Did you claim any interest in addition to the charges? John

Hi I'm in the same position - they've offered to refund the charges in full but not the interest they charged me on top. I'm inclined to take it to court as that way I can claim both the contractual interest they have taken from me plus the statutory 8% interest on top. Any thoughts? John

Did you also ask for interest that they had charged you in relation to the charges? John

Hi Adam Same here, not a word from them despite regular letters from me inviting them to talk, which I have copied to the Court. This has been going on for so long now that I'm setting some time aside to refresh my brain and prepare for the 13th on the basis that it may actually come to a trial of the issues on that date - even though it's listed as a pre-trial review. John

Ok thanks. I think the case they won in Birmingham may have given them some "dutch courage" whereas in reality it did us a favour by focusing on the areas they may wish to attack. In my case I have letters from the local branch stating that any attempt to exceed an agreed overdraft facility would be a breach of the terms of the agreement to provide the facility, in other words "breach of contract" - something the Birmingham Judge said hadn't happened? John

Hi Adam Any news yet? John

Just checking in to say that I still haven't heard from SC&M or LTSB.....

Hi I don't think there's a definitive answer to that one. In practice it seems that in cases so far, matters have not reached the hearing stage. However, commonsense says that you should assume that it will and to be prepared accordingly. J

Hi I'm in the same position - pretrial review date of 13 July 2007. No bundle necessary at this stage I believe. J

Hi Gary You're right, and that was my concern. I will wait for the hearing and see what transpires. John

Hi Adam Since receiving the court date i've written twice to SC&M with a view to encourage them to agree some directions to present to the court. Sadly i've heard didley squat back. I was wondering about making an application to have the defence struck out on the basis that the defendant is abusing the court process and has no intention of appearing in court? John

To be honest, this is a totally ridiculous situation and LTSB and SC& M must be having a good laugh. If there was consistency in the courts on a national basis then they would not be able to get away with these actions (or inactions!). I sent my AQ plus draft order for directions to the court and in response was allocated (with others in a similar situation) a "pre-trial review" on 13 Jult 2007, which in reality does not take us that much further. I was wondering about applying for summary judgment on the basis that the defence submitted in reality reveals no triable issues? John

My advice would be to respond to SC&M and say that as the matter is in the hands of the court it would be inappropriate for you to meet with their client at this point unless it was for the sole purpose of agreeing a settlement. I would also write to the court and attach a copy of the correspondence. You could at the same time ask for a hearing date to be expedited. J

Can you divulge the size of the claim and a little more info?

Hi That's a remarkable order - and all without you having to suggest this to the Court? I only wish other Courts (notably Cambridge) would adopt a similar approach. LTSB certainly are stretching out the court process for as long as they possibly can!

Hi Lateralus I wasn't being dismissive of your advice; I have actually already written to the LTSB solicitors twice since receiving notice of the pre-trial review but as yet have received no repsonse - but i'll continue writing....... John

Hi Lateralus Thanks for the link. Yes, i had seen it earlier and thought it might be a useful additional weapon in time. Sadly I think Lloyds and their solicitors are remarkably resilient to the utterings of the Judges and seem hell bent on a course of making things as difficult as possible for their loyal and long standing customers..........where did the idea of good customer relationships go to? John

Well done, that's good news! But you were with HSBC and I'm with LTSB - I think they are likely to take this to the hearing in my case..... J

Hi I would simply ignore the request for a meeting; it has nothing at all to do with your claim and the bank cannot insist on it.

Hi PodgyDad I'm wondering if this stance is to do with quantum and expediency? Were your claims "substantial" or not - in other words have they settled on relatively small cases where the costs to them would outweigh the benefits of winning in court? J

How does the NI case affect ours in England?

Thor92 My first letter to Citi was a "prelim" and in the light of the dismissive response I have written the following letter to them today. I'm sure someone else could have done it better, but i'll post any response I receive. Account #### #### #### ####- LETTER BEFORE ACTION Thank you for your letter of ## April 2007. I believe your interpretation of the statement issued by the Office of Fair Trading on 5 April 2006 is flawed. That statement indicated that the charges regime that existed hitherto involved charges being levied which were wholly excessive and thus unlawful. Your statement that you reduced your charges to the “OFT recommended rate of £12” as from 28 June 2006 is, with respect, of no relevance to my assertion, which I reiterate again, that the amounts debited to my account with you are, excessive. They do not, I believe, represent the true and fair cost of dealing with the aspects to which they relate and they are thus punitive in nature. If you do not believe that your charges (even at the “revised” rate of £12) are excessive then would you be kind enough to explain precisely what your costing process is at arriving at that charge. In the absence of such information I maintain the view that your charges are unfair and I am looking to you to refund them to me in full, with interest, in the sum of £#### as previously advised. You mention that all similar cases brought against your company have been dismissed by the Courts on the basis that your policy (on charges) is fair and reasonable. If you are seeking to rely on judicial precedent in support of your contention would you be kind enough to refer me to the case law that supports your contention? Regrettably I have to say that unless you respond within fourteen days of the date of this letter indicating by way of open correspondence your intention to reimburse, in full, the amount mentioned above, then I will without further notice to you commence a claim for recovery in my local County Court. That claim will include, in addition to the above amount, the appropriate court fees and statutory interest at 8%.

Hi I had exactly the same reply to my first letter to Citi as well. I too am wondering if they are telling the truth? John

"Also, I don't know whether you've heard, but Lloyds seem to actually be defending the CI claims in court now..." I have seen in one case that a barrister for LTSB indicated an intention to defend the CI, but do we know if it has ever got inside a courtroom? J

Hi Hamofthegrey That's excellent news, well done. But..........for every good result there must be ten "in limbo" where LTSB go the full distance - even where (as I) their customer has been with them over 20 years. To try and make sense of this (?), can you say how much was your claim and who the solicitors were? John