Hull County Court discussion

nickmack

cyberman wrote: »

Why then are County Court judges given the freedom to use their own interpretation of the law. This makes a complete Mockery of the law.

Putting Bank Charges aside a second, you have to remember that very rarely are two cases exactly the same. Judges need to act on the information they have and interpret it as best as they can within the applicable laws. Back to charges, unfortunately, as we've seen, being humans, some judges will make different decisions based on the infrormation given.

The judge in Hull for whatever reason made a wrong decision because he never heard all 20 cases. He never bothered to listen to 20 people and just took a decision based on his fellow judge in Birmingham.

He hasn't made a decision yet. He is *considering* having the cases struck out.

the Banks are charging amounts of money that is illegal under UK law

Remember they're considered unlawful not illegal.

It's not going to be long before these banks are ordered by a higher court to provide full information on these charges. Hang on in, the firework party is soon to explode.

That's what most reclaimers have been after, but the banks have mostly avoided any disclosures.

cyberman_3

nickmack wrote: »

Putting Bank Charges aside a second, you have to remember that very rarely are two cases exactly the same. Judges need to act on the information they have and interpret it as best as they can within the applicable laws. Back to charges, unfortunately, as we've seen, being humans, some judges will make different decisions based on the infrormation given.



He hasn't made a decision yet. He is *considering* having the cases struck out.



Remember they're considered unlawful not illegal.



That's what most reclaimers have been after, but the banks have mostly avoided any disclosures.

Thanks nickmack,

This would be understandable if both Judges had seen all the facts from all parties but they did not. How can one "consider" when one does not have the full facts presented.

kellymundy

Does anyone think this might purely be 2 judges thinking this is a good way of getting themselves known? Maybe they think they'll be the first UK version of Judge Judy? Just a thought!

beckied

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6714351.stm

oohtobeaterrier

hopefully this isnt gonna affect me. i live in hull and me and my girlfriend are claiming, both the banks we are claiming for have put in an acnoledgement of service

helen81_2

Hi,

Is this just 20 random cases or just 20 for now then all further cases or more random ones..ect...?

I posted my mother in laws claim off to Hull court on Friday...should we be worried (even more worried?!!)

We never thought it was gonna be plain sailing but theres no way that lloyds are now gonna let any cases slip through the net unnoticed are they...they are gonna be making sure that each and every case is acknowledged and defended cos they know it won't go to court (Hull) ??!

Helen x

Kenny_Haymes

MSE_Martin wrote: »

Some people have reported receiving a letter, something like this, from Hull Court.

"Upon the Court's own motion, the Court has made this order of its own initiative without a hearing. If you object to the order, you must make an application to have it set aside, varied or stayed, within seven days of receiving it.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

This matter be listed on 4th July 2007 at 3.00pm to consider striking out the claim as disclosing no reasonable prospect of success in the light of the recent decision on Berwick v Lloyds TSB 15th May 2007"

(see a BBC news report on it http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6711197.stm)

If you are one of the few who have received this letter there are a number of notes.

1. This is one court flying against the face of what others are doing
<O></O>
2. It is a very strange note and one assumes it hasn't investigated fully what the case is.
<O></O>
3. It is a substantial watershed in bank charges and needs to be challenged as it sets a very interesting issue.

What should you do

1. If you have received this letter please PM me your phone number, working with the Consumer Action Group we now are hiring a top QC to deal with the case. Yet you must be the client. Don't do anything else without doing that, we want to try and co-ordinate all 20 people involved.

2. You can send a delaying letter.

The following is a letter drafted by a solicitor friend (who wishes to remain anonymous) to help. You can use this as a template to send as a response to the court. Update: I've kept this in for info, however, actually the vast preference is you don't do anything just get in touch as noted above.

VERY IMPORTANT WARNING REGARDING THE TEMPLATE LETTER BELOW. While every effort’s been made to ensure this letters accuracy. It isn’t intended to be seen as legal advice, purely a rough, template and no liability can be accepted by this site, Martin Lewis individually, or the author of the letter for any individual claimants who rely upon it.

"Would you please treat this letter as my application to set aside the order dated xxxxxx and would you also please forward to me copies of any correspondence the court has received from the defendant or the defendant’s solicitors which has prompted the order. My application fee will follow. The grounds of my application which I advance with the greatest of respect are as follows:

1 The Berwick decision is not a factor to be taken into account in the context of whether my claim should be struck out and, that being so, the foundation for the order is wrong.

2 The Berwick decision is not such a factor because [a] it is neither binding on or of persuasive authority in so far as your court is concerned; it was reached without any legal or satisfactory argument on behalf of the claimant who appeared in person and in the absence of the defendant which appears to have failed to participate in any way in the proceedings beyond filing a defence and, possibly, an allocation questionnaire (and in the circumstances the claim should have been dealt with effectively on a default basis); [c] it was reached without any or any satisfactory evidence of the terms and conditions that governed the banking contract between the parties making the finding that there had been no breach of contract on the claimant’s part an unsustainable one ; [d] it was reached without any or any satisfactory evidence from the defendant on any issues whatsoever and without any documentation from the defendant which would have enabled the court to come to a correct decision on reasonableness of charges; [e] it was reached on the basis that the burden to prove unreasonableness was on the claimant whereas the burden was on the defendant to justify reasonableness; [f] it is subject to an application for permission to appeal; [g] the defendant had settled many thousands of similar claims to my own before the decision and I believe continues to do so and [h] the unanimous expressed views of well informed and respected legal commentators is that the decision is a legal irrelevance.

