i finally filled in the allcations questionaire as i need to post it by tomorrow the latest,please please, any advice on this is much welcomed before i post:D allocations questionaire page 1 settlement i ticked no to all page 2 i ticked yes for local court pre action protocols -no applications - no witnesses - myself page 3 experts - no track- small claims page 4 trial or final hearing - 2 hours proposed directions - yes cost - blank fee - blank page 5 have you attached documents - yes sent to other parties - yes in space below, set out any other info you consider wil help the judge to manage the claim Please see attached; I would like to add that this claim is a financial harship claim, and should be trated as such. I was adviced that banks should still process hardship cases under the waiver period by the fsa. the defendant abby national is aware of this beying a harship case as they are aware of my benefits and financial situation, they have beenaware of this for a number of years, and this was also stated in my particulars of claim, the defendant keeps failing to acknowledge this.i note that the fsa's definition of financial hardship as detailed in the updated waiver and i believe that i meet this criteria. the claimant respectfully requests that this claim should NOT be stayed as asked by the defendants on their AQ on the basis of financial hardship Section I – Other Information[/font] The Claimant respectfully requests that an order may be made as follows. That the Defence is struck out as an abuse of process, pursuant to rule 3.4(2) (b) of the Civil Procedure Rules On the basis that the Defendant has filed a template defence then subsequently settled each and every other claim of this nature. Since May 2006, I am aware of over 100 claims of this nature in which the Defendant has filed an acknowledgement of service, then a Defence,then an allocation questionnaire, then has breached the order for pre-hearing directions, then has finally settled without liability shortly in advance of the hearing or trial. A sample list of these claims, including their claim numbers, is attached (attachment 1B). It is submitted that the defendant’s litigation strategy is flagrantly abusive of the public resource, and further, contrary to almost all of the Overriding Objective’s of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is respectfully submitted that the Defendant will continue to conduct litigation in this manner for as long as it is allowed to do so with impunity. Please find attached a copy of an order made by Lincoln County court (attachment 1C) in at least 10 cases similar to my own involving various high street banks, including Abbey Plc. The court considered the authority of Mullen-v-Hackney London Borough Council (1997)2 A11ER 906 to be relevant. If this honourable court also considers this authority relevant, I would respectfully request that the court applies its special knowledge of the defendant’s notorious and well established conduct in similar cases when considering order in the present case. Please find attached the case to which I refer (attachment 1D) In the alternative, should the court not be minded to strike out the defence, and if the claim is to proceed to allocation, the Claimant respectfully suggests that special directions may be made as per the attached draft order (attachment 2A I believe the proposed directions will further the Overriding Objectives in that they identify the most fundamental issues in dispute and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously. I would aver that if the Defendant has the serious intention of defending this claim at trial, as is indicated by its defence, that it is incumbent upon it to disclose such information. Further, the proposed directions are now routinely ordered in claims of this nature in the Mercantile Court in London, as well as small claims track cases in Leicester, Derby, Chesterfield, and Mansfield County Courts. I am respectfully requesting that my claim be allocated to the small claims track and would estimate that the hearing of the claim should last no longer than two hours. This issue is not a complicated one; it is an issue of fact and not of law. The issue is only whether the money levied by the Defendant in respect of its customer’s contractual breaches exceeds their actual costs incurred. However, the continuing problem is (in common with the 100s of other cases currently being brought by other bank customers) that the banks refuse to reveal the details of their penalty-charging regime. As the banks have a fiduciary duty towards their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly and in utmost good faith.Accordingly, I would respectfully ask that the court in this case, not withstanding allocation to the small claims track, order standard disclosure. I understand that it is in the courts discretion to do so. I believe this would bring a rapid end to this litigation attachement 1b is a list of settled claims """""""""""""""""" 1c is the order made by Lincoln county court ( this is also where i will be attending) attachment 1d is mullen-hackney and attachment 2a is the draft oder 1. The Claimant shall within 14 days of service of this order send to the Defendant and to the Court: a) A schedule setting out each charge repayment of which is sought, showing the date, amount, and reason given (if any) for that charge being madeb) Copies of any statement or other document relied upon as showing that each and every charge has been made c) A statement of evidence of all matters relied upon as tending to show that the charges are unfair d) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon If the Claimant fails to comply with this order, the claim will be struck out without further order 2. The Defendant shall within 14 days thereafter file and serve a response to the Claimant's schedule, stating in respect of each item claimed. a) A