Tempty V Natwest

[Amethyst]

Re: Tempty V Natwest

Oh shock horror... idiots

Right thennnnnnnnnnnnnn - you alright drafting a polite reasonable response to the lovely ms Burgoyne ?? (ie without saying moron/idiot etc)

That we can copy to the court with your reasons for objecting the application.

[Amethyst]

Re: Tempty V Natwest

Oh btw - general consensus of opinion is the judge will just laugh at this appliction.

[enaid]

Re: Tempty V Natwest

Well thats ok then, told yer tempty, and they are doing me dads boiler as we speak lol msl:

[Tempty]

Re: Tempty V Natwest

awwww you sure i can't say moron??

oh ok then. Yeah i'll give it go, see what i can pull out of the bag

[Tempty]

Re: Tempty V Natwest

Well i hope so Ame, but then again they've pretty much gotten away with everything so far.. they were over the deadline to submit defense... but bank holiday apparently allowed it.
Instead of suppling a bundle they apply for a stay

seems to me they have been granted every stalling tactic they have applied for so far....... so i'm not holding me breath on this one either!! Sorry Ame hun...... not trying to be down over it.... in fact i'm not down..... Angry yes! and trying to remain realistic.


Enaid hunni great news about yer dad's boiler... well done

[Amethyst]

Re: Tempty V Natwest

Letter to Court

Dear Judgey

Claim Number XXXXX

I am writing with reference to the application filed with the court by the defendant dated 14th September detailing their intent to apply for the order dated 3 September 2007 ordering that the stay be lifted is set aside and the order dated 14 August 2007 be reinstated.

I raise objections to this application for the following reasons;

Reinstating the stay on this claim will cause undue financial hardship to myself and my family, as outlined in my original application.

I confirm there have been no changes in my circumstances since the order was made on 3rd September 2007 which warrant this latest application.

The information requested by the defendant in a letter received today (17th September 2007) relates to the financial hardship of this case and therefore is acknowledgement by the defendant of exceptional circumstances.

In view of the defendants previous failiure to comply with the courts directions, order date xxxxxxxxxxxxx reference xxxxxxxxxx, I respectfully ask the court to retain the order reference XXXX dated 3rd September 2007.

“ Each party shall deliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents (including any expert witness’s report) which he intends to rely on at the hearing no later than 25th September 2007’’

I, as claimant, served all documents on the defendant, and submitted to the court, on the 14/08/2007 as directed.

Additionally, please find attached correspondance between myself and the Defendant regarding their request for further information in relation to my status of Financial Hardship.

Therefore I respectfully insist that the stay remain lifted and the case to continue, as to prevent any more financial hardship on myself and family.

Thankyou for your consideration in this matter.

Yours sincerely

Letter to Bank

17th September 2007

Dear Lynsey Burgoyne,

Re: TEMPTY v. National Westminster Bank plc
Claim Number : 7QZ768556

I write in relation to your letter dated 13 September 2007, received today, requesting further information.

I consider this request a further attempt to stall my claim and abuse the court process. Your client is already privy to all the information you have requested from me.

However I will clarify the following;

1: Proof of receipt of Benefits.

a) Please see pages 38 - 79 of documents sent to you on 14th August 2007 as directed by the court. These pages are direct copies of Bank Statements, originally supplied to me by your client. The Statements clearly show Tax Credits and Child Benefit entering the account. Please note that from August 2006 onwards the Sole income to this account was provided for by Tax Credits and Child Benefit. These statements are verified by your client as a true representation of my account.


2: Details of contact with Natwest

a) Your client will hold records of communications with them regarding my financial status.

b) Please see attached letter dated 30th April 2007. This letter confirms a conversation with your client regarding the increase of my overdraft. This overdraft was required due to your client removing £704 in penalty charges from the account at a time when only £498 in Tax Credits was paid in. In itself unlawful under the Tax Credits Act 2002 s.45.

c) Telephone conversation with your client on 5th June 2007.

d) Please see attached letter dated 8th June 2007 regarding Loan agreement made due to financial hardship. I was informed this was the only option open to me as I was mistakenly under the belief that these charges were being lawfully applied to my account. A copy of this Loan Agreement is attached.


