We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Defence for those having their action stayed
Options
Comments
-
Unless it is dealt with on the papers without a hearing yes. To prevent this write to the court saying you would like to be heard on any application for a stay
Stokey you are doing a great job for us all.
I have been notified by the bank that they will apply for a stay and my case is due to be heard on 5/8/2007.
Please could you post on here or PM me a template to send to the court asking that i/we would like to be present and heard on any application for a stay.
If this is passable what would i need to say to the judge to defend or appeal against a stay being awarded?
Just so everyone is aware we are holding out for £8,500. That would change our lives.
Thanks for all your help
Chris.0 -
grayclose31 wrote: »Stokey you are doing a great job for us all.
I have been notified by the bank that they will apply for a stay and my case is due to be heard on 5/8/2007.
Please could you post on here or PM me a template to send to the court asking that i/we would like to be present and heard on any application for a stay.
If this is passable what would i need to say to the judge to defend or appeal against a stay being awarded?
Just so everyone is aware we are holding out for £8,500. That would change our lives.
Thanks for all your help
Chris.
I would suggest writing something like this add the details of your case then say.
I understand that the defendant will be applying for this matter to be stayed pending the hearing of OFT v LloydsTSB and Others in the Commercial Court of the High Court. It is my understanding that this case will be heard during Hilary Term. I would therefore ask that if any aplciation is made for a stay pending this case that I be heard in opposition to this application.
In brief my objections are following the decision in St Albans County Court in the case of Gregory Terry v LloydsTSB PLC in July of this year a case where a claim against the defendant bank in relation to bank charges succeeded the defendants argument that the decision in OFT v LloydsTSB is needed to bring clarity to the area is not supported by the facts as the Terry Case was not as far as I am aware appealed so it must be taken as accepted as correctly decided so the legal issues have been decided.
Secondly, the imposition of a stay will have a detrimental effect on my financial position while as the Defendant will still be entitled to levy charges on my account despite the legality of the charges being in dispute no such detriment will be facing the defendant who is in a better position to shoulder such loss.
I may have further reasons which I will raise at any hearing.
Yours faithfully
Let me know if that worksAs I am not the Pope or legally qualified I may be wrong so feel free to get a second opinion from a qualified person0 -
That is fantastic.
I will let you know how i get on.
Everyone is invited to the pub if i get what's due.0 -
AS I have had more time to look into matter and if I'm to understand the matters correctly the OFT are using the UTCCR which is in it's self a statutory instrument, something i find most peculiar for this has the force of law only and is not properly incorporated in to the body of are laws( it is outside the body). Such as the HRA which itself was alien to the blood of the nation until incorporated by act of parliament. If you read OP you should hopefully understand that the law is only the law of the land if properly vested,constituted, in other words it runs in the blood of us all, therefore only a properly vested law can be used to set a precedent.
Although i have not seen the pleadings it seems the OFT are seeking a ruling that the banks are subject to the test of fairness in the UTCCR, the common sense thing to do would be to incorporate the regulations into the body corporate, this way they would be so subject. But in any case the so called “test case” is not capable in law of setting a precedent more a clarification exercise. The more I look into this the more serious it becomes and i think people are beginning realize this, for if a claim where professionally prosecuted and some form of concealment found, this could have far reaching consequences for the banks and the economy.
However the key point is, you cannot become a party to the action, therefore that action can not be cited as a reason for a stay in other word it will not set a precedent.
P.S I hope you can understand the above
Any posts by myself are my opinion ONLY. They should never be taken as correct or factual without confirmation from a legal professional. All information is given without prejudice or liability.0 -
AS I have had more time to look into matter and if I'm to understand the matters correctly the OFT are using the UTCCR which is in it's self a statutory instrument, something i find most peculiar for this has the force of law only and is not properly incorporated in to the body of are laws( it is outside the body). Such as the HRA which itself was alien to the blood of the nation until incorporated by act of parliament. If you read OP you should hopefully understand that the law is only the law of the land if properly vested,constituted, in other words it runs in the blood of us all, therefore only a properly vested law can be used to set a precedent.
Although i have not seen the pleadings it seems the OFT are seeking a ruling that the banks are subject to the test of fairness in the UTCCR, the common sense thing to do would be to incorporate the regulations into the body corporate, this way they would be so subject. But in any case the so called “test case” is not capable in law of setting a precedent more a clarification exercise. The more I look into this the more serious it becomes and i think people are beginning realize this, for if a claim where professionally prosecuted and some form of concealment found, this could have far reaching consequences for the banks and the economy.
However the key point is, you cannot become a party to the action, therefore that action can not be cited as a reason for a stay in other word it will not set a precedent.