list of all charges applied to the Claimant’s account with dates, type and amount of each charge And renumber the remainder accordingly. b) Pursuant to what contractual provision such charge was made, producing a copy of the contractual document relied upon c) Whether such charge is accepted to be unfair, and if not why not C1) If such charge is alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions (whether or not such action is treated as a breach of contract between the parties), all facts and matters intended to be relied upon as showing that such was a proper estimate of such loss, and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to what the true cost of dealing with the matter was; d) If such charge is not alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions then facts and matters intended to be relied upon showing the basis upon which the charge was calculated and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to show that the charge was fair and reasonable. d) If such charge is alleged to be fair, all facts and matters intended to be relied upon showing the basis upon which the charge was calculated and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to show that the charge was fair and reasonable e) Any witness statements f) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon the Defendant fails to comply with this order, the Defence will be struck out without further order. The defendant shall forward to the claimant a) a copy of the executed agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for the account b) a copy the original terms and conditions from when the account was originally opened, and a copy of all subsequent terms and conditions thereafter to the present day. c) copies of Default Notices (if any) issued pursuant to s87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 by the Defendant to the Claimant d) a copy of any Notice of Assignment from the defendant to the claimant, relating to the claimants account e) if copies of any of the above documents are to be relied on in court rather than originals, a copy of the Notice of proposal to adduce hearsay evidence required under s2(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 together with proof of the authenticity of the document(s) as required under s8(1)(b) of the Act, including but not limited to: (i) a copy of the procedure(s) used for copying, storing and retrieving documents (ii) a copy of the relevant log entry showing the time and date of the scan or copy, the name of the member of staff making the copy, the method used for copying, storage and retrieval and time and date of destruction of the original document(s) (iii) copies of internal and external audit reports covering the entire period from the date of the copy to the present to demonstrate that the procedures have been complied with (iv) copies of Quality Assurance accreditation certificates covering the entire period from the date of the copy to the present to demonstrate that the procedure(s) and audit process(es) comply with the appropriate quality standards Accordingly, I would respectfully ask that the court in this case, order a standard disclosure. I understand that it is in the courts discretion to do so. I believe this would bring a rapid end to this litigation. If the Defendant fails to comply with this order, the Defence will be struck out without further order. :?: please can anyone advice ASAP s i need to post this AQ by tomorrow.

hi everyone thought i would update everyone on whats happened i received the allocations queationaire from abbey today!!!!!!!!!!!!! on there they are asking the courts to stay the case pending the final determination of the test case including any appeals they are also calling in a witness ( a bank officer ) my questions are as follow can they ask for the case to be stayed if they are aware that this is a financial hardship claim????? if they are going to have a bank Officer as a witness are bank officers classed as expert evidence???? they estimate that the final hearing will take 3 days, i was under the impression it would only take a few hours UNDER FEE they ticked no, they havent attached a fee for filing the allocation questionaire, and the courts are asking for £200 from me??? what does all this mean?????? i still have not filed my allocations questionaire any advice is much appreciated

hi there i was wondering if anyone could help me with this i started to try and get my money back from abbey back in 2006, on several occasions they refused to return the charges, unfortunatly i was in and out of hopital and i could not commit myself to see it to court as i was not well enough, but know im better i wrote to them giving them another opportunity to resolv this matter but to no availe. soi thought i would go in at the deep end and take them to court, i never actually thought that they might defend, wich they have now replied to the courts with a defence. please can anyone help me as their defence is all very confusing to me. i also have to fill in a allocations questionaire n150 and i dont have a clue what to put. the defence they sent me is as follows. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Defence 1.2 References to an "unauthorised" overdraft are to an overdraft permitted by the Defendant without prior application and arrangement under clause 6.1 of the Conditions. 2. It is admitted that the Claimant held an account with the Defendant, account number xxxxxx ("the Account"). It is admitted and averred that the contractual provisions between the Claimant and the Defendant in relation to the Account are set out in the Conditions. 3. It is denied that those charges payable and that rate of interest applicable upon a customer going into unauthorised overdraft or exceeding an authorised overdraft constitute a penalty at common law. It is denied that those charges and that interest are payable on a breach of contract. 