Tweet
Following the miss representation in the press and by CMC's of the position of HHJ Halbert Chester County Court
HHJ Halbert Meeting Chester 18 05 09
In the main yes they are claims brought by CMC s against lenders and I can confirm the following from the conference today18th May 2009.
1.The judge condemned the media coverage about his letter of May 1st as being totally inaccurate.Surprisingly given the coverage afforded to the story in the media last week there were no representatives from the media in court or at least they did not declare themselves when asked to by the judge.Look out for a report about this Case Conference in the media-I don't think!
The following banks were represented;
HSBC,
MBNA,
Barclays,
NatWest,
RBS,
Lloyds
2.There is definately no stay being imposed on any case in the Chester County Court and it was emphasised that anything being considered applied to that court only although other courts may decide to follow the lead.
3.The purpose of the conference was to said to be to discuss with interested parties how the court system could benefit from having trials of cases which have specific points of law to clearly establish these points where there may be some doubt.A total of 52 cases were being considered at this time which is how many CCC had dealing with unenforceabilty at this time.
The assembled QC's Barristers etc were quite clear in agreeing that as far as they were concerned the law had already been clearly established in the House of Lords and elsewhere(even most of the representatives of the lenders agreed upon that) and did not need any further cases to clarify it.
However there were representations from one solicitor who asked that a case be selected to highlight a possible obscure point about the definition of interest rate as stated under the 1974 act so a case was selected which had the necessary point and will be allocated to Justice Smith in London as soon as possible.
What was very interesting was that Barclays were particularly keen to establish a point about banks being able to still report you to a Credit Reference Agency even though you have proved that your agreement is unenforceable.
They even had the cheek to say that it would be in the interest of consumers to know for sure whether having proved their agreement was unenforceable if they stopped paying then they could still be reported to a Credit Reference Agency.
What they really want of course is to discourage people to try and prove that their agreement is unenforceable because they will worry about having a bad credit report.
Barristers for the CMC's argued that this was just enforcement of an unenforceable agreement by another name and cited unfair relationships.
Apparently people are now applying for injunctions preventing the banks from adopting this practice however a case involving this issue was agreed upon and will be heard by Justice Smith in London asap.
A total of 4 cases were identified as being treated this way to highlight one issue or another but they were all minor points and the rest of the 52 are being dealt with at Chester in the normal way.
So,NO STAYS NO CHALLENGE TO THE EXISTING ESTABLISHED CASE LAW just one very small storm in a teacup.
Except that the original estimate given to Judge Halbert of 100,000 cases of this type being expected is more than the total number of Fast Track and Multi Track cases which were dealt with by all the courts in the UK last year.
However only about 15,000 of those came to trial and I believe this is the point -if all the contentious poits are cleared up or at least as far as possible then claimants will know when they are on a winner and so will the lenders so the vast majority of cases will be settled before trial and so will help to avoid clogging up the courts.
I think that the judiciary know which way this is going and want to avoid a debacle in the court system.
I witnessed the banter and body language of the claimants legal teams and the lenders legal teams and there is no doubt that the banks are on the run now and are just putting on a brave face whilst the CMC's are scenting blood as they are desperate for as many cases as possible to go to trial as soon as possible to achieve some victories.
The way I see it time is running out for the banks and they will not be able to hide behind the media for much longer.
Wigeon
HHJ Halbert Meeting Chester 18 05 09
In the main yes they are claims brought by CMC s against lenders and I can confirm the following from the conference today18th May 2009.
1.The judge condemned the media coverage about his letter of May 1st as being totally inaccurate.Surprisingly given the coverage afforded to the story in the media last week there were no representatives from the media in court or at least they did not declare themselves when asked to by the judge.Look out for a report about this Case Conference in the media-I don't think!
The following banks were represented;
HSBC,
MBNA,
Barclays,
NatWest,
RBS,
Lloyds
2.There is definately no stay being imposed on any case in the Chester County Court and it was emphasised that anything being considered applied to that court only although other courts may decide to follow the lead.
3.The purpose of the conference was to said to be to discuss with interested parties how the court system could benefit from having trials of cases which have specific points of law to clearly establish these points where there may be some doubt.A total of 52 cases were being considered at this time which is how many CCC had dealing with unenforceabilty at this time.
The assembled QC's Barristers etc were quite clear in agreeing that as far as they were concerned the law had already been clearly established in the House of Lords and elsewhere(even most of the representatives of the lenders agreed upon that) and did not need any further cases to clarify it.
However there were representations from one solicitor who asked that a case be selected to highlight a possible obscure point about the definition of interest rate as stated under the 1974 act so a case was selected which had the necessary point and will be allocated to Justice Smith in London as soon as possible.
What was very interesting was that Barclays were particularly keen to establish a point about banks being able to still report you to a Credit Reference Agency even though you have proved that your agreement is unenforceable.
They even had the cheek to say that it would be in the interest of consumers to know for sure whether having proved their agreement was unenforceable if they stopped paying then they could still be reported to a Credit Reference Agency.
What they really want of course is to discourage people to try and prove that their agreement is unenforceable because they will worry about having a bad credit report.
Barristers for the CMC's argued that this was just enforcement of an unenforceable agreement by another name and cited unfair relationships.
Apparently people are now applying for injunctions preventing the banks from adopting this practice however a case involving this issue was agreed upon and will be heard by Justice Smith in London asap.
A total of 4 cases were identified as being treated this way to highlight one issue or another but they were all minor points and the rest of the 52 are being dealt with at Chester in the normal way.
So,NO STAYS NO CHALLENGE TO THE EXISTING ESTABLISHED CASE LAW just one very small storm in a teacup.
Except that the original estimate given to Judge Halbert of 100,000 cases of this type being expected is more than the total number of Fast Track and Multi Track cases which were dealt with by all the courts in the UK last year.
However only about 15,000 of those came to trial and I believe this is the point -if all the contentious poits are cleared up or at least as far as possible then claimants will know when they are on a winner and so will the lenders so the vast majority of cases will be settled before trial and so will help to avoid clogging up the courts.
I think that the judiciary know which way this is going and want to avoid a debacle in the court system.
I witnessed the banter and body language of the claimants legal teams and the lenders legal teams and there is no doubt that the banks are on the run now and are just putting on a brave face whilst the CMC's are scenting blood as they are desperate for as many cases as possible to go to trial as soon as possible to achieve some victories.
The way I see it time is running out for the banks and they will not be able to hide behind the media for much longer.
Wigeon
Comment