Can you please guide me to a form of words to amend the particulars of claim to take account of the "excessive and unfair" aspect under the CCA?

I have a case (the POC was based on those suggested by this site in 2007 - including the sec 5 pleadings) in an English Court where the Bank (in my absence in May 2010) obtained an order to strike out my claim (following the OFT result) but I have subsequently managed to have that set aside and my application (to have the earlier Stay lifted) has been listed for hearing in September. Is there any advice I can take on board?

Is there any news on this one? I have a case (the POC was based on this sites original draftings including the sec 5 pleadings) in an English Court where the Bank (in my absence in May 2010) obtained an order to strike out my claim but I have subsequently managed to have that set aside and my application (to have the earlier Stay lifted) has been listed for hearing in September. Is there any advice I can take on board?

Thank you for that post. My point, in a way, was in relation to the fact that throughout the OFT case the Banks had argued that their charges were not penal and now here we have the Bank's own Solicitor's openly referring to the charges as, in fact, being penalties. I have 4 loan accounts with LTSB with balances all due to the Bank and with no ability, income or capital wise, to discharge those. My best case scenario at the moment, I suppose, would be to arrange with the Bank that any charges refund would effectively offset the liabilities (the figures either way are fairly evenly Matched) and we call it quits. Does anyone have any thoughts on the likelihood of that happening?

I'm in exactly the same position, with the Bank still not reviewing the hardship aspect even though their Soilcitors stated back in May that they would be. Another hearing at Court is scheduled for September. I also, however, have a letter from the Bank's solicitors stating they would not in any event refund any penalty charges.....does their confirmation that they believe they are penalty charges make any difference?

The problem is that the OFT didn't appeal the position on penalties and the High Court judgment therefore sets the precedent.

It is true that Lloyds have announced they are seeking a dismissal of ALL stayed cases by writing to the Courts on the basis of the Supreme Court judgement. If these claims were brought on the basis of regulation 6, rather than 5, of the UTICCR 1999 then they are correct. IF HOWEVER, the claim cites Regulation 5 as the basis then surely it is appropriate to contest an automatic dismissal of a claim?