4.The true position is as follows 4.1 Each and every payment instruction presented by or on behalf of the Claimant to the Defendant which would, if honoured, take the Account into unauthorised overdraft or beyond an authorised overdraft, constituted a request (in law, an offer) by the Claimant to the Defendant for a loan of the requisite amount on the terms set out in the Conditions (alternatively on the Defendant's usual terms as to such overdrafts as at the date of the payment instruction in question). 4.2The defendant was free to accept or reject each such request 4.3 If the Defendant honoured the payment instruction in question, the Defendant thereby accepted the Claimant's offer. 4.4 Accordingly, the Claimant became bound to pay interest and charges in relation to that loan at the stipulated rate. 5. It is denied (if it be alleged) that, on a proper construction, clause 6.3 of the Conditions provides that a customer going into unauthorised overdraft or exceeding an authorised overdraft constitutes a breach of contract (for which the customer is liable to pay damages). It is averred that clause 6.3 of the Conditions operates as a trigger to bring into effect certain other provisions of the Conditions. 6. It is denied that those charges payable upon the Defendant dishonouring a payment instruction presented by the Claimant by reason of the state of the Account (namely that had the Defendant honoured the instruction in question, it would have taken the Account into unauthorised overdraft or beyond an authorised overdraft) constitute a penalty at common law. Such charges are not payable on a breach of contract. They are, by clause 6.4 of the Conditions, a fee. 7. The Defendant understands the Claimant's allegation to be that the fees and interest payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and fees in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions are not binding on the Claimant by reason of regulation 8(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 ("the 1999 Regulations"). 8. The Regulations, by regulation 1, came into force on 1 October 1999 and are of no application to any event occurring before that date 9. Regulation 6(2) of the 1999 Regulations provides that; "In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate - (a) to the defenition of the main subject matter of the contract, or (b) to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange." 10. The fees and interest payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and fees in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions are: (i) set out in plain intelligible language in the Conditions, and (ii) amount to the "price or remuneration" in respect of that provision of such overdraft or such dishonouring. 11. Accordingly, by regulation 6(2) of the 1999 Regulations, the provisions of the Conditions as to the fees and interest payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions are not liable to assessed for fairness under those regulations. 12. It is denied that paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 2 to the 1999 Regulations is applicable. As pleaded above, the fees and interest payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and fees in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions are not payable on a breach of contract by the Claimant. 13. Alternatively, if (contrary to the Defendant's primary case pleaded above), the provisions of the Conditions as to the fees and interest payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and fees in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions fall to be assessed for fairness under the 1999 Regulations, the Defendant's case is as follows: (a) Regulation 5(1) of the 1999 Regulations provides that: "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." (b) Regulation 6(1) of the 1999 Regulations provides (so far as presently relevant) that: " ... the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract .... " © It is denied that the Conditions breach that provision of the 1999 Regulations. In particular, (i) the Defendant's charges and interest rates are published and provided to its customers from time to time and are expressed in clear language; (ii) the incurring of charges and interest in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft beyond that agreed and fees in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions is a result of the Claimant's actions; and (iii) the Defendant's charges and interest rates are not, in the circumstances, excessive in relation to the value of the services provided in relation thereto. (d) The Defendant reserves the right to plead further in this regard on the provision of full and proper particulars of the basis on which the Claimant contends that the Conditions contravene regulation 5(1) of the 1999 Regulations. 14. Save as expressly pleaded to above, each and every allegation contained in the Particulars of Claim is denied as if the same were individually traversed. STATEMENT OF TRUTH I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. Signed: L .1L8W L.J Blacker Name; Laura Blacker POSITION; PARALEGAL DATE 03/11/2008 MY PARTICULARS OF CLAIM ARE AS FOLLOW 1. The Claimant had a current account with the Defendant which was opened on or around 2000 to 2005, with sort code XXXXXX and account number XXXXXXXXXX 2. During the period in which the Account was operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant or in respect of various purported services provided by the Defendant. The Defendant 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 to these particulars of claim. 