P.S I hope you can understand the above
Deary if you are saying that scondary legislation does not have the force of law then I find that a very novel and interesting argument which is unsupported by any legal principle or authority that I am aware of. As to whether the OFT case is capable of setting a precedent so that it would be appropriate to stay a case pending the decision in that case we will have to agree to differ. In relying on the incorporation of the ECHR by the HRA you are seeking to rely on a different principle of law which has no application to this case.As I am not the Pope or legally qualified I may be wrong so feel free to get a second opinion from a qualified person0 -
Without sounding pretentious let me explain the reasoning.
Life is a gift said to be from god, embodied in that life is the right to survive. The freedom to make contracts and to defend yourself are said to be fundamental to that life.
Therefore when a law is made purporting to interfere with the sanctity of a contract, it is always by way of a fully conscious act of parliament, for the freedom to contract is what gives our constitution it's vitality.
By way of explanation I have used The HRA, this was not an act of parliament but constructed by an alien body which has since been fully incorporated into the body politic of the UK. A statutory instrument has the force of law but it has not been fully incorporated, in other words it is outside the body. The law must vest(run in the blood) before it can be argued in a court.
Therefore an instrument issuing out of an act “UTCCR” ( of a foreign body EEC) would not have sufficient authority to set a precedent on a contract. This would have to be by way of a fully conscious act of parliament.
The banks are responsible for all this confusion by not coming clean on the cost charges.
"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages...will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without suspecting that the system is inimical to their best interests." - Rothschild Brothers of London, communiqué to associates in New York June 25, 1863
BTW. Keep up the good work you are doing!
P.S the court case is number is 2007 Folio 1196 in Commercial Court of the high court. If some one can get a copy of the action and post it here.
Any posts by myself are my opinion ONLY. They should never be taken as correct or factual without confirmation from a legal professional. All information is given without prejudice or liability.0 -
The fundamental problem with your example Deary is that you have confused the ECHR which was an International Treaty with the HRA which brought the ECHR into English Law. Further in as far as the UTCCR is based on a directive or regulation of the EEC/EU it has force of Law in England by virtue of s.2 of the European Communities Act 1972. Accordingly it has to be given legal effect to as any other form of subordinate legislation. It follows that an action either based on it or seeking declaratory relief as to its meaning is capable in an appropriate case of forming the basis of an application to stay another case where th same point is or may be in issue.As I am not the Pope or legally qualified I may be wrong so feel free to get a second opinion from a qualified person0
-
If enforceable, the banks would have defended the claims, nor would they have payed back millions. I would say that is pretty strong evidence that the charges don't genuinely reflects the loss that flows from the breach. Therefore the test case is a cover for the real reason the banks won't defend, and that is, not only would the banks have to pay back all the charges but ipso facto render the contract voidable by way of knowingly concealing the true cost of the breach.
The offer to submit themselves to judicial challenge in the high court via the OFT is a way of circumventing the true fact of the matter being litigated and a proper examination of the industry as a whole.
You can be sure the decision has already been made over lunch.
Respectfully, you are indulging into solicitors gobbledygook, the point i am making, in order to become the law of the land the HRA had to be incorporated into the body of our laws, with no need to approach ECHR for Justice. Some authorities consider SIs as `primary', as they are often derived from Acts of Parliament and deal with their interpretation. However, both Statutes and SIs are primary in the sense that they are original, written statements of the law, and distinct from case law.Any posts by myself are my opinion ONLY. They should never be taken as correct or factual without confirmation from a legal professional. All information is given without prejudice or liability.0 -
wish my banks would take me to lunch and settle my claimsclaimed/settled - Natwest £2,535/£2,535, HSBC visa £80/£80, MBNA £1,258/£1,258, capital one £282/£282, tesco visa £515/£515, HSBC visa £140/£140. HSBC £1,450 MCOL Stayed for OFT case. Chelsea Mortgage charges & cashback £5000/£672. complaints with banks pending OFT Halifax £30, A&L £35. TOTALS £11,325/£54820
-
Hi all,
i received my letter from court saying that the case has been put on hold, :mad:, so had been checking out this forum along with oenaltycharges.co.uk to try and write a letter to oppose it, but the more i look at the letter the more i think they'll not accept it; here's wat it says...
Small claims relating to refund of bank charges
This case relates to claim for bank charges. You may be aware the the OFT has initiated an investigation and legal proceedings into the fairness or otherwise of terms contained in personal account arrangements.
Those proceedings commenced by the OFT are to be heard in January 2008 and until a decision has been given, all claims for refunds of bank charges are being adjourned for directions until the first available date from mid-february 2008.
You will be notified of a date in due course.
Wat do uz think - is it worth my while applying for it to be heard anyway? I just hate the thought of them going against me cos i pushed for it (if that makes sense?) It's been going on now for over 6months so getting pretty annoyed0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.4K Spending & Discounts
- 243.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 256.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards