Is anyone able to point me to a suitable set of POC for my claim? I have looked in the library, but the templates seem to be for consumer claims, not business. I need to submit by Tuesday lunchtime, so an early answer would be appreciated.

I have been granted a further stay in these cases and now wish to amend the POC and apply for the stay to be lifted so that the case can be heard (in the hope that Nat West will settle rather than defend the claim). I would appreciate advice on what I should be including in the new POC. Thanks

Thanks for that. Can I simply write a letter or will I have to use an N244 application?

Thank you for the comments so far. I really need advice on whether I can apply to extend the stay; and if not what grounds to apply for it to be lifted.

I would very much appreciate some advice. I have 2 claims running, both for business accounts with Nat West. In one business I am a sole trader, in the other a partner in a private firm. In both cases the claims are stayed by Bishop Auckland Court until 2 calendar months after the result of the OFT appeal. I therefore need to due something by January 25th. In each case the POC that I submitted was as follows (in line with the suggested business POC from this forum): 1. The claimant had an account .... opened before 01/1991 and closed after 08/1999. 2. During the period in which the account was operated the Defendant debited numerous charges to the account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. 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 list of the charges applied is attached ..... 4. The claimant contends that: a) The charges debited to the account are punative in nature ..... 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) and the common law. 5. Accordingly the claimant claims: a) return of charges ... b) courts costs ... c) interest ... In each case the defence put forward by Cobbets is as follows: 1. This defence is filed and served without prejudice to the Defendant's case that the POC do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the Defendant to recover the bank charges .... 2. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraph, if and to the extent that the Claimant proves the allegation that the Defendant debited charges to the Claimant's bank account, insofar as such charges were debited on a date or dates more than six years prior to the issue of this claim, any remedy in respect of the same, wether damages, restitution or otherwise, is barred by the operation of the Limitation Act 1980 and/or the doctrine of laches and the Defendant will apply to strike out this aspect of the claim and/or for summary judgement. 3. On allocation the Defendant invites the court to direct that there be a case management conference ... 4. No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the Claimant's bank account. 5. In relation to the allegation that the bank charges amount to an unenforceable penalty the Defendant pleads as follows: 5.1 In order for the claimant to sustain a claim that the charges debited by the defendant are in the nature of a penalty the claimant will need to plead and prove (a) the clauses pursuant to which the charges were applied; (b) that the charges were applied due to a breach of contract by the claimaint; and © identifying in each case the particular breach of contract (by reference to appropriate terms of the contract) that the charge relates to. As presently pleaded the claim does not plead these matters and therefore does not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim that all or any of the charges referred to in the POC have been applied pursuant to an unenforceable penalty clause. 6 In relation to the allegation that the fees and charges are contrary to common law, the claimant is required to identify: 6.1 the principles of common law relied upon by the claimant; and 6.2 if it so alleged, the contractual provisions which the claimant alleges are affected by these principles of common law. 7. Until such time as these common law principles and contractual provisions (if any) are identified the defendant cannot plead to the allegation referred to in paragragh 5 and 6 above. The defendant therefore reserves its right to plead further to the allegation once (and if) the claimant identifies the relevant contractual information. 8. In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are invalid pursuant to the UTCCR1999. 8.1 The claimant is a firm and accordingly the regulations do not apply in this case. Should I ask for the stay to be extended, ask for the stay to be lifted, or something else. If lifted - on what grounds? Thanks.

I rang the court last week and was told that if I do nothing the cases will be dismissed on 31/10/08. I have written to Nat West and all the other pre-court procedures and then submitted claims to the court in September 2007 which were stayed until the end of this month. Adam

Some advice please. I made claims in September 2007 for 2 different business bank accounts with Nat West. The accounts are closed and I am now with another bank. The accounts were for 2 different businesses. Both claims were stayed by Judge Willis at Bishop Auckland Court until 31 October 2008. The claims add up to around £20,000 including interest on bank charges for returned cheques, etc. over a 10 year period from 1994. I have already paid £600 in fees to bring these 2 claims and would appreciate advice on whether to let the claims be dismissed and claim again later when the new strategy that is being discussed is developed, or request that the stay is lifted now. If requesting that the stay be lifted what is considered the best grounds for business accounts held with Nat West. I have already benefitted from reclaiming fees from a private account with Nat West in early 2007 and am happy taking the whole case forward, but would appreciate some guidance. Adam

Can I request some advice please. I have successfully proceeded with 2 claims against Nat West bank. One for a private account and one for a business account. In both cases Nat West paid the full amount claimed a day or two before the court hearing. I have issued 2 further business claims through Bishop Auckland County Court and have received notices in both cases that the Judge has decided to stay the case, without an application from the bank. One account is for a business partnership of my wife and I, the other is myself as a sole trader. Could anyone advise me whether the updated letter for removal of a stay at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/17065-application-removal-stay-updated.html#post1046820 is suitable for both a sole trader and a partnership business. If it is not, is there a sample letter elsewhere on the site?

I have been notified today that BISHOP AUCKLAND county court are planning to stay my claim against Nat West without an application from the bank.