4. The Claimant contends that: a) Insofar as they may be penalties, the charges debited to the Account 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 extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach, but instead act in terrorem to ensure contractual compliance and to deter a breach on the part of the Claimant. b) Insofar as they purport to be services provided by the Defendant, the High Court on the 24th April 2008 rejected the notion that the blocking of cheques, direct debits and so forth were services in the sense commonly understood. Furthermore the High Court held that the Defendant's charges were subject to tests of unfairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999. Whereas, at all material times the Claimant was a consumer within the meaning of the Regulations and the Defendant was a supplier within Regulation 3(1), and The banking contract was conducted on the Defendant's standard terms The terms imposing the charges levied by the Defendant are contrary to the requirement of good faith. Furthermore The terms imposing the charges cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer in that:- • Bank accounts have become a basic essential service • The Defendant is a wholly dominant partner in a non-negotiable standarddform contract. • There are a limited number of providers of banking services all whom exercise similar dominance over their customers in non-negotiable standard form contracts. • These banks exercise a collective dominance in the market. • The charges of all banks are highly similar in nature and in cost and so the consumer in general and the claimant in particular has no real choice between banking service providers and is forced to acquiesce to the charges. • The charges exceed actual costs by several thousand percent • They are applied unilaterally in a standard form contract without the possibility of negotiation • The Defendant raises the charges or restructures its charging scheme at will without discussion with its customers • The Charges are of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of the Banking Contract as a whole and would not influence the making of the Banking Contract. • The customer had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges at the time of entering the contract • The charges reflect a markup of several thousands of percent on the costs of dealing with the claimant's "delinquency" episodes. This is an extraordinary markup for any UK business. The normal markup on the High Street is less than 100%. • Many of the Defendants charges are levied on previous charges incurred in preceding months. Therefore the Defendants are themselves causing the impecuniosities which then trigger more charges. Therefore the Defendants have caused much of the claimant's impecuniosities and it is the Defendants who are causing the charges to be levied with a view to their own profit. • The Defendant operates its high level of charges in order to cross-subsidise other banking services which it provides to other customers at less than cost price - "free-banking". • The charges could be imposed repeatedly and interest at a higher rate could be charged on those accumulated charges • The Defendant's charges structure depends upon the impecuniosities and vulnerability of its poorer customers to provide free-banking services for those in a better position. • The overall charging regime operated by the Defendant is disproportionately applied to a minority of its customers, often those who are least able to afford it. • As established by the High Court (OFT v Abbey & 7 Ors) the customer would receive no service or benefit in return for the imposition of charges. In the premises the terms imposing the charges are unfair within the meaning of Regulation 5 (1) and thus not binding on the Claimant under Regulation 8. 5. Accordingly the claimant claims: a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £ 4087.70 b) Interest charges which have been paid on the above charges in the sum of £ 199.09 c) The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year, 30/11/2001 to 20/10/2008 of £240.24 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of 0.90 pence Amount owed £4087.70 + £199.09 = £4286.79 £240.24 at 8% interest a year for a period of approximately 6 years = £1441.44 Total amount £4087.70 + £1441.44 = £5529.14 and also daily interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £1.21 (d) Court costs or other costs as allowed by the court. The defendant has been aware that the claimant has been on benefits for a number of years as she has three children to support and look after. The defendant still proceeded to take her benefits when they incurred the charges on her. The category of benefit that the Claimant is receiving is deemed as inalienable under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (s.187) which states as follows: 187.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every assignment of or charge onn(a) benefit 8S defined in section 122 of the Contributions and Benefits Act; (b) any income-related benefit; or © child benefit, and every agreement to assign or charge such benefit shall be void; and, on the bankruptcy of a beneficiary, such benefit shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors. WOODS V. THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND 1913 1 S.L.T.499 "A weekly payment, or a sum paid by way of redemption thereof, shall not be capable of being assigned, charged, or attached, and shall not pass to any other person by operation of law, nor shall any claim be set-off against the same. " The defendant is also in breach of the data protection act subject access request as they have failed to prOVide all the information required, for example, the claimant is still waiting to receive a copy of the original contract from when she opened the current account, the original terms and conditions, bank statements and manual interventions. The claimant seeks the help of the court to reclaim the money owed to her as she is still facing financial hardship, the claimant is currently in receipt of income support, child tax credits and child benefit.

