Sorry again. Re the last post, not sure if it is the FSA, or the Financial Ombudsman!

Sorry to be disjointed in the reply, but I am aware of your time constraints. Additional info: I believe it is the FSA (Financial Services Authority) that has stated that the banks must consider cases of undue hardship immediateley without waiting for the test case.

Just had another thought about item 2 in my previous post. You may be able to insist that the bank deals with your complaint about unfair charges before the test case on the grounds of 'hardship'. Given the circumstances of your friend, I assume it would fall into the 'hardship' category.

I am no expert, but I see two aspects to your case, which are probably the route you are already going down: 1. Can it be said that the bank has acted unreasonably in changing the terms of trading with your friend by introducing an overdraft facility when there was not one originally and furthermore there is the question of whether the bank took reasonable steps to inform your friend of the change especially bearing in mind your friend's address or lack of? 2. There is the forthcoming test case on penalty charges, between the OFT and the major banks, due in court next week I believe. I doubt if you will get the bank to discuss that aspect until the result of the test case is known.

What you have done is fine.

When you say 'My claim was the standard claim for unlawful charges', what exactly did you put in the Particulars of Claim on the N1 claim form?

Sorry, but I can't give you a definite answer to your question about item 1. I personally don't think it matters either way really. If it were me I would probably not mention the default removal notice at item 1. Your original claim was for repayment of bank charges and item 4 then brings in the addition of the removal of the default notice which in the sequence of events seems to read OK.

My thoughts are (but I am not an expert): 1. Requirement for removal of default notice. Providing that repayment of the bank charges will nullify the amount of the default notice, item 4 would seem to be a good opportunity to request removal of the default notice. I would however check with the Court to see if a form N244 is also required. I suggest that you state at item 4 something on the lines of the following: 'Whilst the basis of claim and and the amount claimed as originally claimed on the N1 claim form remain unchanged, the defendant has imposed a default notice on the claimant's bank account since the claimant submitted the claim. The claimant therefore requires an item to be added to the claim requirinng the defendant to remove the default notice.' Once you have stated this on the CMI sheet and sent a copty to the defendant, it brings it into the negotiations should the defendant try to negotiate a settlement with you prior to the hearing. 2. The letters that you have sent to the bank do not constitute Alternative Dispute Resolution and as such I do not feel that the ADR section is the place for any mention of them. 3. As far as I am aware the Court will not send a copy of the CMI sheet to the defendant. You should send a copy direct to the defendant (covered in my notes at Post 15 of the Case Management Info Sheet and I think also a specific requirement in CPR 59 ).

Lozza and Jenny, There is not much difference between the example CMI sheets at post 8 (Jenny's revised sheet) and mine at post 15. The aim of my example CMI sheet at post 15 was: 1. I showed the questions besides the answers (I think it is a more meaningful document and more 'reader friendly' to show both the questions and answers, not just the answers), 2. I refined the answers to questions 3, 5, 8 and 28 for the reasons stated in earlier posts 3. I gave notes about answering some of the questions. It is not crucial at the end of the day as to which of the two example CMI sheets is used. As Jenny says, she has used her sheet with no problem. Likewise I have used my sheet with no problem. Anybody using the example sheets should try to understand what the example answers mean and if it is felt that they need amending to suit the individual's particular circumstances, then do so. (Lozza, having read the defence that you have been given, I do not see that it needs any specific response on the CMI sheet).

Jenny, What happened at the the Leeds Mercantile Hearings in February, April and June 2007? Where the cases had not been settled at the first hearing, I understood that the Judge had kept them in the Mercantile Court on the multi-track for further hearings. Is that not the case? One of the CAG reports on the April hearing stated that one of the banks wanted the case transferring back to the County Court small claims track but the judge was having none of it. I appreciate that you were at the June hearing and have first hand experience of that hearing. I note that your report and other CAG claimant's reports on the 28th June hearing imply that the 'not settled' cases are continuing on the multi-track not the small claims track, which appears to be at variance to what you have said at post 25. Have I misunderstood?

Lozza, I suggest that you don't just opt to use the CMI sheet answers from post 1 because you have received a defence, but make sure that those example answers suit the actual defence that you have received. Don't copy the answers without understanding what they mean. They were particular to one individual claimant in answer to one particular bank's defence which may not be the same defence that your bank has given to you. Also the originator of those example answers at post 1 (not Jenny Barton) was not at the Leeds Mercantile Court and it appears that the originator was still aiming for the small claims track, which is not the case at Leeds which specifically states multi-track, not small claims track. I have already mentioned inconsistencies in the answers at post 1 when looked at in the light of the Leeds Mercantile, see earlier posts (post 13 and earlier), and that is why I gave an updated example CMI sheet at post 15. In considering your bank's defence, you might like to consider whether there is anything in it that requires you to make a specific reply on your CMI sheet. If there is, then by all means insert an appropriate response at the relevant place on the CMI sheet.

Lozza, Reference your previous post, I would send the CMI sheet sooner rather than later. It will act as a reminder to the bank when they receive a copy from you and you just might get an offer of settlement that bit earlier (no promises). You should send the CMI sheet showing both thre questions and answers. It is rather meaningless and 'reader unfriendly' to show the answers only without the question and there is a chance of not matching the answer up with the correct question number.

Boris, Glad that you found it helpful. All the best for the 20th. Do you know how many cases are listed for that hearing? Please let us know how you get on.

Lozza, Try not to be nervous. Many cases get settled either before or on the day with no problem. If you haven't already seen them, links to CPR59 and the CMI sheet are given at posts 1 and 4 on page 1 of this thread. As a matter of interest, how many other cases are listed for the 29th August on the papers that the Court sent you?

It would appear that they are jumping the gun with the CPR18 request. CPR18 is being used on bank charges cases which have been transferred to the Mercantile Court on the Multi-Track, as is the case at Leeds, even for claims of less than £5k which would normally have been County Court Small Claims Track. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mercantile-court-cases-stays/