I thought I'd update - might be useful for others. I was left until mid Sept not being given any clue about what I was actually supposed to have done (just the Police 'due care and attention'). I was then told, when they arranged the interview under caution that "they had it all on CCTV and they had two witnesses" but they still wouldn't say what "it" was. I only found out the morning of the interview when my insurance company told me - basically that I'd hit an empty car when I parked next to it. I won't bore you with all the details, but don't believe a word they tell you and think carefully about what/who actually saw what - did they just have a general view or did they actually see the point of impact. Turns out they only had one witness (a bloke who'd obvioulsy objected to my two attempts to reverse park) and was on the 'wrong' side actually to see any impact - he was just assuming I caused the dent on the adjacent car door. And ditto the CCTV - the stills just showed me parking nowhere near the other car and, again, were on the 'wrong' side to see any actual contact. The Police Officer hadn't actually seen the moving image and he couldn't say whether they'd checked the CCTV tape from the point the other car parked - because I'm convinced another car did it entering that space before me. Lo and behold, they've decided to drop the 'due care and attention' charge - I bet they've inspected the tape properly and are now after the actual offender. Which just leaves the insurance company - I just worry they'll settle regardless of what I say. We shall see.

Dates were above - definitely >14 days. Yeah - I did confirm it's my car and I was driving but I declined to fill in their accident form and attached a note explaining why (ie I wasn't involved in an accident). Thanks everyone - all's clear now. Regards.

Thanks - that's all reassuring. I think I'll ask the Police Collision Administration Unit what is their intended next step. And while I'm at it, I'll point out that more than 14 days passed between the alleged incident (7 Jun) and the date on the NIP (30 Jun) which, I understand from a bit of Googling today, means they can't prosecute anyway. Not that I did anything ! Regards, Mad Nick PS What's ironic about this is that about 2 years ago, I was the victim of a hit and run. I even had a witness. Although his insurance company coughed up to repair my car, he wasn't prosecuted - presumably because (I now realise) the Police Collision Admin unit (even more ironic, it's the same one !) didn't send him the NIP within 14 days. They've obviously "administrated" this one just as (in)effectively ! Note to self - if someone ever runs into me again, make damn sure the Police issue the other guy with a NIP within 14 days.

Thanks. It says F705.doc bottom left and cites Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 : "without due care and attention" and "without reasonable consideration for other users of the road". Signed by "for the Chief Constable of Gloucestershire". I doubt it's cloning. The Police quote Cirencester on a date/time when I was actually there, even if his insurance company and legal insurers say Worcester. But what about the Police - basically, assuming they don't drop it based on my written reply that I was driving at the time but don't know what they're talking about, do they invite me in for a chat before they decide on whether to issue a Summons ? Should I go (would they just be fishing) ? Can I insist on details of the alleged incident in writing first ? That sort of aspect. Regards

Grateful for any ideas/thoughts. Got a letter from someone's insurance company claiming my involvement in an accident in a car park in Worcester on particular date/time. Wasn't in Worcester that day; haven't had an accident. Told them that in writing. Then get Police notice of intended prosecution for not due care and attention in a supermarket car park in Cirencester on same date/time and Collision Accident Unit form. I was there at that date/time, but didn't have an accident, scrape, minor bump, road rage, nothing. I genuinely have no idea what I am supposed to have done. Told them all that in writing. Then get letter from the same guy's Legal Insurers claiming involvement in an accident in Worcester, same date/time. Told them in writing I wasn't there and haven't had an accident. Then get letter from my motor insurance saying same 3rd party claims involvement in an accident in a car park in Cirencester on same date/time, and enclosing a Claim Form for me to fill in. I replied in writing that I was there but didn't have any accident, don't know what it's about, declined to complete claim form (what would I put ?) and copied them all the other correspondence above. Question - does anyone have any idea where I stand with the Police? Their form just asked me to confirm who was driving at the time (me) but gave no details at all about the reason for the not due care and attention and/or accident. Can/do they issue a Summons before they actually tell me the details of what it is I am supposed to have done ? And if they do, do I have no choice but to go to Court to defend myself against something I didn't do in the first place ? Or is there a step before a Summons where, having considered my reply (above) they either drop it or explain the details and take a a Witness Statement and only then decide on a Summons. Regards, and thanks in advance for any advice, Mad Nick. PS the only theory I can come up with is that I parked next to someone whose car was damaged by the previous occupant of "my" space, and he just assumes I was responsible.

