clarification of genuine hardship cases

Edinburghlass_2

I look forward to a full response to this letter within 14 days, otherwise I will commence court proceedings to reclaim my money.<o>

I would just change the above to "I will be asking the FO to look at my claim due to financial hardship"

oh and jiggle the bit where you say you are taking them to court to say something about the financial hardship you will face due to them not looking at your claim.
</o><o></o>

dwjohnno81

thanks alot i will post in the morning thanks

jessive

hi has anyone gone done the hardship route to get money back, and have they succeeded, as i not long lost my job an have 2 smal kids so just wondering if it is worth doing

thanx

k1mmie

Just an update. I emailed Natwest several times to ask for my claim to be handled under a hardship claim. I got no reply. After sending emails to the customer services fo 6 weeks non stop, on a daily basis. I eventually had enough yesterday and called the CEO. I told them that the final straw was charging me £38 yesterday for a £9.99 dd when I had £6.00 in the account and another payment going in today. My branch refused to refund me the charge and were very rude. The CEO called me back and said they would not only refund the £38 but they were putting an offer together for my claim and I would get it next week. SO perserverance does eventually pay off - lets hope its a good offer!

novelli

Does anyone know who the CEO is at HSBC and the address.
thanks

jdm52

dwjohnno81 wrote: »

hi all

like most people my claim against barclays has been put on hold due to the oft case but because im unemployed im looking to go down the hardship road to try and get my case heard.

do you think this letter will surfice

Dear Sir or Madam,ffice:office" /><O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
Re: Account No xxxxxxxx Sort xx xx xx
<O:p></O:p>
I refer to default charges applied to my account amounting to £1235.49, which I have requested you pay back.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
I wrote to you on 6 July, making the original request for a payment in settlement to my claim, then again on the 23<SUP>rd</SUP> July to which you responded. I am writing to inform you I intend to claim the full amount claimed together with interest up to the date of judgment and court fees in the proceedings through the county court. At this moment in time I realise that there is a stay on the majority of cases and will be applying for the stay to be lifted due to hardship.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
This is based on the unfair terms in the consumer contracts regulations, as I believe these default charges are unfair and not proportionate to your costs, and therefore the court will rule in my favour.<O:p></O:p>
I have attached a full schedule of the charges and interest with this document.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
I look forward to a full response to this letter within 14 days, otherwise I will commence court proceedings to reclaim my money.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
Yours faithfully<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
<O:p>what do you think? anything i should add or take away?</O:p>
<O:p>all suggestion will be thanked</O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
<O:p>cheers</O:p>
<O:p></O:p>

thanks for this I will if you don't mind use it as a template for my letter

shooter

My claim against LTSB had been defended by SCaM, I was waiting for the next stage when they sent me a letter saying they were going to apply for a stay which was ordered by the Court and when I called Northampton (mine's an MCOL case) the lady I spoke to was extremely helpful and suggested I write in explaining my circumstances and ask for the stay to be removed and said that that would result in my case being transfered to my local CC (Mine's Croydon and they seem not to be staying cases at present).

I would be extremely grateful if someone,Edinbughlass perhaps ,could look over my letter and tell me if I should add anything or change anything

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would be grateful for your time in this matter.

You have granted LTSB a stay in the above case and I am writing to you in the hope that you will either lift the stay or transfer my case to my local county court, this being Croydon county court for hearing.

The stay infringes my rights under the European Convention on Human Rights directly and as enacted in the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 6 of the Convention provides that;

“1. In the determination of his civil rights… everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.”

