Court has stayed credit card !!

kashie

£685.00 was the total claim they are offering £273 which they offered ages ago and i rejected thats why i proceeded with a claim.

I am really annoyed at the way he has responded to my letter like I am accusing him of putting the stay on the claim, when i only sent him a copy of the n244 application to show that I am applying for the stay to be lifted.

king100

What a surprise that my crecit card was stayed.

I have a letter already to go to but i want to really lay into LLoyds and put something along the lines that they have deceived the court to make a stay as CC.

This is there defence.

This defence is served without prejudice to the Defendants contention that the particulars of claim is insufficiently particularised and is embarrassing. The defendant reserves the right to plead further to the particulars of claim once they are sufficiently particularised.

The defendant will object that the particulars of claim in this action disclose no reasonable cause of action against the defendant and makes no specific allegations against the defendant as to why the defendant should be liable to the claimant for the amount claimed.

The particulars of the claim do no comply with rule 16.4 1a of the civil procedure rules as "amongst other things" they do not identify the account in question that appears to form the subject matter of these proceedings or indeed show how the sum of £486.45 is arrived at and the particulars of claim are too vague. The POC shows no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

The claimant should therefore be ordered to file and serve an amended claim to set out the full particulars of the bank account and the charges they are seeking to recover, identify each charge, the date and amount of the charge and why the claimant in each case they allege it is a disproportionate penalty and thus unlawful.

The defendant should be give the opportunity to defend the proceedings further.

I have sent them a complate breakdown of all charges so and what account it is associated with.

They claim it is a BANK ACCOUNT and mention PENALTIES.

I really want to get stuck in to this and would appreciate any help.

king100

Forgot to put what 16.4 1a is

16.4 <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="subsectionitem" valign="top" width="5%">(1)</td> <td class="standardtext" valign="top"> Particulars of claim must include –
<table style="margin-top: 12pt;" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="subsectionitem" valign="top" width="5%">(a)</td> <td class="standardtext" valign="top"> a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies;
</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

king100

Claim Number:7QT37782<o></o>

In the <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Northampton County Court</st1:address></st1:street>

Between:
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]--><o></o>

XXXXXXXXX<o>
</o>

Claimant<o></o>

<o>
</o>

-and-<o></o>

<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<o>
</o>

Lloyds TSB Bank PLC<o></o>

Defendant<o></o>

I strongly object to the proposed order of a stay actioned on 04.09.2007 in respect of the claim detailed above upon the following grounds;

Office of Fair Trading report into credit card charges<o></o>
<o></o>
On the 5 April 2006 the OFT released its provisional report on the issue of charges applied to consumers by Credit Card issuers: Calculating fair charges in credit card contracts. The OFT approached eight companies to test the fairness of these charges under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCRs).<o></o>
<o></o>
Part 1.2 of the report states “It is intended to set out a consistent basis on which we believe it is possible to calculate fair default charges for the purposes of the UTCCRs.” The report goes on to say that the pre-2006 charges were significantly higher than is fair for the purposes of the UTCCRs and may only recover the relevant limited administrative costs arising out of those defaults (Part 1.6).<o></o>
<o></o>
Part 1.8 of the report states that this report therefore applies a maximum threshold cost of £12. This was adopted by Lloyds in May 2006, but repayment of previous charges above this threshold were not received until litigation was threatened in my letter of 18^th July 2007. Copy of letter and proof of postage supplied.<o></o>
<o></o>
However, my case has been in challenging the Credit Card issuer to further demonstrate that the fees it has charged, and is now charging meets the OFT’s points as noted in Part 1.2 of the report, namely that the charges have only met the relevant limited administrative costs arising from my defaults.<o></o>
<o></o>
The case I have pursued through the court, has been to identify what this charge should be, if at all. The OFT state in their report that “Only a court can decide finally whether a term is unfair, or at what level default charges should be set to meet the requirements of the UTCCRs.” (Part 1.14)<o></o><o></o>>
The court, by granting a stay pending the OFT’s test case in the high court against seven major banks and one major building society should note that no Credit Card issuer has been acted against by the OFT in this test case. <o></o>
<o></o>
The test case, by the OFT’s own admission, is to: <o></o>
<o></o>
“assess whether the charges are consistent with the UTCCRs:<o></o>
- The first step is to assess whether the charges are subject to the test of unfairness, <o></o>
- The second step is then to consider whether the amount of the charges is unfair. <o></o>
<o></o>
The OFT's legal action addresses the first point by seeking to establish that the provisions of the UTCCRs that deal with unfairness apply to unauthorised overdraft charges.<o></o>
<o></o>
The legal action will encompass a representative selection of the banks current and previous terms and conditions.<o></o>
<o></o>
This first stage of legal action is also expected to cover some additional points of legal principle: in particular whether these charges can be a penalty at common law.”<o></o>
<o></o>
The embolden section of this statement, clearly states that the OFT are testing the law in relation to bank overdraft charges, and not credit card charges.<o></o>
<o></o>
The key principles of the OFT 2006 report clearly state that:<o></o>
<o></o>
“In applying this test of fairness we have taken the view that a court would be likely to regard as unfair a default charge provision that enabled the issuer to recover more than the damages which would be awarded at common law in the event that a consumer was individually sued for breach of contract.<o></o><o></o>
The case I have brought before you has been to assert my right as a consumer to have these issues addressed.<o></o>
<o></o>
Human rights

