.
I would agree with you on this one. Amending the POC will need to be done and will involve a cost and potentially may involve a lot of work understanding the arguments in full. Personally, if the stay is for 12 months then let sleeping dogs lie for the time being
Of course a claimant could try to change their POC. i.e. try a new argument.

Completely agree with you on the last point.

johnnynonails

hi, im not understanding this ,lol sorry can u put it in plain simple english lol have sent me letter to lloyds askin to refund me charges or look at me case in the next 14 , also asking permission to change me court claim now , wot i dont understand is wot im changing me claim 4 god i must b thick lol , and i dont get wot a poc is sorry im trying to understand but just not gettin it thanks jill

davidgmmafan

This is nothing new the banks were passing debts onto debt collection agencies before, during and after the test case. I have personal experience of this, well a family member. I even recall being told by the Ombudsmen that it is acceptable for normal collection activities to continue (surely this is wrong if the debt is same or less than charges and interest?).

You can write to DCA's and advise them of this, but I got sick of writing cos the bank just kept passing it on to others. Its been quiet for sometime now, maybe they got bored too.

natweststaffmember

johnnynonails wrote: »

hi, im not understanding this ,lol sorry can u put it in plain simple english lol have sent me letter to lloyds askin to refund me charges or look at me case in the next 14 , also asking permission to change me court claim now , wot i dont understand is wot im changing me claim 4 god i must b thick lol , and i dont get wot a poc is sorry im trying to understand but just not gettin it thanks jill

When you filed a claim at County Court(or MCOL if you did it online) you were given a reference number for the claim. A DCA cannot chase a debt that is in dispute so if they contact you then you need to tell them this with the County Court reference number for the claim.

Premier_2

johnnynonails wrote: »

hi, im not understanding this ,lol sorry can u put it in plain simple english lol have sent me letter to lloyds askin to refund me charges or look at me case in the next 14 , also asking permission to change me court claim now , wot i dont understand is wot im changing me claim 4 god i must b thick lol , and i dont get wot a poc is sorry im trying to understand but just not gettin it thanks jill

On what basis did you ask LLoydsTSB for your charges back?
If you used the arguments that were suggested on this site prior to the banks winning their argument in the Supreme Court back in November, then there is no case to answer. That is why your case will probably be struck out unless you start again with a new argument. (As I mentioned that can be done by applying to amend your existing POC ... for which you will incur a charge)

What's your new argument? Well thats for you to decide, but take a look at the latest MSE bank charges reclaiming article for a couple of ideas.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/oft-bank-charges

Note the warnings given. i.e. the arguments are totally untried & untested at time of writing (and I don't know anyone that has won using them yet!)
and such a claim could involve huge legal costs as it is likely even if you were to win, the banks would appeal and continue to do so right up to the Supreme Court again if necessary where they won in November.

worldupstairs

well I spoke to the court yesterday and they said that it was stayed till 31st march 2011?! but it was due to the old argument. But why would the court say it is stayed then?

natweststaffmember

worldupstairs wrote: »

well I spoke to the court yesterday and they said that it was stayed till 31st march 2011?! but it was due to the old argument. But why would the court say it is stayed then?

Different courts would have anticipated different things. Some might have though it would be over earlier rather than later.

With regards to current claims, anyone who has on their POC that the level of the charges is too high or is excessive will not win the case. The basis of the case has to be fairness within the meaning of UTCCR 1999, regulation 5(1).