The 8 banks involved in the High Court test case have recently published identical statements on their websites informing customers that they expect the test case to last for over a year. Moreover, the nature and gravity of the case is such that any judgment is highly likely to be appealed to the Court of Appeal and possibly even then appealed further to the House of Lords. It is entirely conceivable, even indeed probable that final resolution may not be reached for 2 – 4 years or perhaps even longer. It is thus submitted that the time of the final determination of the test case cannot be predicted and so the stay would be indeterminate, which is contrary to the right of entitlement to a fair hearing within a reasonable time as provided for by Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998

I would respectfully draw the courts attention to the Master of the Rolls decision that all outstanding bank charges cases should not be automatically stayed. My understanding is that the Deputy Head of Civil Justice has written to all designated Civil Judges, inviting them to consider staying outstanding claims on an individual case by case basis as appropriate.
I do not believe this has happened with my case.
I object to the order of stay and submit that there is good reason why my case should be allowed to proceed to trial in advance of the final determination of the OFT case. The grounds for such objections are set out as follows.
I am a 37year old single mother living on Widowed Parents allowance, Child benefit and child tax credit. My husband died 25th May 2007 after a very long and distressing illness.
The charges I am claiming were all taken from My/Our benefit payments and at time left us with no money for food and resulted in us having to ask our families for help, on several occasions.
When my husband died I immediately informed the bank that I was going to experience even more financial hardship as a result of this and asked for their help. None was forthcoming. My family’s income dropped from £**** to £**** per month upon my husband’s death. In fact since informing them they have added charges to the sum of £1361.93 to my accounts.( Enclose a schedule of charges for your attention) I am unable to work due to ill health, partly as a result of caring for my late husband. I am awaiting treatment at the Neuro-rehab clinic at the *********.
I strongly believe that a stay may potentially mean great difficulty for me and my family and yet be insignificant for the defendant bank. In fact a stay is supportive of the banks litigation strategy which is to frustrate justice by repeatedly taking the claimant to the door of the court and then to settle the claim.

The sum claimed is insignificant to the bank but it is highly significant to me. Furthermore, although a stay prevents me from recovering my money, the defendant bank is not prevented from levying its charges or interest on debt comprised of those charges so the order of the court has the effect of favouring a powerful and well-resourced institution and does not place any restriction on their continued application of charges which I say are unlawful. Further, many banks are now routinely closing the accounts of their customers who commence claims against them. This amounts to a sanction for seeking a ruling from the justice system and as such is a basic denial of citizenship. I will remain at risk of such action despite the fact that my remedy has been placed on an indeterminate hold.


At least 300 claims have been brought against the defendant this year involving similar issues. This is evidenced by a sample list of settled claims, which is attached. Despite flatly denying its customers complaint in the preliminary stages then subsequently always indicating an intention to defend, then filing a defence, then an allocation questionnaire, then breaching any directions, the defendant has compromised each and every such claim in advance of the hearing, usually following unnecessary and protracted litigation. The defendant purports to settle these claims without liability for ‘costs’ or ‘commercial’ reasons, yet for example on many occasions previously, as the court may already be aware, it has gone to the expense of setting aside default judgments only to settle the claim shortly after. The defendant continues to spuriously defend claims only to subsequently settle them, flagrantly breaching multiple court orders and provisions of the CPR as it does so. Many County Courts now consider the litigation tactics employed by banks in these cases as an abuse of court process and are regularly striking out their defences as a result.

The Overriding Objective requires that my case is allowed to proceed speedily so that a just settlement may be obtained by the parties to this case. Dealing with cases justly includes ensuring that this case is dealt with expeditiously and fairly and in a way that is proportionate to the amount of money involved. I think that the imposition of an indeterminate stay in a small claims track case involving a relatively small sum, is not just, nor is it expeditious, nor is it fair on a claimant who has outlaid sums by way of court fees in pursuit of a legitimate right to seek a remedy.

The stay does not maintain the status quo. As submitted above, a stay favours the bank by preventing the my pursuit of a legitimate remedy without placing any restriction upon the banks activities which I submit are unlawful and/or retaliatory.

Furthermore, as submitted above the present case concerns a relatively small sum, and therefore I submit that to impose an indeterminate stay is unnecessary, inappropriate, not in the interests of justice and further, is detrimental to my rights in a way which is unfair and inequitable.