hi there i was wondering if anyone could help me with this i started to try and get my money back from abbey back in 2006, on several occasions they refused to return the charges, unfortunatly i was in and out of hopital and i could not commit myself to see it to court as i was not well enough, but know im better i wrote to them giving them another opportunity to resolv this matter but to no availe. soi thought i would go in at the deep end and take them to court, i never actually thought that they might defend, wich they have now replied to the courts with a defence. please can anyone help me as their defence is all very confusing to me. i also have to fill in a allocations questionaire n150 and i dont have a clue what to put. the defence they sent me is as follows. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Defence 1.2 References to an "unauthorised" overdraft are to an overdraft permitted by the Defendant without prior application and arrangement under clause 6.1 of the Conditions. 2. It is admitted that the Claimant held an account with the Defendant, account number xxxxxx ("the Account"). It is admitted and averred that the contractual provisions between the Claimant and the Defendant in relation to the Account are set out in the Conditions. 3. It is denied that those charges payable and that rate of interest applicable upon a customer going into unauthorised overdraft or exceeding an authorised overdraft constitute a penalty at common law. It is denied that those charges and that interest are payable on a breach of contract. 4.The true position is as follows 4.1 Each and every payment instruction presented by or on behalf of the Claimant to the Defendant which would, if honoured, take the Account into unauthorised overdraft or beyond an authorised overdraft, constituted a request (in law, an offer) by the Claimant to the Defendant for a loan of the requisite amount on the terms set out in the Conditions (alternatively on the Defendant's usual terms as to such overdrafts as at the date of the payment instruction in question). 4.2The defendant was free to accept or reject each such request 4.3 If the Defendant honoured the payment instruction in question, the Defendant thereby accepted the Claimant's offer. 4.4 Accordingly, the Claimant became bound to pay interest and charges in relation to that loan at the stipulated rate. 5. It is denied (if it be alleged) that, on a proper construction, clause 6.3 of the Conditions provides that a customer going into unauthorised overdraft or exceeding an authorised overdraft constitutes a breach of contract (for which the customer is liable to pay damages). It is averred that clause 6.3 of the Conditions operates as a trigger to bring into effect certain other provisions of the Conditions. 6. It is denied that those charges payable upon the Defendant dishonouring a payment instruction presented by the Claimant by reason of the state of the Account (namely that had the Defendant honoured the instruction in question, it would have taken the Account into unauthorised overdraft or beyond an authorised overdraft) constitute a penalty at common law. Such charges are not payable on a breach of contract. They are, by clause 6.4 of the Conditions, a fee. 7. The Defendant understands the Claimant's allegation to be that the fees and interest payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and fees in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions are not binding on the Claimant by reason of regulation 8(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 ("the 1999 Regulations"). 8. The Regulations, by regulation 1, came into force on 1 October 1999 and are of no application to any event occurring before that date 9. Regulation 6(2) of the 1999 Regulations provides that; "In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate - (a) to the defenition of the main subject matter of the contract, or (b) to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange." 10. The fees and interest payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and fees in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions are: (i) set out in plain intelligible language in the Conditions, and (ii) amount to the "price or remuneration" in respect of that provision of such overdraft or such dishonouring. 11. Accordingly, by regulation 6(2) of the 1999 Regulations, the provisions of the Conditions as to the fees and interest payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions are not liable to assessed for fairness under those regulations. 12. It is denied that paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 2 to the 1999 Regulations is applicable. As pleaded above, the fees and interest payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and fees in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions are not payable on a breach of contract by the Claimant. 