SMC solicitors not available throughout November; anyone else has to put up with it?

[Joa]

hi guys; i got my copy of lloyds' AQ. Sechiari and bleh bleh ask for extra month to try to negotiate. I am up in in Brentford CC; anybody else in the same court? Maybe we could try to persuade the DJ to see a real reason for SCM requesting extra time; snowed under the claims and sheer obnoxiousness.

[Nickers]

Hi, I got exactly the same reply, also saying that they have got a witness!! Love to see where they pulled that one from! They are asking for a copy of my allocation questinnaire. Did you send them one direct or do they get it from the court? I think im going to send them a letter and tell them that if they want to negotiate then im willing to for the full amount or i'll see them at court. We'll see where that gets me. Their all having November off so they can go Christmas shopping with all the money Lloyds TSB are paying them!!!

[breadline]

if you have sent your AQ back to the courts you should have sent a copy off to SCM at the same time. It gets it done and dusted.

If you havent done this do it now and enclude a copy of nay paper work handed in with it.

Dont start sending letters after that let the dust settle and sit back i can promise you lloyds will stretch this one and every other one out as long as they can.

Move on to something else and wait for them to contact you. Its all liek a game of chess its long and well planned moves.

High chance you will receive a 50% offer or an offer for charges and interest only.

IMO i took the interest , charges and pushed for the costs under the grounds Lloyd's had a chance to stop the legal action there for they knew the costs where tobe added and were also advised you would be recovering them.

 

BL:)

[gizmo111]

hi guys; i got my copy of lloyds' AQ. Sechiari and bleh bleh ask for extra month to try to negotiate. I am up in in Brentford CC; anybody else in the same court? Maybe we could try to persuade the DJ to see a real reason for SCM requesting extra time; snowed under the claims and sheer obnoxiousness.

 

Try a letter along these lines - you will need to modify to suit.

 

Dear Sir/Madam

Case No; xxxxx

I respectfully request that the application to delay hearing of the above for one month is refused, and this case be allocated as soon as the court timetable permits.

It is submitted that in a claim for £axe, where the defendant has so far refused to enter into a meaningful dialogue with myself, that the defendants request for moré time is not reasonable. Had the defendant been prepared to bring this matter to conclusion, it would have entered into meaningful dialogue with myself, with the intention of settling, before I was left with no alternative but to commence court proceedings.

I therefore respectfully request that their request to halt proceedings for a further month is not granted.

The Overriding Objective

It is submitted that the Overriding Objective requires that my case be allowed to proceed speedily so that a just settlement may be obtained by the parties to this case. There is no complicated issue of law. The common law relating to contractual penalties is settled law since the late 1800s and has been reinforced as recently as the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 which itself is the result of a European directive.

 

It will be settled out of court and therefore produce no useful decision from a higher court.

It is further submitted that the defendant in the instant case has no intention of going to a hearing.

It is submitted that the pattern of cases settled so far suggests very strongly that the banks are merely using the justice system as a publicly funded means of intimidating their customers and dissuading them from pursuing their legitimate Right.

It is submitted that this is abusive of the justice system and of the public resource.

 

 

Balance of convenience

The defendant has entered my name on the default register, which it and other banks routinely do in respect of unlawful penalties which are unpaid by their customers. The banks 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. Whilst my name remains on the default register as a further penalty for paying unfair charges I am finding it impossible to get credit or a mortgage without paying higher charges.

It is submitted that a further delay may potentially mean great difficulty for me and yet be insignificant for the defendant bank. In fact a stay is supportive of the banks litigation strategy, which is to take the claimant to the door of the court and then to settle the claim.

 

The Status Quo

granting the defendants request does not maintain the status quo. As submitted above, this favours the bank by preventing the claimant’s pursuit of his legitimate remedy without placing any restriction upon the banks activities which the claimant submits are unlawful and/or retaliatory.

 

The OFT and their powers under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 gives the power to the Office of Fair Trading to seek injunctions to prevent the use of unfair terms in consumer contracts. More than that, the UTCCR specifically prevents the private citizen from pursuing this remedy on his own behalf.

The OFT conducted a 2-year investigation of the contractual charges regime. They received a great deal of confidential evidence from the banks.

