Thanks for the feedback guys. Yes Angel, you are correct it is all about prep. I'd also add, for those going for compound interest, reading your case law and understanding it; not just being able to parrot it. Photoman - the interesting thing (and in my view a strong indication that the banks are running scared on compound interest and Sempra) is that for this trial, they hired a very highly-rated (Legal 500) Banking Barrister from probably the pre-eminent Chambers for complex banking cases, Fountain Court. These guys don't come cheap. They are definitely worried. Someone is going to break through soon.

He didn't, and I didn't play on it Tuttsi - although the barrister asked me beforehand if I was planning to. I definitely considered it -but once aware of the DJs other concerns with the case decided to pick my battles.

Update Case has been adjourned for a period of "2-3 months" for a Directions Hearing in relation to the current Test Case for Bank Account cases. DJ said that he had 'concerns about this case at either end', saying that on the one hand he felt that the only way he thought my claim could go forward was as 'a contractual claim'; and that the establishment or otherwise of this had a dependency on the full outcome of the test cases. He said that on the other hand, The County Court was a 'creature of statute' and was not convinced it could actually award compound interest - even though he was 'fascinated' with the case itself. He said that although he accepts that the test cases relate to current accounts, that the fates of the two are 'intrinsically linked'. He also stated that, according to a conversation he had recently with the DCJ, a number of CC cases are being stayed along with bank account cases and that he felt this was the right thing to be doing. 'I can only say that had this case not come before a Deputy at the last hearing, it would not be here in its present form this afternoon', he declared, clarifying that this was not in relation to the case's merits but from a case management standpoint. He was complimentary about the way I had presented my case and quite scathing about the Defendant's reasoning as to why they thought I couldn't go ahead using Sempra. In fact he all but said they were wrong and I was right! However, the Defence Barrister continued to argue strongly that the trial should go ahead today. By this time, I was clear that tactically I had to play on the Judge's uncertainty and fall into line with him; because I felt sure that his nervousness about the County Court re. compound interest, could lead to problems for me. So, when he came to ask me what I thought, I agreed with him. The other side looked a bit disappointed but I was happy - the last thing I wanted was to end up in the High Court. I know some may find his puzzling - but I think I got the best outcome I could hope to come away with today. Directions to follow, costs reserved (the Barrister was barking like mad for costs, trying to intimidate me LOL). I'll summarise the order here when I get it. Mac

Halifax surprised me by serving a Witness Statement, along with a Skeleton Argument written by a top Barrister and an intimidatory covering letter at 9am this morning by FedEx. That's ZERO working days before the trial. Am working on responses and getting my bundle together, although I am going to first try and nail them for breaching the Judges orders that they must have their documents in by 1st December.

Sally, TUTTSI Although all seems quiet, things have been buzzing along in the background with research, preparations and so forth. Bank Account is stayed as you know, but Credit Card Interest Hearing (compound vs. simple) is a week tomorrow, 15th Dec. Will keep everyone posted Mac

Update - Current Account Defence arrived at the weekend, with a £200 AQ fee to pay. Also included (slightly worrying), was the fast track/Multi Track leaflet - I was hoping to be able to keep it away from those. I have until 3rd Nov to file AQ. Claim No: NLBXXXXX IN THE LAMBETH COUNTY COURT BETWEEN: Mr. M. Boy Claimant ~ and ~ BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC (SUED AS "HALIFAX (BANK OF SCOTLAND) PLC") DEFENCE 1. On 27th July 2007 a "Test Case" was issued in the High Court between the Office of Fair Trading and a number of banks (namely Abbey National pic, Barclays Bank pic, Clydesdale Bank pic, HBOS Plc, HSBC Bank Plc, Lloyds Bank Plc, Nationwide Building Society and The Royal Bank of Scotland Group) Plc in relation to the recovery by personal current account customers of charges paid by them to the banks. 2. The Defendant respectfully requests that this claim is stayed until further Order pending the final decision in the Test Case. 3. The Defendant intends to defend this action, and will file a full defence within 28 days of the expiration of the stay in proceedings. 3.1. It is intended that the full defence will also address the Claimant's claim in relation to any issue raised concerning compound interest and any aspect of the claim relating to charges applied prior to the applicable limitation period. The Defendant does not propose to address these matters at this stage until the substantive issue of the legality of the charges has been addressed as a result of the Test Case. 4. In the meantime, the Defendant makes no admissions to the particulars of claim, and the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief whether as pleaded or at all. The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true. XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX DLA Piper UK LLP Defendant's Solicitor

Update - Current Account AckoS filed @ Lambeth on 19/08 with intention to defend.

Well yeah.. but there's not that much I can do about it, Tuttsi . I'm not a hardship case, so Ill just have to deal with it I guess.

Update - Current Account Standard Stay letter rec'd today.

