This is what I used for my Capital One claim (with thanks to Redsonja). Dunno if this is any good or not:
1. The Claimant has a Visa Credit Card Account xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around 12/12/00.
2. During the period in which the Account has been operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.
3. A schedule of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.
4. The Claimant contends that:
a) The charges debited to the Account, as outlined in the attached schedule, are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or are not related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises 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 unenforceable by virtue of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) paragraph 8 and schedule 2 (1) (e), The Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 section 4 and the Common Law.
c) The Claimant believes these charges to be a penalty. Penalty charges are irrecoverable at Common Law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd  AC 79, along with Murray v Leisure Play  EWCA Civ 963. It was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses. It is clear that these charges do not reflect any actual and or real loss. In the event that the charges are not a penalty, they are unreasonable under The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 section 15.
5. Interest claimed
a) The Claimant claims compound interest on the charges to the Account at the annual rate of 21.99%. This is the rate currently applied by the Defendant to the Claimant’s use or borrowing of the Defendant’s monies, as provided for in the contract.
The Claimant’s case for claiming this rate is based in equity, and a legal requirement for fairness and balance.
The Claimant deems the Defendant’s charging regime to be unlawful, since the charges are unconscionable, remain unsubstantiated, and amount to unenforceable penalties at law. If the Defendant avers that its charges are fair, reasonable and therefore enforceable, its remedy will be to defend the claim by providing evidence of its actual losses or pre-estimate of costs in relation to the Claimant’s account breaches. Since the Defendant has been invited to do so prior to the issue of court proceedings, and has refused, and since the Claimant is aware that the Defendant has failed to defend any other similar claim, choosing to settle before the trial dates, the Claimant deems the Defendant’s charges to the Account to be indefensible, and unenforceable at law. It was clearly not in the Claimant’s contemplation when entering into the contract, that the Claimant would authorise the Defendant to apply penalty charges to the Account, or to profit in an unlawful manner from the Claimant’s account breaches.
For the contract to confer advantageous terms (i.e. entitlement to compensation) on one party (the Defendant) where there is no comparable term in favour of the other party (the Claimant) is to create an imbalance in the parties’ rights and is contrary to the requirements of Regulation 5 (1) of the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“UTCCR”).
Regulation 5 (1) of the UTCCR states as follows:
5. (1) “A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.”
Therefore, to satisfy the requirement of fairness within the definition given by the UTCCR, the contract would have to provide a mutual or reciprocal term permitting the customer to apply the same rate of interest on any unauthorised withdrawals from the customer’s account by the bank (the Defendant). The interest claimed is therefore deemed to provide an equitable remedy.
b) In the alternative to 5 a) , if the court finds that the Claimant is not entitled to contractual interest, the Claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984.
6. Accordingly the Claimant claims:
a) The return of the amounts debited in respect of penalty charges in the sum of £390.00;
b) Court costs;
c) Contractual interest at a rate of 21.99% per annum, compounded daily from the date of each transaction to 10/05/07 of £787.53, as set out in the attached schedule of charges.
d) In the alternative to 6 c), interest under Section 69 of the County Court Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of each transaction to 10/05/07 of £110.35 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.09.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in these particulars of claim are true.