Also I would like to draw the attached particulars of claim in the case of OFT v Abbey National PLC and Others. I believe from reading this document that the stay was obtained by a misrepresentation of the facts. As you will see the only issue that the High Court is being asked to decide is whether the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations applies in relation to bank charges. No other matters are being dealt with so regardless of the decision in the OFT case a trial will still be needed to determine whether the actual charge in this case is fair or not. Also the question of whether the terms under which the charges are levied is in substance a liquidated damages clause and if so whether it amounts to a penalty clause so as to be unenforceable would have to be decided. As there are therefore triable issues which will not be decided in the OFT case a stay would not be appropriate.


I would urge the court to reject the indiscriminate blanket staying of claims as is seemingly being sought by the defendant in this and other similar claims by way of its generic template letters.


If the court does not accede to this application, I respectfully request that the stay remains subject to the following orders:

• That the defendant bank is prevented from applying further penalty charges to my account until the final settlement of the matter.
• That the defendant is prevented from applying interest charges to any outstanding amounts which are comprised of penalties until the settlement of the matter.
• That the defendant is prevented from closing my account.
• That the defendant is prevented from making any entry on its own systems or from communicating any similar information to any third party about any matter insofar as it relates to penalty charges until the final settlement of the matter.
• That the defendant removes any derogatory entry on its own records insofar as it relates to penalty charges. (The Court has the power to do this under the Data Protection Act 1998 )
• That the defendant arranges the removal of entries from the records of any third parties to whom it has previously communicated information insofar as it relates to penalty charges. (The Court has the power to do this under the Data protection Act 1998.)
• That these injunctions remain in place until the settlement of my claim.
• That should my claim proceed to a hearing that a decision should be made at the hearing as to whether these injunctions should be made permanent.
• That if the matter should not proceed to a hearing because the defendant decides to settle outside court, that these injunctions should become permanent.

I look forward to your decision with anticipation
Please accept my thanks for taking time in your busy schedule to read this.

Yours faithfully



This is the link to get the particulars of claim mentioned. http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...s-of-claim.pdf

I wait in anticipation of your valued advice

shooter<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Apathyawakened

Hi Shooter
You have certainly been through it.
The bulk of the letter is fine but I suggest simplifying and avoid repitition as it never adds to your cause.
I will try and put in corrections here. Keep all to the paragraph starting "At least 300 claims.." and remove the last sentence as this sounds as though you are telling them how to do their job.
Take out the next three paragraphs as they are likely to aggravate rather than help. Leave all of the Abbey National paragraph.
Take out the urge sentence and replace with:
"In summary, I have and continue to suffer extreme hardship as a result of the actions of the bank, and will continue to suffer if the stay is allowed to remain in place. This stay infringes my Human Right to a "fair and public hearing within a reasonable time". In addition, I suggest the imposition of an indeterminate stay is detrimental to my rights in a way whch is unfair and inequitable."

Change the start of the next para to "In the event of the stay remaining I request that in the interest of remaining fair and equitable the following caveats be applied to the order: ..."
Leave the caveat list and close as is.

Hope this helps
Keep the chin up. Ciao.:A

shooter

Thankyou Apathyawakened for your comments I will certanly take them on board and will let you know the out come

As this is one of 5 claims i have going (the others all being credit and store cards) I have lots of letters to write but this has certainly been the hardest. Maybe an N244? would have been easier but then that would cost me an extra £65 which I can ill afford.


Shooter

k1mmie

Well guys. Result. Got my offer letter today - offered £1672. All my charges I mentioned plus I presume a few I didn't as I asked for £1550. SO just waiting for the money to be credited now. Was worth all the hassling. If you have a genuine hardship claim - do not lie down. I emailed them every single day to really get on their nerves. Think this money was really to get rid of me - but hey who cares!