Just a quickie about compensation for a missed appointment. British Gas did it to me - a wasted 1/2 day of my Annual Leave (worth about £55). Lots of examples on the web, but I couldn't find any example of someone getting more than the supposed limit of £20 (apart from businesses). Persist - it's worth pushing them harder (all in writing). They miss appointment so I complain 2 weeks later they credit my account £20 I complain that my consequential loss for their failure is £55 2 weeks later they say "you are entitled to £20". No reason. Red rag to a bull - it's the principle, not the amount. I ask them to cough up or quote the relevant consumer legislation/regulation and threaten Small Claims if they do neither 2 weeks later, they ring. They would either give me an additional £20 straight off or they would consider a documented claim for the full £55. I settled for the extra £20. I am still none the wiser as to the particular OFGEM regulation/document which supposedly limits claims to £20, but if you persist ........ Regards, Mad Nick

Nat, There's a strong legal argument for charges >6yrs being in play through postponement of the start of any Limitation period (see below). However, until you get Abbey in court (or due in court) it's just "oh yes it is, oh no it isn't" between you and Abbey. It won't be until they are faced with justifying their position on >6yrs to a Judge that they'll cave in. I would therefore resign yourself to only being able to pursue >6yrs charges through the courts, not Hardship direct with the bank, but I would have one more go down the Hardship route simply in order to get more collateral to use against them in your court action. Use a more detailed justification of the postponement of limitation and ask for their detailed counter-argument. You might include some words which "threaten" to use their reply now in subsequent court action (which is only stayed ?). You can doubtless use their limp reply against them downstream - and you never know, they might even pay up now. Regards, Mad Nick Argument against Limitation The Defendant marketed itself, and continues to do so, as a reputable Bank. The Claimant therefore had no reason to believe anything other than that the Bank would comply with all applicable Law. The Defendant repeatedly stated its Terms and Conditions throughout the period which the Claimant has had the Account, including the level of its default charges. On the basis of both these points, the Claimant originally had no reason to believe anything other than that the default charges which are the subject of the claim were lawful. The Claimant continued to believe that the default charges were lawful until the publication of the Office of Fair Trading report (OFT842, April 2006) into Credit Card charges. The report stated that default fees have been set at a significantly higher level than is fair for the purposes of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999). The OFT stated that its findings were likely to be relevant to bank account charges. The Claimant contends that the period of limitation on the claim is postponed by virtue of concealment or mistake by the Defendant:  either the Defendant at some point became aware that its default charges were unfair and unlawful and has concealed the fact; or  it did not but the default charges are ruled now as unfair and unlawful in which case the charges would have been a mistake. The Claimant therefore contends that any period of limitation on any part of the claim is postponed until April 2006 (the date of publication of the OFT report) in line with the Limitation Act 1980, Section 32, subparas (b) and © : …..where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either : (a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or (b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or © the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. The Claimant therefore respectfully asks the Court to rule on the lawfulness of the Defendant’s charges up to 6 years old. If the Claimant is unsuccessful in that part of the claim, the issue of any period of limitation on the older charges falls away. If the Claimant is successful in that part of the claim, the matter of postponement of the period of limitation on the older charges can be ruled upon.

phatram, about a year ago when I was claiming I did quite a lot of research on mutuality/reciprocity, unjust enrichment, fairness & balance (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/18313-why-no-one-claiming-30.html?highlight=fairness+balance#post444092), restitution, common law, Court's rules on awarding interest and so on. It's a minefield, a real minefield. Have you done a search on CAG ? I figured that if I wasn't totally sure of my ground the Bank (Abbey) would literally take it into Court and I would risk ending up with just charges + SI. So I concentrated on claiming exactly the charges (stemming from their "mistake of law" about LDs having to be a genuine pre-estimate) + interest they had levied (stemming from the same "mistake of law") + 8% SI (which the Court can award for being deprived of your money). It ended up just before Court with a telephone haggle over a few days but at the last minute Abbey coughed up. It's just my experience with that one Bank but I got the firm impression that they would have taken anything further or "unusual" into Court. Good luck. Regards, Mad Nick

