Hi Ims21 Thanks for replying so quickly Is there another tack - the bank in question have taken a long time to respond to the PPI complaint, so I can go to the Ombudsman. Could I ask the Ombudsman to consider specific bank charges as well? It wouldn't be all of them, but it would be a start... Does anyone else have any thoughts on this or am I clutching at straws? keytar

Hi, I have a stayed bank charges case. The same bank also mis-sold me PPI and are paying out for that. If I can show that the bank charges were in part caused by the level of repayment to the Loan would I have a new angle to restart the Bank Charges case? Has anyone else tried this? I remember hearing that we now needed to go after specific charges on an individual basis rather than the previous approach. What do you think?

Hi - I have a case with Abbey (cahoot) too, stayed since late 2008. I posted their defense here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/145013-keytar-abbey-abbey-nationals.html

Abbey met my total claim amount of £1750 with a cheque sent 2 weeks before the hearing (this was their 4th offer) and I'm waiting to see if I'll get the hearing fee refunded. I calculated daily interest and added the court interest to both the claim and the interest I thought they'd charged me. I haven't really posted much about this claim but can give more details if you need.

one more question if you have time - I'd sent them a part 18 request for clarification of their defence requiring them to respond within 14 days - they wrote back saying they would not because of the Stay - can I act on this deadline or should I clarify that they should have 2 weeks after the stay is lifted?

would they have to win the case, or could the the court award these costs even if They settled or I won?

thanks tomterm8, it would be small claim as it is for about £2k. The other claim which got a hearing was for for 7k which might be why, although I was still asked to fill out an N149 in which I indicated that small claims would be the most appropriate.

Hi, things are quiet in the stays forum so I hope you don't mind me asking here: In the last couple of weeks I made an N244 application to remove the stay that had just been ordered on my case Keytar vs Abbey. Abbey wrote asking me to withdrawn my application or they would seek their costs from me if I failed to get the stay lifted at the hearing. Is this possible and what chances are there I would have to pay their costs? I applied for the stay to be lifted because a bank charges claim I issued on the same day has not been stayed but given a hearing in september to decide if a stay should be ordered and thought both cases should be treated the same way. So should I withdraw the application or press ahead and give it a go? I've already paid the fee.

I'm still not quite sure about this, but Abbey (Cahoot Credit Card) also referenced this document that the post refers to. ("Calculating fair default charges in credit card contracts" by the OFT 2006). Their letter told me that charges of £12 had been "recommended" by the OFT which I thought was really cheeky and definitely a distortion of what this document says. It consistently says that the OFT has decided to expend resources on taking legal action against credit card issuers with charges set above £12, and that only a court can decide what is fair even if the charges are below this level. If they refer to the document then it must be current. There is paragraph at toward end about Disguised Penalties, and if a court where to find a bank has done this then they would be in trouble. As I understand it from Bankfodders post, disguising a penalty must amount to a concealment and therefore they lose the protection of the Limitation Act, and anyone can claim beyond 6 years. That is just my understanding from what I have read on this site.

I could really do with some thoughts on what to do next (2 questions): - I just submitted an N244 to appeal the recent stay in my claim against Abbey and attached a slightly modified version of the http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/17065-application-removal-stay.html and a list of 106 settled Abbey cases as well as 1300 others. - I also submitted a part 18 request for clarification of their defence http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/111050-abbeys-new-no-breach.html Abbey have written back saying that: - if I do not withdraw my application to remove the stay, and if the stay remains after a hearing, then they would ask the court for their costs. - they are not going to answer the part 18 request because of the stay. So, should I: - withdraw the stay application because (do) I risk having to pay their costs? - continue to try to get their defence struck out for not providing the part 18 clarification or will this not work because of the OFT case/stay?

Hi animal_lover, I'd like to know this too. I've just got to the point where I'm expecting a hearing date and I've also just recieved an offer for half of the claim - which I've rejected. Some of the charges I'm claiming are beyond 6 years and the credit card issuer has pointed this out. This is the only post I can find about it: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/81799-issues-raised-llloyds-bank.html So I have sent them a copy of the OFT document (as well as to the court) pointing out this paragraph and I'll see what happens.

No replies but I thought I should let you know this was my next step as it did seem to be business as usual: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/111050-abbeys-new-no-breach.html