I hope this clarifies my position, should you require further details please contact your client.

I look forward to your response.

any thoughts ?

[thephoenix]

Re: Tempty V Natwest

".......the claimant respectfully looks upon our judicial system, to be a fair and just one. One that allows the claimant and defendant alike, to follow all directions and orders, set by the court. Therefore I respectfully insist that the defendants defence be struck out, as ordered by judge xxxxxxx xxxxxxx of xxxxxxxx County Court.

OR

Therefore I respectfully insist that the stay remain lifted and the case to continue, as to prevent any more financial hardship on myself and family.

[Amethyst]

Re: Tempty V Natwest

hmmmm have added second one.

First one..... Cobblers have complied in reality with directions. The stay application overrode the directions for the bundle - even though they put it in on the deadline - as this new one overrides the 25th date.

their original defence was shoddy, but the original directions by the judge were in temptys favour and that issue is closed now.

We all know its stalling rubbish, the court does and the solicitors do - we all know no bundle of any conequence will be submitted and tempty will be paid out before any hearing.....its just a game of chess where only one outcome is possible - just how quickly you get to that outcome is how skilled a player you are.

And we're still learning.

[thephoenix]

Re: Tempty V Natwest

exactly, chess is a lovely game, when played with daggers and spears...

the first one is just what I'm gonna be using in my N225 judgment form when it turns up for one of my case's.

if defense was that shoddy with no real effort to provide a consice and realistic defense, so to speak, why not go for strike out, pursuant to CPR 3.4 ( or something like). :rolleyes:

[Amethyst]

Re: Tempty V Natwest

hmmmm it is something we talked about.

The defence was the standard lack of particulars attached part 18 cobblers from cobblers. The judge didnt like it and ordered full hearing and bundle submission. then the claim was stayed. Are we still in a position to go for strike out if for some nuts reason the judge agrees with cobblers the stay shouldnt have been lifted ?


Tempt - did u send a copy of your N244 to cobblers when we did the court one ? I forget.

[Tempty]

Re: Tempty V Natwest

yeah pretty sure a copy of the n244 went to coblers. can't remember for definite in all honesty though

[thephoenix]

Re: Tempty V Natwest

after reading cpr 3.4(2)(A) OR (B), reasons for issue. it does seem as though you can request whatever you like providing it falls within the proceedure but at the end of the day it's upto the judge. The way I look at it, is the judge does try to aid the claimant in these types of case's, it's a case of reading between the lines.

the judge knows that the banks are not gonna send in the requested info or attend a court hearing but I can't understand why they do it. it just another waste of the courts time.

[thephoenix]

Re: Tempty V Natwest

I'm sure this angle has been covered at some point but Would the recent actions of the Financial Services Authority also contravene our rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as set out in Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6.1.
Although we're not talking about a hearing in a court of law but the agreement set up with the banks to suspend all action regarding claiming charges, would take away our rights to have complaints/demands dealt with in a fair and timely manner.

just a thought :rolleyes:

[Amethyst]

Re: Tempty V Natwest

Which recent actions of the FSA ?

being dense sorry.


I know CAG and PC cover ECHR quite fully in their templated applications for a stay lift - we decided early on to concentrate on the benefits inalienability and hardship aspects of applications and didnt want to bog the judges down with reams of information they already know and obviously dont particularly agree with. We try to make our applications personal to the claimant...

Also I dont agree fully with the injunction to stop banks charging customers in the meantime - especially those on benefits in financial difficulty. What happens at the outcome of the test case ? Do we want people in financial difficulty already burdened with additional debts ? If people dont have the risk of charges do we not think some will be a little hey ho doesnt matter they cant charge me....I KNOW thats probably not the right way to think in this fight we are undertaking - and I think I explained in another post - I agree with charges, just fair charges - and individual circumstances and leaway given where circumstances dictate.


Hmm off topic a tad there.

[TANZARELLI]

Re: Tempty V Natwest

I don't actually beleive the Test case will even get to court to be fair. The whole things a joke and should never have been started in the first place.

Tanz