13. Alternatively, if (contrary to the Defendant's primary case pleaded above), the provisions of the Conditions as to the fees and interest payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and fees in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions fall to be assessed for fairness under the 1999 Regulations, the Defendant's case is as follows: (a) Regulation 5(1) of the 1999 Regulations provides that: "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." (b) Regulation 6(1) of the 1999 Regulations provides (so far as presently relevant) that: " ... the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract .... " © It is denied that the Conditions breach that provision of the 1999 Regulations. In particular, (i) the Defendant's charges and interest rates are published and provided to its customers from time to time and are expressed in clear language; (ii) the incurring of charges and interest in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft beyond that agreed and fees in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions is a result of the Claimant's actions; and (iii) the Defendant's charges and interest rates are not, in the circumstances, excessive in relation to the value of the services provided in relation thereto. (d) The Defendant reserves the right to plead further in this regard on the provision of full and proper particulars of the basis on which the Claimant contends that the Conditions contravene regulation 5(1) of the 1999 Regulations. 14. Save as expressly pleaded to above, each and every allegation contained in the Particulars of Claim is denied as if the same were individually traversed. STATEMENT OF TRUTH I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. Signed: L .1L8W L.J Blacker Name; Laura Blacker POSITION; PARALEGAL DATE 03/11/2008 MY PARTICULARS OF CLAIM ARE AS FOLLOW 1. The Claimant had a current account with the Defendant which was opened on or around 2000 to 2005, with sort code XXXXXX and account number XXXXXXXXXX 2. During the period in which the Account was operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant or in respect of various purported services provided by the Defendant. The Defendant 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 to these particulars of claim. 4. The Claimant contends that: a) Insofar as they may be penalties, the charges debited to the Account 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 extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach, but instead act in terrorem to ensure contractual compliance and to deter a breach on the part of the Claimant. b) Insofar as they purport to be services provided by the Defendant, the High Court on the 24th April 2008 rejected the notion that the blocking of cheques, direct debits and so forth were services in the sense commonly understood. Furthermore the High Court held that the Defendant's charges were subject to tests of unfairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999. Whereas, at all material times the Claimant was a consumer within the meaning of the Regulations and the Defendant was a supplier within Regulation 3(1), and The banking contract was conducted on the Defendant's standard terms The terms imposing the charges levied by the Defendant are contrary to the requirement of good faith. Furthermore The terms imposing the charges cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer in that:- • Bank accounts have become a basic essential service • The Defendant is a wholly dominant partner in a non-negotiable standarddform contract. • There are a limited number of providers of banking services all whom exercise similar dominance over their customers in non-negotiable standard form contracts. • These banks exercise a collective dominance in the market. • The charges of all banks are highly similar in nature and in cost and so the consumer in general and the claimant in particular has no real choice between banking service providers and is forced to acquiesce to the charges. • The charges exceed actual costs by several thousand percent • They are applied unilaterally in a standard form contract without the possibility of negotiation • The Defendant raises the charges or restructures its charging scheme at will without discussion with its customers • The Charges are of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of the Banking Contract as a whole and would not influence the making of the Banking Contract. • The customer had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges at the time of entering the contract • The charges reflect a markup of several thousands of percent on the costs of dealing with the claimant's "delinquency" episodes. This is an extraordinary markup for any UK business. The normal markup on the High Street is less than 100%. • Many of the Defendants charges are levied on previous charges incurred in preceding months. Therefore the Defendants are themselves causing the impecuniosities which then trigger more charges. Therefore the Defendants have caused much of the claimant's impecuniosities and it is the Defendants who are causing the charges to be levied with a view to their own profit. • The Defendant operates its high level of charges in order to cross-subsidise other banking services which it provides to other customers at less than cost price - "free-banking". • The charges could be imposed repeatedly and interest at a higher rate could be charged on those accumulated charges • The Defendant's charges structure depends upon the impecuniosities and vulnerability of its poorer customers to provide free-banking services for those in a better position. • The overall charging regime operated by the Defendant is disproportionately applied to a minority of its customers, often those who are least able to afford it. • As established by the High Court (OFT v Abbey & 7 Ors) the customer would receive no service or benefit in return for the imposition of charges. In the premises the terms imposing the charges are unfair within the meaning of Regulation 5 (1) and thus not binding on the Claimant under Regulation 8. 