3 It is wrong, unfair, unduly onerous and contrary to established principles and the overriding objective that I should be put to what will be a considerable expense in a small claim to satisfy the court that I have a real prospect of success simply on the basis that in one isolated case with exceptional circumstances a decision has been reached in an evidentially flawed claim on what I submit were erroneous and irrational grounds. The effect of such an order is to risk the stifling of claims of the nature of my own and it would be outrageous if such claims were allowed to be crushed in their infancy.

4 If I have to arrange for legal representation at potentially vast expense then so be it but the repercussions for me and all current litigation of this kind if the order stands are monumental.

5 It was inappropriate and wrong for the court to have made an order of its own initiative in the particular circumstances and the deployment of this particular case management tool is not suited to the circumstances which prevail.

6 I ask that the order is set aside of the court’s own initiative"

Should you send the letter or wait for the call

The problem is I can't guarantee the call, i can just say 'we're working on it'. So why not prepare to send the letter but hold on. This isn't cos the letter isn't any good, but that if we manage to get a lawyer (as is very hopeful) then (s)he may have their own strategy which differs slightly.

Martin

From a tactical viewpoint - and downsizing any dangers to the Claimants involved - and in the interests of the 'movement' en bloc - would it not be preferable/advisable for them to 'withdraw' their court claims and in so doing pre-empt any unjust or misguided decision ?

Then they, 'very simply', refer their claims to the appropriate Ombudsman, where, I understand, there has been 100% no-quibble refunds todate - because when the refund claims are before the Ombudsman the banks do not want to attempt to explain their charges !

In the most highly unlikely event that the Ombudsman route did not prove successful - the claimants 'still' have the option of re-issuing their court actions, as nothing would have been before the court at that time.

In the intervening period from their cases being withdrawn from Hull County Court or wherever, and being referred to the Ombudsman, and any unlikely need to return to court - there may well have been some more interesting, and properly just, well publicised court rulings 'in favour of consumer claimants' to which any future Hull claimants can 'then' constructively refer.

It was 'inadvisable' for the Berwick case to be appealed - despite the 'permission' so to do - and, far more effectively, it is instead being referred to the Ombudsman.

It must be surely the best route 'for all concerned' in these uncertain, if not 'strange' circumstances, in which they find themselves, for them to follow suit ?

Good luck !

Kurt_Hamster

Kenny_Haymes wrote: »

From a tactical viewpoint - and downsizing any dangers to the Claimants involved - and in the interests of the 'movement' en bloc - would it not be preferable/advisable for them to 'withdraw' their court claims and in so doing pre-empt any unjust or misguided decision ?

And in doing so lose the costs they have already paid. The whole point of this exercise is to reclaim money, not to lose more. If they withdraw then those court costs are no longer justifiably reclaimable.

Then they, 'very simply', refer their claims to the appropriate Ombudsman, where, I understand, there has been 100% no-quibble refunds todate - because when the refund claims are before the Ombudsman the banks do not want to attempt to explain their charges !

The same holds true of the courts, the banks do not wish to explain.

You are also forgetting the knock on effect of doing this. What if other judges see the effect it has on the claimants and tries to do the same. It's bad enough that one judge attempts to deny people justice, it can only be worse if others follow.

In the most highly unlikely event that the Ombudsman route did not prove successful - the claimants 'still' have the option of re-issuing their court actions, as nothing would have been before the court at that time.

Thereby adding a significant time delay to something that already been started. Some things are just not handled properly by avoidance.

In the intervening period from their cases being withdrawn from Hull County Court or wherever, and being referred to the Ombudsman, and any unlikely need to return to court - there may well have been some more interesting, and properly just, well publicised court rulings 'in favour of consumer claimants' to which any future Hull claimants can 'then' constructively refer.

There have been literally 1000s of such cases, how many does it take? The proper methodology is to hit the errant judge head on, cut him off at the knees and let justice be done. This won't go away by people running away from it.

It was 'inadvisable' for the Berwick case to be appealed - despite the 'permission' so to do - and, far more effectively, it is instead being referred to the Ombudsman.

All cases are different in one way or another. Actually, Mr Berwick's case did do some good. It taught us not to be slap-dash in our preparation.

It must be surely the best route 'for all concerned' in these uncertain, if not 'strange' circumstances, in which they find themselves, for them to follow suit ?

Good luck !

I disagree totally, as may be gathered from above

chrissieo

I have read today on the BBC website that the Hull 20 has now risen to 44. Does anyone know if any other judges are treating these cases in the same way.

Chrissie

helen81_2

Hi,

My mum in laws case is at Hull county court..weve had no 'strike out' letter so far but could one still show up? And if it does..is Martins QC going to represent anymore people or will it be just this group of people on the 4th July? Do you think the fact that her case is at Hull that it will make any difference to Lloyds tsb..wether they pay up or not I mean?

She was secretley hoping she was going to recieve a strike out letter from the court so she would have to let Martin have her phone number as she fancies him lmao

Helen x