Abbet sent a solicitor to ask for a further stay, also said if they wern't granted one they would appeal and then take it into the High Court! Judge not too impressed with this but listened to the Human Rights Act argument and decided it was too complex an issue to allow the case to progress. Stayed again!

Well I'm in court tomorrow and the only contact I've had with Abbey is to say they will discuss the change to PoC at the hearing..... don't have any idea of what they are proposing so I'll let you know in the next couple of days. It's a shame the Supreme Court ruling hasn't been announced.

In the Judge's Order granting a hearing I am being asked to provide in my documents "a skeleton of their legal argument as to the lack of application of the matters proceeding to final appeal in their claim 2007 Folio 1186 in the Commercial Court to this claim". I presume therefore I have been granted a hearing on the Human Rights Act assertion. Can anybody help with the skeleton argument apart from the obvious reference to the Human Rights act and timeliness?

Thanks Ida. My POC stated "I've checked my POC and the statement I made was: The Claimants contend that: a)The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of the cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alledged actual loss to the defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the claimants; and are not intended to represent or related to any alledged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the defendant which excercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit. b) The contractual provision that permits the defendant to levy such charges is unenforcable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law. I also put in the statement: Alternatively, if the charges are a fee for a service, then they must be reasonable under S15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act (1982). As it mentions the UTCCR I am hoping it's OK as we have to exchange bundles in the next two weeks so I don't have time to amend my POC. Thought I might clarify in my witness statement and point out that my POC was submitted in July 2007 before the court case was even started. My biggest concern is that the court bundle template still refers to penalties and hasn't been reviewed since 2007. Lesley

Thank you both for your interest.

I've looked at all the template links to court bundles but am concerned that everything relates to "penalty" charges. I am right in thinking the banks have won this argument and they are not classed as "penalty" charges but unfair terms and conditions? Should I just submit the bundle suugested back in 2007 or do things need amending to support the continuing argument? Confused in need of help!

Thanks, I've tried copying it into my browser but still getting 404 error message indicating the link is out of date??? I've looked in the templates but the witness statement etc. refers to penalty charges. Do I just leave this bit out? Is there any point in making reference to the other big banks reducing their fees already? Abbey also refer to their new terms & conditions in their defence but I don't think this is relevant as all the charges are pre the date of issue. Can I submit a new charges list and add in any charges from the two year period in between AQ and hearing? Do I need to rework my interest calculation spreadsheet? Do I sound a little panicked???

Thanks but the link takes me to an error message! I've checked my POC and the statement I made was: The Claimants contend that: a)The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of the cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alledged actual loss to the defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the claimants; and are not intended to represent or related to any alledged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the defendant which excercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit. b) The contractual provision that permits the defendant to levy such charges is unenforcable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law. I also put in the statement: Alternatively, if the charges are a fee for a service, then they must be reasonable under S15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act (1982). Do you think I need to amend my POC as there is no actual reference to penalties? Do I have time to do so as Abbey are not responsing at all and I have to submit my bundle by 17th October?

Hi, time is moving on and I've had no word from Abbey and neither have the courts. I'm starting to look at getting my bundle together and have dug out all my old paperwork. The POC dates back to July 2007 and certainly refers to common law and punitive charges. Do I have to change anything? Is there a pre-prepared bundle like I used before and has this been updated to reflect any of the court case? Do I need to review my bank charges and include any that have been applied over the last two years and do I need to do a new interest charges breakdown? Any help would be gratefully received.

Very interesting. Whilst I'm sure it's coincidence it will make an interesting point at the hearing. I note they aren't doing anything about past charges though.

Bundles have to be with the Court and Abbey 14 days before the hearing date.

Paid my £300 court fees and asked if Abbey had filed anything. The Court says no. Now we just wait and see and prepare the bundle.

Thanks, will keep you posted. I was hoping others were in the same boat not sure I like being a pioneer!

The date for the hearing is 3rd November. I'm going to the Court office today to pay my small claims track fees and am going to ask if Abbey have filed anything further with the Court. The Court Office is confused as to why I am being granted hearings, do you think I should write to the Judge asking for advice? In my opinion this may only point out his error?

Yes I to used the same Human Rights Act before and my stay wasn't lifted so I'm not sure what has prompted the District Judge to take this action. I'll have to check back and see what needs amending. I'm quite looking forward to it particularly as Abbey gave the new defence and the period of charges I'm claiming for was before the new Terms & Conditions came into effect. In my opinion therefore their defence is flawed? Is there an updated court bundle anywhere?

I've been back through my paperwork today as I have to pay the small claims track fee today. Got as far as the AQ and then both claims were stayed. I've had a couple of letters over the past two years from Abbey, the usual rubbish about waiting for the High Court decision but other than that nothing. Their 14 days to ask for a futher stay are also up today so we could well be going for a hearing. I've heard nothing from Abbey at all. In my letter to the Court I quoted the "rights under the European Contravention of Human Rights (ECHR) as set out in Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6.1". Maybe the District Judge also agrees that two years is a long time to wait.

Yes, I seem to recall I made reference to 1 case won and 2 outstanding.

Same happened to me. I rang customer service (!) and was told it was a computer error and that I had been notified of the charges previously but they had not been taken at the due date. I pointed out that this was therefore their error..... they agreed and refunded the lot on the spot. Result!

Background was on the forum but has recently been deleted.

Hard to remember now I feel as if they've been on hold forever! Papers had been lodged with the Courts and we were awaiting directions as to a hearing. One claim had just been accepted out of court and paid in full by Abbey.

The cases are at Bury County Court. If I do not pay the small claims hearing fees within 14 days both claims will be struck out - this amounts to a further £300! The hearing date was notified to us by letter from the Court following my usual 6-monthly letter asking the Court to keep the claim open during the stay process. I have used the CAG template letter for this twice now, identical wording. The first time resulted in a further stay the second time a hearing. The Court officer I spoke to has no idea why a hearing has been granted and has suggested I can write to the District Judge for an explanation. I think I'd rather just go for the hearing and hope that Abbey don't turn up.

Yes. I won one claim against the Abbey and the two remaining claims got caught up in the original stays. I've rung the Court who say they expected that all claims would be stayed until January 2010 but the District Judge has offered us hearings on both our outstanding claims which have been with the Court for almost two years now.

I have two outstanding actions against Abbey which have been stayed since October 2008. Now, suprisingly, The District Judge has granted us hearing dates on both of them. Has anybody had a similar experience and are Abbey likely to appeal the granting of a hearing? It's going to cost us a further £600 in fees to progress or risk the case being struck out.

No, No, No, it is correct but I think he was only apologising for the £340 underpayment not for the fact that Abbey are putting its customers through hoops. He also indicated that the reason they had settled was because they couldn't handle the number of claims....good! Nimrod

Great news! Did not recieve their bundle and was preparing a letter for the Court asking for a strike out due to non-compliance of bundles, but today on the post I received a letter offering full settlement without strings!!! Checked the figures in their breakdown and they had deducted their goodwill offer twice and had not included my AQ costs. Rang Inga but she is away so spoke to Ronan who APOLOGISED for their miscalculation and immediately put a further request in for another £340 - total won £5137.75 - HURRAH!!! Many thanks to everyone who contributes. It took a while to prepare my bundle but when all 210 pages were neatly indexed and filed it looked great - I hope it frightened them into submission! Nimrod