Tweet
It has been difficult to work out over the past month just how the stays would impact in practice, but it is pretty clear now that we are approaching a blanket stay regime, despite this being rejected by the Master of the Rolls initially. Although individual District Judges were supposed to decide cases on merit, it is now abundantly clear that the judiciary are only interested in making money and having an easy life (for themselves and the banks), with justice effectively vanishing from the radar.
Other sites are still encouraging everyone to apply to lift stays, regardless of their circumstances, by using set templates, though there is now ample evidence that this approach does not work, despite a few notable victories. In every case (I think) this is because of the particular circumstances of the claim rather than due to the template.
The following guidance provides some ideas on how the specific details of an application could be argued to maximise the useful points.
1 Are there special circs about your case? Close to judgement, bank failed to send papers, used delaying tactics, failed to provide an adequate defence etc. Stuff that argues why your case should really be over now anyway. Dish the dirt on the banks for abusing the court process.
2 Your hardship. This is the subject of much debate, because like most stuff around the test case nothing is clear, so the courts stay everything (even credit cards), the banks win and we lose. You need to stress particularly if you receive benefits and whether the bank has been taking these. What debts do you have - especially priority ones like arrears of mortgage, utilities, income tax, council tax etc.
3 Threat of further problems. If you don't get your money back will here be mega grief, possibly leading to bailiffs, repossession, court claim against you, defaults etc. These are very strong grounds if you can show them.
4 Also stress the hardship of having forked out for claims and now finding that this money will not be returned for at least a year. This is small point, but very symbolic of the injustice, particularly where you paid it before the test case was announced and paid it in good faith believing that the court would deliver the service it was paid for. If anyone else swindled you like this you would normally take them to court!
Although there has not been much success even with cases of hardship, I think this approach gives some useful guidance on who might have a strong case to argue and how to go about this.
I was also encouraged last week by the judge who granted the injunction to stop Barclays adding more charges while the case is stayed. Injunctions allow the judge to provide some genuine help to the claimant in need, without breaking ranks with the conspiracy on stays. This area needs close consideration as it might provide a way forward that can be developed.
Another interesting development today is that the judges in Leeds are to hold a meeting about all the requests to lift stays, in order to decide what to do about them. Clearly they are rattled by the volume of work and the bad press coming from their actions in supporting the banks.
I would appreciate comments on the above to further the debate and guide how we should be using our efforts to tackle the stay problem.
K.
"No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it"
Other sites are still encouraging everyone to apply to lift stays, regardless of their circumstances, by using set templates, though there is now ample evidence that this approach does not work, despite a few notable victories. In every case (I think) this is because of the particular circumstances of the claim rather than due to the template.
The following guidance provides some ideas on how the specific details of an application could be argued to maximise the useful points.
1 Are there special circs about your case? Close to judgement, bank failed to send papers, used delaying tactics, failed to provide an adequate defence etc. Stuff that argues why your case should really be over now anyway. Dish the dirt on the banks for abusing the court process.
2 Your hardship. This is the subject of much debate, because like most stuff around the test case nothing is clear, so the courts stay everything (even credit cards), the banks win and we lose. You need to stress particularly if you receive benefits and whether the bank has been taking these. What debts do you have - especially priority ones like arrears of mortgage, utilities, income tax, council tax etc.
3 Threat of further problems. If you don't get your money back will here be mega grief, possibly leading to bailiffs, repossession, court claim against you, defaults etc. These are very strong grounds if you can show them.
4 Also stress the hardship of having forked out for claims and now finding that this money will not be returned for at least a year. This is small point, but very symbolic of the injustice, particularly where you paid it before the test case was announced and paid it in good faith believing that the court would deliver the service it was paid for. If anyone else swindled you like this you would normally take them to court!
Although there has not been much success even with cases of hardship, I think this approach gives some useful guidance on who might have a strong case to argue and how to go about this.
I was also encouraged last week by the judge who granted the injunction to stop Barclays adding more charges while the case is stayed. Injunctions allow the judge to provide some genuine help to the claimant in need, without breaking ranks with the conspiracy on stays. This area needs close consideration as it might provide a way forward that can be developed.
Another interesting development today is that the judges in Leeds are to hold a meeting about all the requests to lift stays, in order to decide what to do about them. Clearly they are rattled by the volume of work and the bad press coming from their actions in supporting the banks.
I would appreciate comments on the above to further the debate and guide how we should be using our efforts to tackle the stay problem.
K.
"No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it"
