Hey Slick, I'm good thanks, you? I'm fairly certain that the bloke I spoke to isn't working for the banks, but I guess it was the first time I met him. So much suspicion! I did mention that I thought it was all extremely corrupt ultimately; one trainee agreed completely, the guy that told me the other stuff (about the mortgage etc) made his case and then said the most telling thing he said all night which was "fairness comes last in a court of law". Sad but true. Anyway, he seemed to think that my claim (over £6K) is enough for Barclays to try for costs; I guess we'll see one day. I'd be interested to see if anyone else has heard of judges staying cases for another 12 months whilst they wait for the OFT's next move. That's what I was told yesterday by the court in Plymouth (I've elaborated in the H.O.L Decision thread). Cheers, KA.

Plymouth. That'll be from my post a few up (or maybe over the page!). Essentially, I went to Plymouth County Court today as I needed to see whether I let them know I moved two years ago (I'm very current me!) and the lady behind the counter told me, after she checked with he supervisor, that the judge that they deal with (not sure on his title, sorry) had decided to stay the cases for a further 12 months pending the OFT's next move. As I mentioned, she said she thought it was "far from over". I was a little surprised to be honest.

Surely if the courts follow suit and stay the claims for a futher 12 months as they have down here, that would negate the 23rd date? Or is that too simplistic of me?

Cheers to those who have replied to my earlier post; I have to say, it got me a little worried. I figured even if I did end up paying costs I could sort something with Barclays based on a fair amount per month - it was the mortgage bit that worried me the most as I don't want to affect my girlfriend with this! I need to check which track my case is on as I was just on the cusp of the limit for small claims/fast track (that's how I remember it anyway). For those who worried about me not enjoying the party because of it, fear not! It was the knowledge that I had to get up the next morning and run 11 miles that ruined it for me! Wasn't the first argument really strong?! Strength of argument doesn't seem to matter based on the last ruling It is interesting though; I went down to the Court at lunchtime as I wasn't sure whether I'd notified them that I'd moved. They have stayed all cases for another 12 months as the courts are aware that the OFT are taking the claim higher. That's what I was told by the counter clerk anyway. Not sure what that means but it may add some hope. She said she thought it was far from over.

Hi everyone, I posted this in my thread but figured it would be useful for all to see - it may have been covered already, apologies if so... ...I was out for a mates birthday on Friday and got chatting to a lawyer (not my normal company, honest!). Anyway, we chatted about my situation (case stayed, waiting for more information) and he explained that as a lawyer he would expect banks to try for all expenses related to each case. He said they would have a definite case and that they could be looking for some serious money (he reckoned up to around £3,000 for my case). When I asked whether I would be expected to pay this all back in one go (I don't have £3K just laying around) he said that would be up to the banks and I, but he also said that I could end up having the costs stuck onto my mortgage. I explained that my mortgage wasn't with Barclays, he said that didn't matter! I just wanted to put this out there and see what people thought about it all? Thanks, Luke.

Hi everyone, Long time since I posted in here; shocking really! Anyway, I was out on Friday and got chatting to a lawyer at my mate's birthday party. I explained my situation and he was fairly certain that the banks will try their hardest to get costs paid from those of us who have already begun court action. I just wondered what people thought about that and, if that is the likely outcome, how these things will end up being paid? He suggested my costs could be something like £3,000 based on the size of my claim which I obviously don't have just sitting around. He even suggested that Barclays may well be able to add it to my mortgage! I explained that my mortgage isn't with Barclays, apparently that's not a problem as they can still do it. Cheers, KA

Given that the banks appealed however many times (it may only have been once actually, it just seems like more!), does that mean the consumers are allowed to appeal to? I've always been wary of this ever since I asked the judge during my court case whether it was fair that I wasn't allowed to continue my claim given the OFT investigation but the banks would are still allowed to charge people the fees that were being investigated (surely both should be stopped whilst it is found out whether they are fair or not?) and the judge just replied "That's a good question, maybe you should ask it?". I thought I just had. That's when it really started to bug me to be honest. What a kick in the nuts.

As a slight aside to all of this, anyone else think we should make them all work on Monday? That'll show 'em!

Ah, ok, good! So in that case then it must mean they feel confident that they have sufficient evidence in their defence so far to justify the appeal as do the HOL which seems to indicate that they both think previous cases have missed something very important? In which case, is that not a bit of a put down by the HOL to the judges who have made the previous rulings? Or, have the HOL said "ok, we'll look into whether you have grounds for appeal but you have two weeks to tell us what it is you think previous cases have missed out and only when we see this will we be able to grant your appeal or not"? If that is the case surely they're on to a hiding to nothing as they would have identified this as key evidence at each and every opportunity would they not and it would have therefore been given consideration by a number of people who have all found the same? Just out of interest, how many appeals can one case have? Say for example I was accused of murder and was found guilty, could I just appeal and appeal and appeal? I thought you could only appeal if new evidence came to light? Cheers!

Ah ok, thanks for that! So in that case it must just be an appeal to be allowed to appeal? Or am I wrong there too? May be I didn't understand you at all bookworm!

Bookworm - yes, I completely understand what you're saying but I have no idea what the answer is, sorry! If it is that they have new evidence etc then it'll very interesting to see what that is. As far as I am aware, the only new evidence that could be really significant would be the banks detailing how they calculate these charges in the first place but is that really going to happen?

No worries yourbank - you don't know how proud I am at the moment, I've never been right on the internet before! You're right about the bank's submission though - will it be public and will we get to read it or do we just have to reply on what gets reported in the press? Cheers!

Ah ha, we clash again yourbank! Have a look at this definition I found... Going by that, I don't really see how asking how many or which people have connections with banks is libelous? If the statement read as something that clearly outlined that the poster was 100% certain that the only reason that this had happened was because X, Y and Z were looking after their own interests then that would be libelous (or certainly verging on it) but the poster is just asking a question so I don't see how it is even close to being libelous? I'm sure you can let me know though I really want this to be correct but I am afraid I still haven't seen anything to calm my cynicism. Yet!

Yeah, I know that and I know legally it has no sway but surely everyone can actually see through it?! Surely! It's just a little frustrating that banks will claim it's goodwill when no organisation with the aim of making profits that are as big as possible would actually dish out millions (from when this all started) unless they had to? I honestly don't believe the banks are sitting there saying: "Hey you know, I'm not sure these charges are fair..." "Oh really, wow. Thats interesting. Go on." "Well, it seems they have to be a fair representation of the cost to us and I'm not sure they are. And look, Vinnystoolbox and others are suffering financial hardship - lets just give them some of this back as a gesture yeah?" "Hmm, do we have to?" "No, we don't have to. It would be nice though wouldn't it?" "You know, it really would. Fetch the cheque book and my good pen; I've some signing to do" And they all lived happily ever after... As a complete aside to this, I hope you don't think I have any beef with you yourbank? I'm aware it may look that way in the other thread but it was never on my agenda.

Congratulations Vinnystoolbox! I have to say I'm shocked that they've done this but that shouldn't take away from the fact that you've got your cash so nice one! It still amazes me that this isn't really classed as evidence that the banks know they're wrong as surely no one is naive enough to believe that they really are paying back charges because they actually care about you as a customer or person?! If they didn't expect the worst they would sit tight and let you rot (so to speak). Or may be I'm just being paranoid?