I didn't get any replies but I thought I should share what I decided to use in the end on the N149: On the form: Please find the following attached to this questionnaire: 1) Section G - Other Information 2) Draft Order for Directions These Attachments were sent to the Defendant on XXXX As an attachment stapled to the Allocation Questionnaire: XXXX-v- Abbey National Plc Claim No: Date N149 Allocation Questionnaire Section G - other information I should like to re-iterate that this case is in relation to Credit Card Charges and not Bank Charges. The court should note that the test case initiated by the OFT, Claim No. 2007 Folio 1186, clearly states it is testing the law in relation to current account overdraft charges, and not credit card charges. No credit card issuer has been acted against by the OFT in this test case. Details of OFT claim – “The OFT has initiated an investigation under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 into the fairness or otherwise for the purposes of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 of certain terms contained in each Defendant Bank’s personal current account arrangements providing for charges to be imposed upon customers who seek to make payments for which they do not have available funds.” If the court is in agreement, it is respectfully suggested that special directions may be given as per the attached draft order. I believe the proposed directions will further the Overriding Objectives in that they identify the most fundamental issues in dispute, and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously. If the Defendant has the serious intention of defending this claim at trial as is indicated by its defence, I would contend that it is incumbent upon it to disclose such information. Further, the proposed directions are now routinely ordered in claims of this nature in the Mercantile Court in London, as well as in small claims track cases in Leicester, Derby, Chesterfield, Northampton and Mansfield County Courts. As the law relating to contractual penalties is long established, I believe the outstanding issues to be of fact. Accordingly, I would respectfully request that this claim is allocated to the small claims track, and estimate that the hearing of the claim should last no longer than one hour. In the XXXX County Court Claim number: XXXXX Between XXXXX and Abbey National - Defendant Draft Order for Directions: The Claimant shall within 14 days of service of this order send to the Defendant and to the Court: a) A schedule setting out each charge repayment of which is sought, showing the date, amount, and reason given (if any) for that charge being made; b) Copies of any statement or other document relied upon as showing that each and every charge has been made; c) A statement of evidence of all matters relied upon as tending to show that the charges are irrecoverable as penalties or otherwise; d) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon. If the Claimant fails to comply with this order, the claim will be struck out without further order. 2. The Defendant shall within 14 days thereafter file and serve a response to the Claimant's schedule, stating in respect of each item claimed; a) Pursuant to what contractual provision such charge was made, producing a copy of the contractual document relied upon; b) Whether such charge is accepted to be a penalty, and if not why not; c) If such charge is alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions (whether or not such action is treated as a breach of contract between the parties), all facts and matters intended to be relied upon as showing that such was a proper estimate of such loss, and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to what the true cost of dealing with the matter was; d) If such charge is not alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions then facts and matters intended to be relied upon showing the basis upon which the charge was calculated and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to show that the charge was fair and reasonable. e) Any witness statements f) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon. If the Defendant fails to comply with this order, the Defence will be struck out without further order.

I didn't get any replies but I thought I should share what I decided to use in the end: On the form: Please find the following attached to this questionnaire: 1) Section G - Other Information 2) Draft Order for Directions These Attachments were sent to the Defendant on XXXX As an attachment stapled to the Allocation Questionnaire: XXXX-v- Abbey National Plc Claim No: Date N149 Allocation Questionnaire Section G - other information I should like to re-iterate that this case is in relation to Credit Card Charges and not Bank Charges. The court should note that the test case initiated by the OFT, Claim No. 2007 Folio 1186, clearly states it is testing the law in relation to current account overdraft charges, and not credit card charges. No credit card issuer has been acted against by the OFT in this test case. Details of OFT claim – “The OFT has initiated an investigation under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 into the fairness or otherwise for the purposes of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 of certain terms contained in each Defendant Bank’s personal current account arrangements providing for charges to be imposed upon customers who seek to make payments for which they do not have available funds.” If the court is in agreement, it is respectfully suggested that special directions may be given as per the attached draft order. I believe the proposed directions will further the Overriding Objectives in that they identify the most fundamental issues in dispute, and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously. If the Defendant has the serious intention of defending this claim at trial as is indicated by its defence, I would contend that it is incumbent upon it to disclose such information. Further, the proposed directions are now routinely ordered in claims of this nature in the Mercantile Court in London, as well as in small claims track cases in Leicester, Derby, Chesterfield, Northampton and Mansfield County Courts. As the law relating to contractual penalties is long established, I believe the outstanding issues to be of fact. Accordingly, I would respectfully request that this claim is allocated to the small claims track, and estimate that the hearing of the claim should last no longer than one hour. In the XXXX County Court Claim number: XXXXX Between XXXXX and Abbey National - Defendant Draft Order for Directions: The Claimant shall within 14 days of service of this order send to the Defendant and to the Court: a) A schedule setting out each charge repayment of which is sought, showing the date, amount, and reason given (if any) for that charge being made; b) Copies of any statement or other document relied upon as showing that each and every charge has been made; c) A statement of evidence of all matters relied upon as tending to show that the charges are irrecoverable as penalties or otherwise; d) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon. If the Claimant fails to comply with this order, the claim will be struck out without further order. 2. The Defendant shall within 14 days thereafter file and serve a response to the Claimant's schedule, stating in respect of each item claimed; a) Pursuant to what contractual provision such charge was made, producing a copy of the contractual document relied upon; b) Whether such charge is accepted to be a penalty, and if not why not; c) If such charge is alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions (whether or not such action is treated as a breach of contract between the parties), all facts and matters intended to be relied upon as showing that such was a proper estimate of such loss, and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to what the true cost of dealing with the matter was; d) If such charge is not alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions then facts and matters intended to be relied upon showing the basis upon which the charge was calculated and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to show that the charge was fair and reasonable. e) Any witness statements f) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon. If the Defendant fails to comply with this order, the Defence will be struck out without further order.

Should I appeal the stay? I submitted both claims on the same date this year at Croydon, and on the same day recieved letters ordering an indefinite stay in my claim against Abbey, and a hearing date for my claim against Lloyds. I've heard it is £35 to apply for the stay to be lifted - should I try? The Lloyds claim is nearly identical (just different value and statements but same argument) and I have a hearing date to see if a stay should be ordered or if the case can proceed. I thought the order was unfair because it makes it my responsibility to notify the court of the implications of the test case to get it going again: QUOTED TEXT: IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1 . The Claim be stayed until further order to await the decision in the test case, which shall be interpreted to include the outcome of any final appeal or the expiry of time for permission to appeal the first instance decision. 2. The Defendant shall within 28 days of the fianl decision in the test case file at Court and serve on the Claimant a case summary of not more than 500 words setting out the effect of the decision in the test case in relation to this particular claim and their proposed directions. 3. Upon filing of the documents set out in paragraph 2 above, the file be referred forthwith to a resident District Judge to consider directions. so should I try to get the stay lifted - or could I try and get the order changed to a finite amount of time?