Is there likely to be a change now in the letters and POC/AQ?

***nervously waiting for result***** must be over by now

Any idea of the time of the hearing?

A BIG MASSIVE good luck to you all from me as well. Hope you kick their a**

sorry, I think that was large print. Try this http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/GetForm.do?court_forms_id=168

Alonso, You need to fill in a new EX160 for every fee claim http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/GetLeaflet.do?court_leaflets_id=169

How did you get on?

You're right elliejay, it seems they both said they were not breaches of contract. I wonder if Lloyds are setting these people up to lose these cases? Strange how LLoyds have not paid up before these hearings and all claimants are saying they are not breaches

found it! BBC NEWS | Business | Judge rejects more bank claims

Was on BBc news (interactive) Had a look on their web but there is no news about it.

see my thread in LLoyds forum dated today

I see he has thrown out another 2 cases. Both happen to be LLoyds BBC NEWS | Business | Judge rejects more bank claims

Thanks Rob, will have a look at the abuse thingy. destiny

Ladies & Gentlemen It has now reached the stage of the AQ to be sent in. I have got the AQ from Abbey, but I am at a loss to the comments in it, and I am looking for advice please. They have put in witness 'Bank officer' do they normally put this in? They have asked for small claims track ( claim is £11780) the reason is: In the interest of commerciallity the defendant can consent to the entirety of the claim being determined in the small claims track. Why would they want it in there? I thought they would have chosen the fast track to scare me with costs! They have also put £2,000 costs in Sect G. Stupid or what? They have also listed draft directions as follows: 1 The claimant shall within 28 days of service of this order send to the defendant and court a) a schedule settin gout each charge repayment of which is sought ( had three already) showing the date, amount and reason for the charge 2 The claim be allocated to the SCC for hearing not beofre 10th August 2007 3 14 days prior to the allocated hearing date, the claimant and the defendant shall file and serve: a) copies of all documents on which they are to rely on at the hearing b) any witness statements must be included in the documents c) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied on. What do they mean 'decided cases' I would also like to PM a mod for advice on a part of the defence they have sent, as I don't want any 'prying Abbey eyes' to see it.

bumping this 'cos I have got the same

why has the court ordered it? What do I take? What do I say? This is for £1,500 against abbey.

Hi Michelle, Thanks for your help. I filed in County \court. Nothing I can do apparently until the date of the strike out hearing.

Well done you lucky person, I had the same problem with YB, but having major problems still see here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/yorkshire-bank-clydesdale-bank/98763-any-advice-please-yb.html

Nothing? Something? Anything?

Is there anything I can do?

Ex Parte is an application that one side can file in court without the other side seeing it or being able to respond to it. POC = Particulars of claim CPR16.4 Is Civil Procedure rules, the rules that the courts allegedly work to.

All CAG templates & advice used throughout. Submitted N1 12.3.07 Served 15.3.07 Ackn. 19.3.07 12.4.07 Ex Parte application received by court to strike out claim in accordance with CPR16.4 ( no POC) 15.4.07 Court sent out another copy of |POC asking if still want to strike out. No reply after 3 weeks from bank. Court suggested filing judgment. 4.5.07 Judgment applied for 14.5.07 Received notice of judgment for claimant £ 1890.00 No money received in 2 weeks. Rang court told that application to havew judgment set aside as not rec. POC. 15.6.04 Rec. Notice of hearing application. Hearing of Def. application to set aside judgment to be heard 12 SEPT. 2007 What the hell is going on here? Talk about abuse of court!! ( and the court allowing it!) Any ideas anyone??

The banks have been forced to hand back tens of millions of pounds to customers over the past year after the Office of Fair Trading indicated charges of up to £39 for bouncing a cheque were an illegal penalty. There is speculation that the OFT will move to cap these charges at much lower levels. Can we quote that? The good old Daily mail, always informative

Personal finance website Moneysupermarket.com looked at how bills would stack up if a customer was overdrawn by £60. It found that HSBC would charge just £25 while Halifax, Alliance & Leicester and NatWest all imposed fees of more than £100. NatWest was the most expensive at £133 If this is the case, then the judge who says the rates the bank charges for unauthorised borrowing are in comparison to other banks. So not unfair or unreasonable. is wrong !!!! link here Why a £60 overdraft could cost a hefty £133 | the Daily Mail

Congrats and very well done! This, and other successful cases should be given media time just as the Berwick case was. I bet there are hundreds of people not claiming because of berwick, and we need to put this straight. All LLoyds succesful cases for the last month should be on the TV and in the national papers to show others that there is still a fight being won.