At no point in my notice of hearing letter does it say I need to attend, or even imply it so I shall give the courts a ring on Monday to see what the score is. That bundle looks soooo complicated!

I am having difficulty opening that last link up Stone.

Ok, the letter is from Hull County Court and is headed 'Notice of Hearing of Application' and reads:- "The hearing of the claimant's application for Stay To Be Lifted will take place on 31st October 2007 at Hull County Court Cases are listed in accordance with local hearing arrangements determined by the Judiciary and implemented by court staff. Every effort is made to ensure that hearings start either at the time specified or as soon as possible thereafter. However, listing practices or other factors may mean that delay is unavoidable. Furthermore, in some instances a case may be released to another judge, possibly at a different court. Please contact the court for further information on the listing arrangements that may apply to your hearing." Now I was under the impression that if you wanted to be present at the hearing it is initially a £65 fee and not the standard £35 and that you actually have to request to be there. Any ideas? As you can see the letter is very brief.

Hi guys, well its been a while since my last entry. Today I received a letter from Hull County Court informing me that my request for a stay to be lifted is being heard on the 31st October. Does this mean I have to be present or are they heared by a Judge automatically and a decision made? Any information or advise on this next stage would be greatly appreciated.

Well guys I took my application notice for stay to be set aside on 31st August and I have heard absolutely zero since then. I think until test case we are banging our heads against a brick wall. Since more times past since last entry I must say I feel less confident for result of test case but am still gonna carry this through till the end. Ive come this far after all. Anyone had any good news in regards to claims lately?

Thanks all for your continued support. Will be going in on Friday so will see what happens after that.

Hi All, I applied for judgement at court which I have recently received an order stating my claim is stayed. I will be going into court on Friday 31st to apply to have stay lifted. Watch my ;Kelvid123 v Halifax' thread for updates. Good luck everyone.

Hi Tilly, thanks for that. I have read it, filled it out and printed it so ready to go, lol. No stopping me now. On reading it it sounds like they wouldn't have a leg to stand on but these banks have a good way of squirming out of everything. I found out last night my nephew who had requested about £150 from Halifax got his paid into his bank last week so they are still paying certain people out and not others. They can't be that confident that they're gonna win the test case eh!!! Well, on Friday I will take my N244 down to court and see what happens after that. Will I just need 3 copies again like before?

Thanks everyone. I have a copy of the letter regarding 'removal of stay'. My only concern is that my claim is over £6000, and part of the letter refers to my claim being 'a relatively small sum'. Could I still use this letter despite the amount? If the answer is yes, I get paid on Friday so I will be requesting a removal of stay along with my fee. Anyone any idea how much this will be and is that all I need to do next?

Hi All, I have received from HULL COUNTY COURT today a reply to my judgement request informing me it is stayed due to there currently being a 'test case' due. I can wait

Hi All, yes thanks everything is OK. Had my letter from the court today saying that due to the test case it has been stayed. No surprise there to be honest. Has anyone payed to have the stay lifted and won? Cant really see the point unless a few win as courts seem happy to go along with test case. How I read it is after test case (which I believe is January 2008) if the outcome goes our way banks have 28 days to settle, does this seem bought same as what every one else been informed? Speak to you all soon

Hi Humags, I have still not received any questionaire as yet.

Thanks SSL. Still no news from Halifax or Court since I sent in Judgement request on 14th. Not received an AQ through either. Mcadden reckons courts a good 3 weeks behind though so could be a while before I hear anything. Also, I read on one of the websites OFT or FSA that the 'test case' is in court on January 2008 so could be a good while them sitting on our money yet

Hi all, I rang HULL court this morning and although they say they had received an acknowledgement of service from Halifax, as yet they are still to receive a defence. This maybe because of postal strikes they are 5 days behind. The guy I spoke to said to file for judgement on the basis a defence has not yet been received by court and if in the meantime they have received on they will just send my judgement back. There is a chance its still sat on someones desk waiting to be put onto the system (unfortunately). I have been informed if they receive a defence I will then need to fill out an Allocation Questionaire to take it to the next stage so we will see what happens this next week. I actually received the defence on 10th so chances are court did too, nevermind. Any advise in relation to AQ greatly appreciated.

