Can't help I'm afraid, but I'm gonna subscribe to this thread as it looks like we are at a similar stage, both with the new defence so I'll be interested to see how you get on. No word of a stay for me yet, allthough I had the same letter from Abbey saying that they would be applying for one, Medway still seems to be taking it case by case.

I've got a photocopy of the T&C's from Sept 99 if you want them, HSBC sent them to me whilst refusing to remove a default. Not a great copy so I don't think they will scan on the machine I have available, but if you have a postal address, PM me with it and I will send it that way. I think I saw an address somewhere but can't find it now.

OK thanks, thought I would need them. If Abbey do eventually send me the ones from 2001, do you want a copy? was it you asking in another thread for all old T&C's?

Do you still need the new T&C's? I have them and can scan them at work tomorrow. Not sure that I can scan as a PDF, but scan as .jpgs all the time.

I also received the new defence on 3 August, I typed it all out word for word in my thread here, post #28. Encouraged by the idea of applying to have the defence struck out, but do I need a copy of the Terms and conditions from when I opened the account though? Account opened 1 September 2001, and they are not in the archive. Can't seem to find any T&C's on Abbeys web site at all, let alone old ones. I have asked in the branch, they took my account number and promised to send them, but still no luck. Can I just state the spefic clauses referred to in post one without actually including a copy? I alsoi have the new T&C's, accompanying letter is dated 24 July, but I actually received it 9 August. Do you still need a copy?

I need to get my allocation questionaire completed today, can any one help with the question of if I should be including anything to argue against a potential stay? Should I just include a paragraph asking for an opportunity to argue against a stay if (when) the bank asks for one?

So where in the sky should we be looking for this then? should I stand in my front garden or back garden?

It just means Gesture of Goodwill.

Can anyone help please.

Lots of people have had this letter, I wouldn't worry too much, from reading other threads it looks like nearly all courts are proceeding as normal. This is just an attempt to get people to settle.

Received 3 letters from Abbey today, One a copy of their allocation questionaire, which surprised me as I only received mine Tuesday, deadline is 20 Aug, don't they usually file onthe last day? Also a letter informing me that they will be asking for a stay and that this means it is "likely" that my case will be put on hold. From what I have read, most claims are proceeding as normal so dunno where they get the definition of likely from. I've also seen some new terms and conditions. Fees are now being called "instant overdraft request fee" pretty much in line with their defence in my claim. Has any one else seen these new T&C's? Anyway, I'm filling in my N150 allocation questionaire and I have a couple of questions I hope someone can help me with. Section D What amount of the claim is in dispute? Do I put the figure that was on my N1 form? Interestst is increasing daily so it is a bit higher now. Also, in the guide it says not to include costs. I've allready had Abbeys allocation questionaire and they have included the £120 court fee. What about the £100 allocation fee? Obviously I am the only witness but what should I write under the "Witness to which facts" column? Should I include the draft directions or just write in the space provided at the end requesting standard disclosure? Should I include anything to pre-empt the inevitable request by the bank for a stay in light of the test case?

Received my allocation questionaire yesterday. Half expected it to have been dispensed with.

Reading another thread, it seems to me that Abbey have now changed their defence and are now not admitting that a breech of contract occurred and saying that they are fees for a service, which is what other banks were doing anyway. Is this correct? How do I get a copy of the terms and conditions? I opened the account in September 2001, they don't seem to be on the archive in the link from Sticky section. If I ask at the Abbey will I get the ones from when I opened the account or just the latest ones?

I had what looks like exactly the same defence today as well, just wish I had seen your post before I typed it all out myself in my thread Maybe it's just me, but it looks different to others I have seen previously so I too would like some reassurance that it is still just standard stuff.