5. Accordingly the claimant claims: a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £ 4087.70 b) Interest charges which have been paid on the above charges in the sum of £ 199.09 c) The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year, 30/11/2001 to 20/10/2008 of £240.24 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of 0.90 pence Amount owed £4087.70 + £199.09 = £4286.79 £240.24 at 8% interest a year for a period of approximately 6 years = £1441.44 Total amount £4087.70 + £1441.44 = £5529.14 and also daily interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £1.21 (d) Court costs or other costs as allowed by the court. The defendant has been aware that the claimant has been on benefits for a number of years as she has three children to support and look after. The defendant still proceeded to take her benefits when they incurred the charges on her. The category of benefit that the Claimant is receiving is deemed as inalienable under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (s.187) which states as follows: 187.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every assignment of or charge onn(a) benefit 8S defined in section 122 of the Contributions and Benefits Act; (b) any income-related benefit; or © child benefit, and every agreement to assign or charge such benefit shall be void; and, on the bankruptcy of a beneficiary, such benefit shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors. WOODS V. THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND 1913 1 S.L.T.499 "A weekly payment, or a sum paid by way of redemption thereof, shall not be capable of being assigned, charged, or attached, and shall not pass to any other person by operation of law, nor shall any claim be set-off against the same. " The defendant is also in breach of the data protection act subject access request as they have failed to prOVide all the information required, for example, the claimant is still waiting to receive a copy of the original contract from when she opened the current account, the original terms and conditions, bank statements and manual interventions. The claimant seeks the help of the court to reclaim the money owed to her as she is still facing financial hardship, the claimant is currently in receipt of income support, child tax credits and child benefit. :? PLEASE can you tell me if i did this wrong, is that why they are defending?????? cos ive messed up????? what do i need to do now and how can i fill in the n150,please help panic is settin in cos i dont know what i am doing??????:?

Date: 12 JUNE 2007 ABBEY CREDIT CARDS CUSTOMER ADVOCATE OFFICE CHESTER BUSINESS PARK CHESTER CH4 9FB Re: Account number xxxxxxxx Response to settlement offer. Dear Sirs thank you for your letter dated 24 May 2007. I respectfully decline your offer of £240.00 as Full and Final settlement. On your letter you refer to your substantial costs in dealing with late payment fees and in dealing with your customers defaults. You also state that your charges are valid, fair, and enforceable. I would therefore like to request a breakdown of your costs, so that I as a customer can see exactly how valid, fair and enforceable they are. You also wrote making me aware that you will not be removing the default from my credit file, and that the information you supply to the credit reference agencies must be factual; the fact is that the account defaulted merely due to the application of such high fees, these fees even made me go over my £1000.00 credit limit. I therefore would like to take this opportunity to ask you to reconsider on the grounds that the account defaulted like you state on your letter, due to your application of such high charges. I have issued court proceedings to receive my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request). When I receive my details I shall contact you with a breakdown of my charges and a full and final total. I wish to stress that I do not accept your offer as Full and Final settlement. I trust this clarifies my position. I look forward to hearing from you soon with a breakdown of your substantial costs, and hopefully a reply regarding the removal of the default from my credit file. I would also like to bring to you attention that on your letter dated the 24 May 2007, you state that any future correspondence should be made direct to Lowell financial group, as you have legally assigned my account to them. I would therefore like to make you aware that I have spoken to the Lowell group and they have informed me that any correspondence regarding your failure to comply with my data subject access request, and any dispute regarding the charges should be direct with abbey credit cards. Yours faithfully i hope this letter makes abbey credit cards aware that they have some faults, even they are not perfect. how can they offer people money, when they have not even sent me my subject access request. and as it stand they are in breach of this they have had since march to sent the info. anyway courts have given them till25 june to reply.

i took my sisters advice and contacted information commisioners office and a solicitor to find out if a copy of the original contract should of been forwarded to me with the full subject access request, as i thoght that in theory they should send me everything that they hold on me, and both the solicitor and ico said that yes they should have sent everything they haveon me since i opened the account, and that they are in breach of the data protection act as they have not sent this to me.