It would infringe 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.”

It is submitted that the ordering of a stay as proposed is not reasonable. 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 that a final resolution may not be reached for 2 – 3 years or perhaps even longer. It is thus submitted that the period of any proposed stay cannot be accurately predicted and would therefore in effect 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.

The Overriding Objective

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.<o></o>
<o></o>
The case has been brought to the court to require the credit card issuer to supply information that would clarify what a reasonable charge should be for a credit card. The result of the OFT test case against the eight banks will not provide any information that would settle this case without a court judgement.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<o></o>

<o></o>
Balance of convenience

The sum claimed is insignificant to the credit card issuer but it is highly significant to me. Furthermore, although a stay prevents me from recovering my money, the defendant issuer 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 issuers 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.

Additionally, the defendant remains at liberty to enter my name on the default register which it and other credit card issuers routinely do in respect of unlawful penalties which are unpaid by their customers. The issuers have direct and privileged access to this register. They have no need to obtain a County Court judgment before they may enter a default on the register. This default remains on the register for 6 years and causes enormous damage to reputations. Were my name to be entered on the default register I would find it impossible to get credit or a mortgage and I would have to pay higher fees for any credit which I did manage to obtain. The issuer would also remain at liberty to bring legal proceedings against me for the recovery of any debt which mostly or entirely consists of penalty charges, penalty charges which are contended to be unlawful, but which consumers would be helpless to challenge in the event that stays are imposed on any claim where a customer is seeking to dispute the lawfulness of them.

It is submitted that a stay may potentially mean great difficulty for me and yet be insignificant for the defendant credit card issuer. In fact a stay is supportive of the issuers 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 Status Quo

The stay does not maintain the status quo. As submitted above, a stay favours the bank by preventing the claimant’s pursuit of its 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 is at a late stage in proceedings, 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.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]--><o></o>
I therefore ask that the court re-instate my claim against the defendant to allow justice to run its course. I would suggest that once this has happened, and a new court date has been instated that the defendant will come to a resolution of the situation out of court, as it has done on many occasions previously. In this instance I would appeal to the court to issue a wasted costs order to the defendant for it’s obvious and frankly abusive use of the court and legal system.<o></o>
I will also be forwarding a copy of this letter to the OFT and FSA to show how the Credit Card companies have already been abusing the legal system, and the leniency granted it by the FSA and OFT to allow the test case to move forward.<o></o>
<o></o>
<o></o>
I would also like to point out that Lloyds TSB PLC have deceived the court in filing this defence. Under rule 11.01 section 1 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct the defendants solicitors<o></o>

<o></o>
“11.01 Deceiving or misleading the court<o></o>

(1) You must never deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court.

In this case the defence has misled the court in suggesting that this is a bank account when it is indeed a credit card account. They have also suggested that I have not identified the account in question when indeed a letter was sent by Lloyds TSB PLC detailing my credit card account number. [3}<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
In my correspondences I have been quoting the Scottish Widow number as this is the original account in question, and where the unfair charges have been applied.[1]<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Please note that I was claiming for £484.13 [2] as stated in and on my original claim form using the original account number, not the £486.45 as claimed by the defence.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I further enclose particulars of my CREDIT CARD account, identifying each charge, the date and amount of the charge for your information. Please note these are current and up to date as of today.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I, the Claimant, believe all facts stated to be true.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>

Dated:<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Enclosed copy of letters<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
[1]Letter to Lloyds dated 26/07/2007 – Detailing account number and address. Plus proof of postage.<o:p></o:p>
[2]Copy of credit charges plus interest<o:p></o:p>
[3]Copy of letter from Lloyds acknowledging account<o:p></o:p>
[4]New copy of charges up to date as of today 07/09/2007<o:p></o:p>
<o> </o>

roadrunner8

Can Any One Help "please" I Have Got As Far As Putting Barclays To Court And They Have Put A Stay On It At Northampton, I Have Also Put Barclaycard To Court This As Gone To My Local Court And The Judge As Put A Stay On That Too, I Was Under The Imprestion That The Credit Card Claims Could Go Ahead Please Can Someone Help!