Response letter to amended Defence Will be posted in the morning. I'm currently considering a response to their Defence via the court, but may not bother, in the light of its sheer crapness DLA PIPER UK LLP Princes Exchange Princes Square Leeds LS1 4BY Original to: DLA Piper Copies to: Halifax (Bank of Scotland) Plc, Lambeth County Court Saturday, 20 September 2008 Dear Sir/Madam Case No. nLB0nnnn | Your ref. xxxxnnnnnnn Response to forced settlement offer made after Amended Defence Filed It appears from reading your client’s amended defence in the above matter that they have once again disregarded all previous representations from myself, in respect of making forced settlements into my credit card account. I wish to make it clear that I accept neither the original nor any subsequent payments that may be made in this manner and presented as purported settlement, either in full or part, of the above matter. I therefore request in the strongest terms that your client not proceed with the intended payment alluded to in your Amended Defence dated 18th September 2008. I further request that your client reverses forthwith all such payments already made. Furthermore, I refer them to my previous letters to Angela McDade, Complaints & Consumer Guidance, HBOS PLC, sent 23 April 2008, 10 May 2008 and 15 June 2008. In all of the above letters, I also requested a copy of a properly executed agreement, signed by both parties, in respect of the instant account. I will now reiterate this request a fourth time. If I do not receive this within fourteen days of the date of this letter, I shall consider applying to the court for a Pre-Action Disclosure order and will make further complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office, as this request was part of an official Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998, made on 30th March 2007; which has still not been fulfilled by your client. Finally I refer you to para. 4 of your client’s Amended Defence, in which they state that they have refunded the court fee of £75 into my account. In fact this payment was not made through the account, but separately by cheque, which I subsequently returned. No further payment was made into my account in respect of court fees or anything else as far as I am aware. With regard to the remainder of your client's amended defence, I am currently considering this and if necessary shall respond through the court. I look forward to hearing from you or your client in due course. Yours faithfully etc.

Indeed, sallysas. Apart from a letter I'm drafting to the solicitors (insisting that they do not make the intended deposit into my account and that they reverse the one they already have made), I don't think I'm even going to bother with a Reply to Defence ahead of the hearing now - it is that crap. Why should I give them another chance to get their act together? I have every reason to believe that the Judge will roast them alive for this. They have completely ignored his direction.

Amended Defence from DLA Piper below I've typed this, but the original as sent to me is a complete bloody mess, containing all the original defence written by HFX's in-house team; crossed out and the added stuff double underlined. See sample image below: As well as as looking like a total dog's breakfast (which I'm sure will not impress the judge), I just can't see how what they've added (marked in bold below) strengthens their case one iota. I'm not a lawyer - but this is certainly not what the Judge asked for. IN THE LAMBETH COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO. 8LBnnnn Between: MR XXXXXX XXXXX Claimant and BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC (SUED AS HALIFAX (BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC) Defendant DEFENCE 1. The Defendant is a Bank. The Claimant has a credit card account with the Defendant, having card number nnnn nnnn nnnn nnnn ("the Credit Card Account"). 2. The Claimant appears to be claiming £397.00 In respect of Credit Card charges, £43.78 in respect of statutory interest, £920.69 in respect of contractual interest (or, in the alternative, £132.72 in respect of simple statutory interest) and £75.00 Court fee. 3. The Claimant has provided particulars implying that £397.00 of his claim relates to Credit Card charges incurred on his Credit Card Account. These charges were debited to the Credit Card Account in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Credit Card Account ("the Account Conditions"), which the Claimant agreed to accept and by which he is bound. Under the Account Conditions, the Defendant is entitled to apply charges to the Credit Card Account, inter alia and so far as is relevant to this claim, for: (a) Each time you do not make a minimum payment by the payment date; and: © Each time a direct debit, cheque or other item is not paid, including a cheque which you write; 4. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Defendant has, without admission of liability refunded £515.78 to the Claimant. This sum represents all the credit card charges that the Claimant has incurred in the period claimed, being £397.00, together with £43.78 in respect of interest and £75.00 in respect of Court fee. 5. The remainder of the claim, £920.69, appears to relate to compound interest on top of the charges and interest which haye already been refunded as described at paragraph 4 above, The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to compound interest on these sums. (a) The Claimant alleges at paragraph 40 of the Particulars Of Claim that he suffered interest losses by having to take out loans to cover the charges applied. The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to recover any such sums and puts the Claimant to strict proof of these allegations. b) The Claimant alleges at paragraph 32 of the Particulars Of Claim that the Defendaot has made "considerable profit" as a result of the charges and claims a compounded interest rate of 20.6%. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to such sums and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the rate alleged. 6. The correct basis for any such award of interest would be simple statutory interest at a rate of 8% under the County Courts Act 1984. The Defendant is currently making arrangements for a total of £136,01 in respect of simple statutory interest (in respect of £132.72 statutory interest claimed to the date at issue and a further sum of £3.29 in respect of statutory interest at a daily rate of 10.6p to the date of repayment as per the Claimant's claim form) to be refunded directly to the Claimant's Credit Card Account. 7. On the basis of matters pleaded above, the Defendant denies that it is liable to the Claimant for the sum of £920.69 in respect of the balance of his claim or for any other sum. DATED this 18th day of September 2008 The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true. Signed XXXXX X XXXX Solicitor DLA Piper UK LLP

Thanks TUTTSI -I'm hoping that some of it at least will be useful to other CAG-gers

Indeed it is, sallysas - for the Halifax anyway. I intend to get a parachute a/c opened up shortly and go after A&L, which is the home of my 'current' Current Account (if you see what I mean!). Meanwhile the endgame for my Halifax Credit Card case (or more correctly the argument for CI therein) will take place in December.

Current Account case duly filed this afternoon. Also payed the Hearing Fee for the Credit Card case into the Court office.