I've got 21 days (I think) from the application of the stay to ask for a removal. I think what I'm going to do is to hold off for as long as possible to see how things develop before sending off this request. I don't want to send it off straight away and have it refused, and then find out a couple of days later that a precedent has been set for removing stays on dispute, or something like that.

Thanks Guido. I'm in a bit of dilemma whether or not to send of this application for removal of a stay. Judge Avent seemed rather happy to agree to Barclay's request to stay my claim, as it meant he would have to stop processing stacks of claims. Has anyone had any joy with applying for a stay to be removed? Particularly with Judge Avent at London County Court? I'm very broke at the moment and don't fancy the £35 charge if there's no way of this being overturned.

Has anyone had any joy with applying for a stay to be removed? Particularly with Judge Avent at London County Court? I'm very broke at the moment and don't fancy the £35 charge if there's no way of this being overturned.

I was in the courts today at my preliminary hearing. I got to sit with the judge, but it does look like the decision to stay is pretty much automatic - he listened to the Barclays legal rep's argument for a stay, and then entered this into his computer before I was able to speak - saying that these cases were taking up so much of the legal system that a verdict was needed one way or another and that it wouldn't be possible to decide my case until this verdict was given.

If it's just a directions hearing you won't need the full bundle. You can see what I took / said on my thread: Smawbe vs. Barclays

Having had my case stayed today, I am wishing I had accepted the offer that was given to me a few months ago. My process to date has already taken seven months, and now with the OFT case to wait for, it could be another seven months with nothing to show at the end of it. If the offer is half-decent I would seriously consider taking it. Surely then, if the OFT case goes against the banks, you are very likely to be able to claim back the rest?

Yes, there really was no point in me being there - the judge stayed the claim without first listening to any arguments I had. A different judge might to things differently but this seems to be the way things are going. If Oxford is a long way away I'm sure you can put your argument in writing - I'm not exactly sure what you'd write but maybe something along the lines of the Witness Statement that is floating around on here, and the new POCs.

Barclays sent a legal rep and stayed my claim today at London County Court. This, frustratingly, looks like the tack that Barclays are now taking. I'm keeping my eye on these forums to try and figure out what to do about stayed cases!

Thanks Camdenite, My own thread is at Smawbe vs. Barclays Will figure out what to do now!

I don't think there was mention of a set aside.

I've just got back from my preliminary hearing at London County Court. Judge Avent seems a decent guy, and I can tell from his manner that he's against the banks from this one. Unfortunately, Barclays sent a legal representative who asked for a stay pending the OFT case. The judge said that he's fed up with dealing with bank claims and the courts need to know what to do with these cases one way or the other. So this was his order: The claim be stayed until after the decision of the High Court is given in the action commenced by the OFT pursuant to the Agreement between the OFT and various banks detailed 25th July 2007 to determine points of law common to this action by way of litigation in the High Court. Within 3 months after that decision is given, the parties or either of them shall inform the court in writing whether or not this case has been settled, and, if not, that further case management directions are or a hearing date is desired, and any party seeking further case management directions or a hearing date shall give a time estimate for the small claims hearing. If, withing the period mentioned in paragraph 2 of this order, the court does not receive written confirmation that this case has been settled or a request for further case management directions or a hearing date and such a time estimate, the claim and counterclaim shall be struck out forthwith without further order and with no order as to costs. I argued that the case was not a complex issues of law and that the legality of the charges could be proved in 5 minutes if Barclays provided a breakdown of the costs involved in the charges. The judge said he was aware of this and the judges would be very eagerly pushing to get these charges revealed in the OFT case, and also that the Court of Appeal, was "chomping at the bit" to get hold of the case. I also asked if it was fair that Barclays were still charging unauthorised overdraft fees whilst the claims were being stayed and the legality of them in dispute. He said that it was legally acceptable for them to do so, but if there were to lose the case, he said everyone would be in a position to claim them back.

I've just got back from my preliminary hearing at London County Court. Judge Avent seems a decent guy, and it appears from his manner that he's against the banks from this one. Unfortunately, Barclays sent a legal representative who asked for a stay pending the OFT case. The judge said that he's fed up with dealing with bank claims and the courts need to know what to do with these cases one way or the other. So this was his order: The claim be stayed until after the decision of the High Court is given in the action commenced by the OFT pursuant to the Agreement between the OFT and various banks detailed 25th July 2007 to determine points of law common to this action by way of litigation in the High Court. Within 3 months after that decision is given, the parties or either of them shall inform the court in writing whether or not this case has been settled, and, if not, that further case management directions are or a hearing date is desired, and any party seeking further case management directions or a hearing date shall give a time estimate for the small claims hearing. If, withing the period mentioned in paragraph 2 of this order, the court does not receive written confirmation that this case has been settled or a request for further case management directions or a hearing date and such a time estimate, the claim and counterclaim shall be struck out forthwith without further order and with no order as to costs. I argued that the case was not a complex issues of law and that the legality of the charges could be proved in 5 minutes if Barclays provided a breakdown of the costs involved in the charges. The judge said he was aware of this and the judges would be very eagerly pushing to get these charges revealed in the OFT case, and also that the Court of Appeal, was "chomping at the bit" to get hold of the case. I also asked if it was fair that Barclays were still charging unauthorised overdraft fees whilst the claims were being stayed and the legality of them in dispute. He said that it was legally acceptable for them to do so, but if there were to lose the case, he said everyone would be in a position to claim them back.

Nice one Welshcakes, I will bring that along as well.

Ok, I am going to take the following along to court with me: Schedule of charges Original request for refund Letter before action Letter declining partial offer MCOL claim form, which includes Particulars of Claim Witness statement Example of previous allocation to small claims court Statements of evidence Does this sound good to everyone? Should I bring anything else?

Good work. Apparently Krysta is really nice.