Thanks.

In December, the High Court in London will rule on an appeal which I am bringing under s. 140A of the Consumer Credit Act. This will set a precedent on the sub-prime lending practices of Logbook Loans and in particular on the interest rate they charged me of 341% APR. Earlier this year, I asked the County Court to rule that my relationship with Logbook Loans was unfair within s. 140A. In a judgment handed down on September 21, a Recorder described the lender's behaviour as "not reasonable". He said, "I regard the decision to terminate and seek payment of £13,451.63 on 29 September 2008 as a product of an unfair relationship. It was a disproportionate exercise of contractual power". He went on "Moreover, in my judgment it was obviously the product of an unfair relationship for a person to borrow £3,000 in July 2008 and by the end of September 2008 be then contractually required to pay £13,451.63." The Recorder also described the early settlement figures provided by the lender as "not accurate". He added that I had exercised "very bad financial judgment" in taking out a loan with Logbook Loans. He concluded "I deprecate the practice whereby debtors are asked to sign a statement that the terms of a loan agreement are fair and reasonable", because "it acts as a disincentive to invoking the protection of the Consumer Credit Act". The Recorder reinstated the lender's original settlement figure of £1,500. I am appealing against this award. I'm saying that the Recorder's award is excessive because by reinstating the original settlement figure it did not sanction Logbook Loans for the unfair relationship. I will also argue that Logbook Loans' interest rate of 341% is excessive and that an excessive interest rate is itself evidence of an unfair relationship. Giving me permission to appeal, Mr Justice Butterfield said: "It is clearly arguable that ... the Recorder applied an excessive rate of interest to the advance ... In my judgment, the appellant [me] has a real prospect of persuading the judge hearing the appeal that the sum awarded fell outside even the broad discretion available to the Recorder." The judge went further, stating that there is "a compelling reason why the appeal should be heard". This will happen on 16 or 17 December.

Yoda, I expect you get asked this a lot. Is it possible to see a copy of the spreadsheet glimpsed in the BBC film? This would be really useful to me in another matter not to do with bank charges. I am trying to find a scientific way of working out the cost of each of the many tasks involved in using a computer. Your spreadsheet seems to show that you have developed an excellent way to do this and it would be tremendously useful to me if I could see it, for that reason. Could you help in any way?

I now, at last, have a court date - 4 July at 3 pm, Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court. I now need help. Can anyone give me details about any Appeal Court, House of Lords decisions about contracts being worded to disguise contractual obligations as services? These will be very useful on 4 July. Thanks for any help.

Not yet. I filed the claim on the 9th and it was deemed served on the 15th. The bank came back with their new offer at the last minute, so rather than reject it and enter judgement, I gave them a further seven days to enter their defence, which they've done. But I had gone away by the time they did it, so I expect when I get back on Thursday (from Shanghai, funnily enough), their defence and the AQ will be waiting for me. Should I suggest the case goes forward as a test case in the AQ - if so, do I need to request a hearing for that? Should I suggest it goes to a Circuit Judge or the High Court or just leave that up to the DJ? Thanks for your kind help.

Good morning, I am trying to get the Royal Bank of Scotland in to court. I am not a lawyer, but I do have some legal training and a (so far) 100% record as a litigant-in-person. I asked the RBS for my charges to be refunded, they offered me part settlement, but also demanded that I accept their charges in future or face losing my account or having it reduced to a "simple" account or changed to any other kind of account that attracts charges. Of course, I refused this tempting offer and filed a claim on 9 March at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court - Claim Nº 7EC01469. The bank have now offered to settle in full (without interest), but still demand that I accept their charges in future. My claim is in three parts: 1) a refund of charges plus interest etc 2) I'm asking the court to rule, as a separate matter, on the lawfulness of the bank's charges, because I'm being asked to accept them in future or face having the bank's service to me altered unilaterally. I'm basing this on Schedule 2 (k) of the UTCCR, which says a term is unlawful if it allows them to "alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided". I'm arguing that if their charges are unlawful, then refusing to accept them would not a be a valid reason for them to alter their service to me. I'm arguing that altering the sevice would include closing the account, if that's where they decide to go. 3) In order for the Court to rule on the lawfulness of the charges, I'm asking the court to order the bank to provide breakdown and proof of their charges and then align their charges to it. Oh, and they also demanded that I do not publicise this case in any way - good job I refused their offer, I guess... The bank has now submitted their written defence, but as I'm currently abroad, I don't have it yet - back this week. It has been my firm intention since I filed the claim on 9 March to get the bank to justify their charges in court. I would really appreciate any advice or comments from lawyers on this approach. In particular, I heard there are some documents from the Yorkshire and Clydesdale Banks that say what the actual cost of bouncing cheques and d/ds is. Can anyone let me see them? They would be really helpful. I am firmly supporting Tom Brennan in his attempt to do the same thing in a different way. I'm hoping my way, if successful, will be easier for non-lawyers like me to argue. Best wishes, and thanks for all support.