6. Interest calculation spreadsheets i was given the above spread sheet by path finder who kindly sent me the link, i was also adviced to send this with my preliminay letter to abbey, not including the interest, but for court this link works out the 8% interest for you, hope this helps, but please do also get advice from someone that has alot more experience than me on this good luck hope ive been able to help if only a little adelita lol

my sar came from abbey plc data protection team regulatory compliance 201 grafton gate east milton keynes mk9 1an but the other address that came with sar and standard correspondance says that correspondance to abbey should be made to jennie herbert(mrs) customer resolutions mamager complaints abbey national po box 5129 milton keynes mk9 2yn i also have a telephone number 0845 600 6014 fax 0845 600 1378 email: [email protected] it might be worth you calling them on the above number to double check with them, they might even have a legal department, and if you call them they should tell you. i also sent everything by recorded delivery, that way they cant say they did not receive it, as you would have proof. good luck and i hope this info has helped adelita

i was just chatting to sea side lady and i mentioned to her my question about terms and conditions and original contract, as i was wondering if you pay for a full subject access request under the data protection act,they only send you the charges and sometimes the manual interventiones, but i thought that a full S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) meant everything the hold on file about you and your account, if that is the case...... should that include your original contract you signed with them and the terms and conditiones..or copies of these, if that is the case , would that be a breach of the data protection act on their behalf, as they have not sent everything they hold on your file(S.A.R - (Subject Access Request))

hi everyone lol i have been reading other threads, and some people are worried about going to court because they dont have the old terms and conditions or the original contract for when they go to court or incase they go to court i was wondering if anyone nows why you need these????

hi adam, hope your well, and thanx for responding to my question i have now written the preliminary letter asking for the charges back and i have printed the spread sheet with out interest colum like you suggested, what do you think will hapen next??? i am abit worried that i am not entitled to this charges and that i will end up in trouble, if this goes to court, or maybe iam thinking too much ahead of my self and worrying over nothing, all this seems so complicated lol, but then again its like people say if you dont ask you dont get lol

thanks for the reply path finder i was wondering how do you work out the interest? as on the prelim letter it says to put the amounts in charges and the amount of interest

hi everyone i received S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) from abbey, i worked out the charges, the spreadsheet says in respect of: amount: date incurred: days since offence: interest at 8% apr i am not sure what to do next,as ive read somwhere that you have to send a list of charges to abbey without the interest and only show the interest when it goes to court???? can anyone tell me if this is correct,as i dont understand what interest i can claim, ive read that you can claim contractual interest and all other sorts of interest,i have also noticed that they charged me interest debit even when i was in credit, can anyone explain what this is??? and can i claim it back with the prlim letter???? please help as i dont want to give them any reason to not pay anything back many thanx

hi everyone i was just wondering if anyone can claim the payment protection, i had accounts with ge too and they were passed to debt collection agencies who bought the accounts of ge, i also had payment protection on these and was at the time working full time and had to leave my job as a consequece of my ex partner leaving me and the children, i had to put them first and could not work and lookafter them, so aswell as the unlawful charges that made me go over the credit limit they were also charging me for this payment protection, can this be claimed back at all. my other point is if an account is sold to outside agencies and they take you to court for the money owed and a judgement is entered against you and on top of it they add court costs, this makes the balance go up. but then at a later date you realise that there were alot of unlawfull charges on the original balance and you get the ball rolling to reclaim your charges can you also do the following 1.. ask for the judgement to be set aside 2.. if you go to court regarding the unlawful charges, and you win can you ask for the original court costs to taken off the original debt as at the time you were not aware of the unlawfull charges on the account 3.. can you have the judgement or defult removed from your credit file, and if you can do all of this how can it be done???? do the debt collectors contact the credit reference agencies or do you have to do this yourself???? any ideas or suggestions will be much appreciated thanks in advance adelita

hi again to averyone out there i was wondering if anyone knows if i should also be claiming back interest debit wich they took even when i was in credit