Stokey125

roadrunner8 wrote: »

Can Any One Help "please" I Have Got As Far As Putting Barclays To Court And They Have Put A Stay On It At Northampton, I Have Also Put Barclaycard To Court This As Gone To My Local Court And The Judge As Put A Stay On That Too, I Was Under The Imprestion That The Credit Card Claims Could Go Ahead Please Can Someone Help!

In relation to the Barclaycard claim apply to have that set aside on the basis that credit cards are not part of the test case which only relates to bank account chargs. In relation to the Barclays claim write to Northampton saying that you wish to apply to ahve it set aside there are a number of threads which give reasons. Also in addition to these reasons add that the delaying of the case until after teh tsxt case will not save time as a trial will still be needed to deal with teh issues not covered by teh test case.

king100

My credit card has been stayed and i wish to make a formal complaint to the governing bodies, under section 11.01 part 1 <o></o> Deceiving or misleading the court<o></o>

(1) You must never deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court.<o></o>


I will be sending a copy of the letter to

Northampton County Court
LLoyds TSB
The Solicitors that are representing LLoyds
The Law Society

I am also asking the court to have my stay lifted and the defence held in contempt and struck out.

Are there any forms that i need to fill out.

king100

Claim Number:XXXXXXXX<o></o>

In the <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Northampton County Court</st1:address></st1:street>

Between:
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]--><o></o>

XXXXXXX
<o></o>

Claimant<o></o>

<o>
</o>

-and-<o></o>

<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]--><o></o>

Lloyds TSB Bank PLC<o></o>

Defendant<o></o>

I strongly object to the proposed order of a stay actioned on 04.09.2007 in respect of the claim detailed above upon the following grounds;

Office of Fair Trading report into credit card charges<o></o>
<o></o>
On the 5 April 2006 the OFT released its provisional report on the issue of charges applied to consumers by Credit Card issuers: Calculating fair charges in credit card contracts. The OFT approached eight companies to test the fairness of these charges under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCRs).<o></o>
<o></o>
Part 1.2 of the report states “It is intended to set out a consistent basis on which we believe it is possible to calculate fair default charges for the purposes of the UTCCRs.” The report goes on to say that the pre-2006 charges were significantly higher than is fair for the purposes of the UTCCRs and may only recover the relevant limited administrative costs arising out of those defaults (Part 1.6).<o></o>
<o></o>
Part 1.8 of the report states that this report therefore applies a maximum threshold cost of £12. This was adopted by Lloyds in May 2006, but repayment of previous charges above this threshold were not received until litigation was threatened in my letter of 18^th July 2007. Copy of letter and proof of postage supplied.<o></o>
<o></o>
However, my case has been in challenging the Credit Card issuer to further demonstrate that the fees it has charged, and is now charging meets the OFT’s points as noted in Part 1.2 of the report, namely that the charges have only met the relevant limited administrative costs arising from my defaults.<o></o>
<o></o>
The case I have pursued through the court, has been to identify what this charge should be, if at all. The OFT state in their report that “Only a court can decide finally whether a term is unfair, or at what level default charges should be set to meet the requirements of the UTCCRs.” (Part 1.14)<o></o>
<o></o>
The court, by granting a stay pending the OFT’s test case in the high court against seven major banks and one major building society should note that no Credit Card issuer has been acted against by the OFT in this test case. <o></o>
<o></o>
The test case, by the OFT’s own admission, is to: <o></o>
<o></o>
“assess whether the charges are consistent with the UTCCRs:<o></o>
- The first step is to assess whether the charges are subject to the test of unfairness, <o></o>
- The second step is then to consider whether the amount of the charges is unfair. <o></o>
<o></o>
The OFT's legal action addresses the first point by seeking to establish that the provisions of the UTCCRs that deal with unfairness apply to unauthorised overdraft charges.<o></o>
<o></o>
The legal action will encompass a representative selection of the banks current and previous terms and conditions.<o></o>
<o></o>
This first stage of legal action is also expected to cover some additional points of legal principle: in particular whether these charges can be a penalty at common law.”<o></o>
<o></o>
The embolden section of this statement, clearly states that the OFT are testing the law in relation to bank overdraft charges, and not credit card charges.<o></o>
<o></o>
The key principles of the OFT 2006 report clearly state that:<o></o>
<o></o>
“In applying this test of fairness we have taken the view that a court would be likely to regard as unfair a default charge provision that enabled the issuer to recover more than the damages which would be awarded at common law in the event that a consumer was individually sued for breach of contract.”<o></o>
<o></o>
The case I have brought before you has been to assert my right as a consumer to have these issues addressed.<o></o>
<o></o>
Human rights

It would infringe 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.”