I have today received Abbeys defence. Have to say I'm a little concerned as it seems to be different from others I have seen on here. Can someone take a look for me. I've taken the time to type it all out below, it's quite a lot, don't blame me, blame Abbey. Thanks in advance for your comments INTRODUCTION 1. In this Defence: 1.1 References to Paragraph numbers are, save where otherwise indicated, references to paragraph numbers of the Particulars of Claim. 1.2 The Defendant’s Account Conditions (a copy of which is annexed as Annex A) will be referred to as “the conditions” 1.3 References to an “unauthorised” overdraft are to an overdraft permitted by the defendant without prior application and arrangement under clause 6.1 of the Conditions. 2. It is admitted that the Claimant held the following account with the Defendant, namely that bearing xxxxxxxx. (“the account”). It is admitted and averred that the contractual provisions between the Claimant and the Defendant in relation to the Account are set out in the Conditions. 3. It is denied that those charges payable and that rate of interest applicable upon a customer going into unauthorised overdraft or exceeding an authorised overdraft constitute a penalty at common law. It is denied that those charges and that interest are payable on a breach of contract. 4. The true position is as follows: 4.1 Each and every payment instruction presented by or on behalf of the Claimant to the Defendant which would, if honoured, take the Account into unauthorised overdraft or beyond an authorised overdraft, constituted a request (in law, an offer) by the Claimant to the Defendant for a loan of the requisite amount on the terms set out in the Conditions (alternatively on the Defendants usual terms as to such overdrafts as at the date of the payment instruction in question). 4.2 The Defendant was free to accept or reject each such request. 4.3 If the Defendant honoured the payment instruction in question, the Defendant thereby accepted the Claimant’s offer. 4.4 Accordingly, the Claimant became bound to pay interes and charges in relation to that loan at the stipulated rate. 4.5 That liability does not, at common law, constitute a penalty. 5. It is denied (if it be alleged) that, on a proper construction, clause 6.3 of the conditions provides that a customer going into unauthorised overdraft or exceeding an authorised overdraft constitutes a breech of contract (for which the customer is liable to pay damages). It is averred that clause 6.3 of the Conditions operates as a trigger to bring into effect certain other provisions of the Conditions. 6. It is denied that those charges payable upon the Defendant dishonouring a payment instruction presented by the Claimant by reason of the state of the Account (namely that had the Defendant honoured the instruction in question, it would have taken the Account into unauthorised overdraft or beyond an authorised overdraft) constitute a penalty at common law. Such charges are not payable on a breach of contract. They are, by clause 6.4 of the Conditions, a fee 7. The Defendant understands the Claimant’s allegation to be that the fees and interest payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft or an overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and fees in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions are not binding on the Claimant by reason of regulation 8(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (“the 1999 Regulations”) 8. Regulation 6(2) of the 1999 Regulations provides that: “In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate – (a) to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract, or (b) to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange” 9. The fees and interest payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and fees in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions are: (i) set out in plain intelligible language in the Conditions, and (ii) amount to the “price or remuneration” in respect of that provision of such overdraft or such dishonouring. 10. Accordingly, by regulation 6(2) of the 1999 Regulations, the provisions of the Conditions as to the fees and interest payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and in respect of dishonouring of payment instructions are not liable to assessed for fairness under those regulations. 11. It is denied that paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 to the 1999 Regulations is applicable. As pleaded above, the fees and interest payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and fees in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions are not payable on a breach of contract by the claimant. 12. Alternatively, if (contrary to the Defendants primary case pleaded above), the provisions of the Conditions as to the fees and interest payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and fees in respect of dishonouring of payment instructions fall to be assessed for fairness under the 1999 Regulations, the Defendants case is as follows: (a) Regulation 5(1) of the 1999 Regulations provides that: “A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.” (b) Regulation 6(1) of the 1999 Regulations provides (so far aas presently relevant) that: “…the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract…” © It is denied that the conditions breach that provision of the 1999 Regulations. In particular, (i) the Defendant’s charges and interest rates are published and provided to its customers from time to time and are expressed in clear language; (ii) the incurring of charges and interest in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft beyond that agreed and fees in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions is a result of the claimant’s actions; and (iii) the Defendant’s charges and interest rates are not, in the circumstances, excessive in relation to the value of the services provided in relation thereto. (d) The Defendant reserves the right to plead further in this regard on the provision of full and proper particulars of the basis on which the Claimant contends that the Conditions contravene regulation 5(1) of the 1999 Regulations. 13. Save as expressly pleaded to above, each and every allegation contained in the Particulars of Claim is denied as if the same were individually traversed. STATEMENT OF TRUTH I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true Signed Willem Basson Position: Paralegal Dated 01 August 2007

Yes, keep to your own timescale. Not all courts will issue stays, and even if yours does, you will at least be at the head of the queue when the test case is settled.

1. The ability to write the next Harry Potter series, and to enjoy doing it so that it wasn't a chore. 2. Good health & long life for me and everyone I care about. 3. Find a woman who loves me.

OK, I'l just sit and wait then. Should I not have received a copy of the n1 form back with a seal on it? have only had 2 letters back from court, notice of issue and notice of acknowledgement. Just been reading through your thread Icy, looks like your case against Abbey will soon be over, hope I can pick your brains when I need to. At the moment I have very little idea what happens next. I have read threads and see a lot of talk about allocation questionaires, which may or may not be required, and court bundles but not really clear on exactly what goes in these or how it comes to 200odd pages. Obviously I will find the info when I need to, I know it's all on here somewhere, just hope I don't end up missing something out.

Received notice that Abbey have acknowledged service yesterday. Is there something I should be doing now in anticipation of the next stage which I assume is the allocation questionaire?

Received Notice of issue today, and is deemed served today as well. I've had absolutely no reply whatsoever so far, with luck they will continue to ignore it and in 28 days I'll apply for a judgement.

I maybe wrong, but doesn't the fact that you needed to put oil in a car that has done only 4800 miles suggest there may have been a pre existing problem?

That's a shame, I've now had bank statements to go with my credit card statements, only got 2 £10 charges, so if I can't get any older statements that's that then, not worth bothering. I know there were a lot of charges on that account but must have been older than 6 years.

Well I did stick it the post, should have got it today. Hopefully won't be a problem.

Anyone know if it is ok to just stick it in the post? It's a bit difficult for me to get away from work at the moment. I found an address for Medway County Court (my local one) on the HMCS web site, but nothing to say Who I address it to.

Oh, Ok then. Thanks for reply