I have a suggestion which I'll make then explain. Why doesn't CAG get a QC opinion about claiming CI ? Explanation. Essentially, and with all due respect to ourselves (because we've really socked it to 'em, and it feels fantastic), we are amateurs against professionals (well the Banks laywers are anyway !). That's why CI has been rattling around for over a year now. The recent "CI Precedent Lost" case is paradoxically a step forward because it better defines the battlefield (even if it was a personal step back for the claimant). But to take the next step forward (ie beyond charges+O/D interest+8%), I think we need professional advice, otherwise we are going to spend the next 12 months on a well-meaning but essentially uninformed debate about the meanings and implications of "trust", "fiduciary", "enrichment" etc ad nauseam. If I had an issue like this at work (project management, so sometimes issues about finer points of contract law), I'd have consulted a specialist QC by now. Describe the issue (usually in a written brief) and for a grand or less you get an assessment of the legal position and of your chances at Court (in broad terms - they never commit themselves on win/lose). You can bet the Bank have done it already. What do you think ? Two things though: a. I won't be the least bit offended if you say it's a stupid idea b. whatever you do, don't let this thread morph into yet another debate about the meaning of "trust", "fiduciary", "enrichment" etc. Otherwise I shall scream and scream and scream. Regards, Mad Nick

Hi, spotted your urgent post lurking unanswered. From what I've read, as it's a Preliminary Hearing, I don't think you actually need to submit a Bundle yet (that comes in response to the Directions which this hearing is to decide). But you need to prepare (and attend) as if it's the full monty - ie be ready to argue your case. Chances are Abbey won't turn up in which case I would try to avoid arguing your case (look what happened to poor Mr Berwick). I would also try PMing a MOD (eg Gary) - they are only too willing to help when claims get to this sort of point (ie Mercantile). Regards Mad Nick

Hi, suggest write to Abbey and ask them to return the statements. If they refuse, just shell out another £10 for a Subject Action Request. The documents you need to provide are listed in the "Basic Court Bundle" zip file here : http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/33060-basic-court-bundle.html and Witness Statement @ post#4 here : http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/57385-examples-witness-statements-disclosure.html At worst, they'll take it up until a couple of days before Court (or completely forget and you'll be into seeking Judgement) Regards, Mad Nick

Hi, some people have used the FO with some success, but I'm not sure of the timeline. Surely, taking them to Court is more fun !! I vote for N1. I just tried the Zip file and it was fine. Try reinstalling Winzip. Alternatively, PM me your E-mail and I'll send you the Word doc. Regards, Mad Nick

Hi, I left them to come to me - I know lots of people do approach them, but to me that is just signalling a weakness to them. They rang to settle about 6 days before the Court date. I never agreed anything over the phone and made them do E-mail ping-pong while I queried their 8% calculation, negotiated over the overdraft interest figure and included some claims I'd missed from the pile of microfiche. I ended up giving them a deadline of Close Of Play 2 days before Court which is when they caved in. I've not kept close tabs since April, but who are these people who have been losing ? I heard about the Lloyds Two (Berwick and A.N.Other) - but from what I read, one had rubbish Particulars Of Claim (he deserved to have his case thrown out) and the other did a sterling job but lost because, despite not turning up, Lloyds used the "it's a Service Charge" defence. Perhaps he should have just asked for an adjournment or Judgement instead of trying to make his case, but there we are. Who else ? You are right that asking for, and being refused, disclosure of the actual costs would sit well with a Judge. But I still don't recommend offering to pay a fair proportion. If you really wanted to I suppose you could make it conditional on them explaining on what basis they would calculate it. But they're not going to do that because it undermines their whole position. All they would do, if anything, is offer you a settlement figure without explaining its basis. And if I was you, I would reject it and let them face the prospect of having to disclose their actual costs in Court. I would just sit tight and let them come to you. Regards, Mad Nick

Simon, the CAG template letters in the "Bank Templates Library" already do what I think you're suggesting (ie ask for breakdown of their actual costs). If your MSE template letters didn't ask, there's no harm in doing so now. As you correctly surmise, they will either ignore you or refuse (I got "we are not obliged to disclose ....." - tell that to a Judge !). On your suggestion to pay a proportion of their charges - are you mad ! You might as well go and flush the money down the toilet now. The charges are either enforceable in law or they are not. If they are not, they can't suddenly think up and agree with you a "fair" charge now unless you let them. Besides, if it got into Court, they'd have to disclose their costs for the Judge to consider what was reasonable. Which they wouldn't. And just be warned - when it comes to the pre-Court telephone haggle, they'll give you some rubbish about the OFT £12 "limit" being the basis for a "fair" charge. Tosh. At any level of charge, it's still up to them to defend the whole of their charges to a Judge. Regards, Mad Nick

Hi, just in case it falls between the cracks of Gogovit's advice and Lula pointing you to the Basic Court Bundle in the Library section, "disclosure of documents" isn't just correspondence with Abbey; more importantly, it's things like UTCCR, the OFT reports etc - anything you would rely on to prove your case in the highly unlikely event Abbey took this into Court. And the "Witness Statement" contains your arguments. Look here as well http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/57385-examples-witness-statements-disclosure.html Regards, Mad Nick