The Consumer Action Group and MoneySavingExpert.com beat Hulll Strike Out Orders

From Consumer Wiki
Revision as of 12:56, 6 November 2007 by Dave (talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | view current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)

The dramatic setback for bank charges claimants in Hull has been reversed and has now produced an opportunity for a long awaited test-case.


A powerful alliance of The Consumer Action Group and Martin Lewis MoneySavingExpert.com decided that the impact of the 44 bank charges strikeout orders in Hull was too great. Together the two consumer forums arranged to challenge the strikeout orders with the help of solicitor Mike Dailly of Govan Law Centre and local Hull solicitor Baser Akoodie both of whom provided their services free of charge. Mike Dailly provided so much help that at one point he was obliged to meet with the trustees of his charitable law centre in order to obtain their permission to continue to provide his support for the case.


The bank Axis powers involved in the Hull orders were Barclays, HSBC, Nationwide, Alliance & Leicester, Yorkshire Bank and Lloyds.


Funded jointly by Martin Lewis (75%) and the CAG (25%) as well as a large donation from a CAG member, the Allies instructed a London QC to spearhead the challenge. It soon became clear that the claims of most of the 44 claimants were very poor quality and needed to be re-drafted. We are pleased to say that those claimants who had used materials and guidance from our own consumer forum were clearly much better than the rest. Unfortunately several claimants had merely used the guidance from the Which?, BBC and other non-forum websites and their claims forms were especially weak.


It was decided to redraft all of the particulars of claims and this was carried out by our counsel Raymond Cox QC in consultation with the entire team. The evidence bundles were also overhauled so that by the date of the hearing, each claimant has been provided with a top quality and professionally prepared case file.


As each new particulars of claim was completed it was sent to the banks' solicitors with a note informing them that the original claim would be amended accordingly. It was no surprise that as each amendment was received, each bank immedialty capitulated and offered to settle the claim 100%.


Only HSBC and Barclays attempted to impose confidentiality clauses but the claimants refused these and even these banks agreed to unconditional surrender. Barclays did try to ambush one claimant just before the hearing and get him to sign a confidentiality agreement. Luckily this was spotted just in the nick of time and Barclays were obliged to climb-down and to settle unconditionally. Beware of Barclays bearing gifts!!


By the date of the hearing on the 4th July, there were only two banks still standing. The Alliance & Leicester failed to respond or to acknowledge to any communication whatsoever. The Yorkshire Bank on the other hand stated very clearly that it stood by its position and that it would defend the bank charges against them. In the event they fielded a senior solicitor but it soon became clear that he was out of his depth.


It became obvious very early on that faced with the new evidence bundles and the amended pleading that the judge was going to allow the cases to proceed. Yorkshire Bank tried lamely to say that there was no basis for a claim but the judge wouldn't agree and moved on to allocation. The Yorkshire Bank - no doubt worried about a disclosure order quickly agreed to allocation to the small claims track.

Then came the question of disclosure. Surprisingly the bank scarcely made an objection and the only issue became disclosure deadline. We wanted mid-August. the bank wanted the end of October. In the end the judge ordered full disclosure by the 28th September.


After very little further discussion the judge went on to replicate the order for all four Yorkshire bank charges claimants and for the 3 Alliance & Leicester claimants. A very good result indeed for The Consumer Forums.