It is submitted that the ordering of a stay as proposed is not reasonable. 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 that a final resolution may not be reached for 2 – 3 years or perhaps even longer. It is thus submitted that the period of any proposed stay cannot be accurately predicted and would therefore in effect 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.

The Overriding Objective

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.<o></o>
<o></o>
The case has been brought to the court to require the credit card issuer to supply information that would clarify what a reasonable charge should be for a credit card. The result of the OFT test case against the eight banks will not provide any information that would settle this case without a court judgement.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]--><o></o>
<o></o>
Balance of convenience

The sum claimed is insignificant to the credit card issuer but it is highly significant to me. Furthermore, although a stay prevents me from recovering my money, the defendant issuer 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 issuers 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.

Additionally, the defendant remains at liberty to enter my name on the default register which it and other credit card issuers routinely do in respect of unlawful penalties which are unpaid by their customers. The issuers have direct and privileged access to this register. They have no need to obtain a County Court judgment before they may enter a default on the register. This default remains on the register for 6 years and causes enormous damage to reputations. Were my name to be entered on the default register I would find it impossible to get credit or a mortgage and I would have to pay higher fees for any credit which I did manage to obtain. The issuer would also remain at liberty to bring legal proceedings against me for the recovery of any debt which mostly or entirely consists of penalty charges, penalty charges which are contended to be unlawful, but which consumers would be helpless to challenge in the event that stays are imposed on any claim where a customer is seeking to dispute the lawfulness of them.

It is submitted that a stay may potentially mean great difficulty for me and yet be insignificant for the defendant credit card issuer. In fact a stay is supportive of the issuers 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 Status Quo

The stay does not maintain the status quo. As submitted above, a stay favours the bank by preventing the claimant’s pursuit of its 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 is at a late stage in proceedings, 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.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]--><o></o>
I therefore ask that the court re-instate my claim against the defendant to allow justice to run its course. I would suggest that once this has happened, and a new court date has been instated that the defendant will come to a resolution of the situation out of court, as it has done on many occasions previously. In this instance I would appeal to the court to issue a wasted costs order to the defendant for it’s obvious and frankly abusive use of the court and legal system.<o></o>
I will also be forwarding a copy of this letter to the OFT and FSA to show how the Credit Card companies have already been abusing the legal system, and the leniency granted it by the FSA and OFT to allow the test case to move forward.<o></o>
<o></o><o></o>
I would also like to point out that Lloyds TSB PLC have deceived the court in filing this defence. Under rule 11.01 section 1 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct the defendants solicitors<o></o>

<o></o>
“11.01 Deceiving or misleading the court<o></o>

(1) You must never deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court.<o>

</o> In this case the defence has misled the court in suggesting that this is a bank account when it is indeed a credit card account. They have also suggested that I have not identified the account in question when indeed a letter was sent by Lloyds TSB PLC detailing my credit card account number. [3}<o>
</o><o></o>
In my correspondences I have been quoting the number as this is the original account in question, and where the unfair charges have been applied.[1]<o></o>
<o></o>
Please note that I was claiming for £[2] as stated in and on my original claim form using the original account number, not the £ as claimed by the defence.<o></o>
<o></o>
I further enclose particulars of my CREDIT CARD account, identifying each charge, the date and amount of the charge for your information. Please note these are current and up to date as of today.<o></o>
<o></o>
I urge you to consider that defendant has misled the court on this occasion and consider that the defendant is in contempt of court.<o></o>
<o></o>
I would like you to also consider the defence be struck out as an abuse of process on the basis as this claim relates to a credit card account and not bank charges. The defence is misleading in that in referring to bank charges the defendant is seeking to obtain a stay in circumstances when if the true facts where stated in the defence they would not have been entitled.<o></o><o></o>
I, the Claimant, believe all facts stated to be true.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<o></o><o></o>

Dated:<o></o>
<o></o><o></o>
Enclosed copy of letters<o></o>
<o></o>
[1]Letter to Lloyds dated 26/07/2007 – Detailing account number and address. Plus proof of postage.<o></o>
[2]Copy of credit charges plus interest<o></o>
[3]Copy of letter from Lloyds acknowledging account<o></o>
[4]New copy of charges up to date as of today 07/09/2007<o></o>
<o>
</o>

roadrunner8

please could anyone send me a copy of a letter to use re;asking for a stay to be lifted or set aside as i would use it in my claim against barclaycard has had a stay put on it by my local court thanks roadrunner8.

roadrunner8

would this letter do for barclaycard