The OFT has already announced that it considers that the contractual penalty charge regimes of these financial institutions are unfair.

It is not at all clear why the OFT has not now proceeded to seek injunctions in the face of the banks’ refusals to comply. This is particularly serious when the Regulations have prevented the citizen from doing so.

In the alternative

If the court decides not to accede to my request I respectfully request that the court issues the following injunctions:

• 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 remove 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.

Additional orders

If the court does accede to my request then I respectfully request that the case be allocated to the small claims track but that the defendant be ordered to make standard disclosure.

It is submitted that an order for standard disclosure will assist greatly in bring these and other similar claims to a speedy and just conclusion.

The matter is suitable for the Small Claims Track as it involves no issue of law – the law is well established. It only involves questions of fact – in particular the true costs of the banks default charges system. The OFT has already formed its conclusion about this. Standard disclosure will put the matter beyond doubt. As I rely upon the bank as my fiduciary it is clear that they have a duty to act in utmost good faith in relation to their conduct of their contract with me. I submit that they do not act in good faith in relation to me or their other customers in the matter of penalty charges.

Yours faithfully

[Joa]

Thanks guys. I have sent them a copy of my AQ as per good practice, yet their letter still asks for it; obviously a badly amended template. I have sent to the court, together with my AQ, list of 225 settled penalty charges cases, transcript of McNamara interview and a statement requesting full disclosure to facilitate settlement.

I intend to send an "overriding objective" letter- I've done this before on other case and it worked. Any scope in collating evidence of all of us who had a "extra month" for settlement ticked by SMC but then no reasonable attempt at negotiation- and then taking this evidence to the Law Society's Consumer Complaints Service?

[gizmo111]

Thanks guys. I have sent them a copy of my AQ as per good practice, yet their letter still asks for it; obviously a badly amended template. I have sent to the court, together with my AQ, list of 225 settled penalty charges cases, transcript of McNamara interview and a statement requesting full disclosure to facilitate settlement.

I intend to send an "overriding objective" letter- I've done this before on other case and it worked. Any scope in collating evidence of all of us who had a "extra month" for settlement ticked by SMC but then no reasonable attempt at negotiation- and then taking this evidence to the Law Society's Consumer Complaints Service?

 

If you look in the RBS forum there is a thread Cobbetts and the Law Society - which is doing similar. Details there of the contact that has been had with the law society.

[Joa]

OK, I have posted in RBS (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland-bank/46803-law-society-cobbetts.html#post373334) but could ask for show of hands so when I speak to the Law Society I could have at least some idea of how widespread is this problem?

[sagaloo]

Check out my thread Sagaloo vs Lloyds TSB - you will see that the Court ordered SCM to respond to my allegations that they were abusing court process and using delaying tactics as part of their litigation strategy.

 

As far as the Law Society is concerned I contacted them a few weeks back and they told me they could only looks at complaints made by clients of solicitors.

[Joa]

Thanks sagaloo. Yeah, I was worried that the Law Soc would say something like that- after all the claimants have option to complain to court. I thought that I could try anyway; not for them to action anything specific but surely they have procedures to alert them to a worrying trend, underhand methods etc.

I'll look at your thread sagaloo.

[mattpoole21]

Hi Joa,

 

I think we are on similar time scales. I received sc&m AQ this week and as with you they are not available for the month of November! although looking at other threads some people are having to wait until Feb 07 for court dates as the court are so overwelmed with small claims at the moment! wonder why! just out of interest what court are you allocated? mine's Birmingham. Check out my thread for more info: matt Poole vs Lloyds Tsb

 

Cheers for now Matt

[Joa]

I am in Brentford, West London.

[leescutchings]

I've received my AQ and they say they aren't available november/december, mine is at Worthing courts.

[ianbrown]

Hi

Don't know if it's relevent but at Cardiff County Court the District Judge has listed at least ninety Bank Charge cases on the 21st December. Perhaps he knows something?

[ianbrown]

Forgot to mention this A bit of confusion re Allocation Questionnaire. You have to return it to the Court, but you do not have send a copy to SC_M. It's only a courtesy: this was in the Patricia Pearle book and I also checked it with the Court.