Hi millerlee, no this practice is not fair and alot have started writing to their MPs to put our cases across. There is a link going around on the forum, (if i find it I will post it on here for you) from the OFT which say they may waiver the stay after a couple of months so banks cannot use it as a way of stalling for too long. No doubt they will come up with something else before then. I have recently received my defence from Halifax solicitors and am just waiting to ring court on Monday to find out what going on. Will let you know courts stance on things then. Hope this helps a little.

Hi Stone, like you I didnt know whether to give Halifax another 7 days or not. There time to file a defence was up on 3rd and I ended up giving them the extra 7 to pay up which would have given them til 11th. On 10th I received from Optima Legal Services a copy of their defence (check my other thread for full defence wording) dated the 9th of August. This is obviously writtedn after the 3rd when their defence needed to be in and I haven't heard anything at all from the court to do with my claim so now no idea what happening. I am gonna contact my court on Monday as I not sure who the next step lies with. What have you decided to do?

It appears a couple are now getting these letters. Any money paid in after receiving one of these defences I would be very interested to hear from you.

Hi Mcadden, I also recently received defence from Optima Solicitors (8th Aug). I had just given Halifax a further 7 days to pay up and was ready to file jdgement on 11th but got the defence in between. I am going to contact HULL court on Monday to see whats happening as not heard anything from the court itself. Please could you check out my thread as I have written up the full defence supplied by Halifax and am interested to know if it is worded exactly same as yours. Thanks

Hi All, please can any of you tell me if you have received a defence from the Halifax and if so was it worded something like mine? I received it this morning from Optima Legal Services who appear to be Halifax solicitors. Just as I was starting to think I was nearing the end as not heard anything and their defence was due in the 3rd and BANG! here it is. Dont know if makes any difference but filed in HULL COUNTY COURT also. What next and any advise appreciated. Here is how Halifax defence is worded:- 1. Save as is specifically admitted in this Defence, the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the POC. 2. It is admitted that the Claimant had an account with the Defendant, numbered XXXXXXXX & XXXXXXXX ("Account"). 3. At all times, the Account has been subject to the applicable terms and conditions ("Conditions"), which form part of the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant and to which the Claimant agreed when he opened the Account. Under the Account Conditions, the Defendant is entitled to apply charges to the Account, inter alla and so far as is relevant to this claim, for; 3.1 each calendar month when a debit balance on the Account exceeds any authorised overdraft limit; 3.2 refusing to honour payment instructions issued by the Claimant where there are insufficient funds available for withdrawl from the Account (after taking into consideration any authorised overdraft limit); 3.3 honouring payment instructions issued by the Claimant where the overdraft limit has already been exceeded, or is exceeded as a result of honouring the payment instruction. 4. The Defendant will contend that the Claimant received a copy of the Conditions and the said Tariff Charges. 5. The Claimant appears to be claiming charges applied to the Account since August 2001. By vitue of the Conditions referred to in paragraph 3 above, the Claimant was in breach of Contract and the Claimant became liable to pay fees to the Defendant in accordance with Tariff of Charges applicable at the relevant time. In accordance with the Conditions, such fees were debited from the Account. 6. Further or in the alternative, even if it is said that the Claimant did not breach the terms of the Conditions referred to in paragraph 3, the Defendant was entitled to Charge the fees in accordance with the Conditions and the Tariff of Charges applicable at the relevant time, and the charges were reasonably applied for the agreed banking services. 7. In view of the facts and matters referred to in paragraphs 3,4 and 5 above, the Defendant denies that the amount of £6721.46 or any amount was unlawfully debited from the Account and the Claimants claim for the repayment of that amount is therefore denied. 8. The Claimants contention that the said fees are unenforceable is denied. The fees reflect and are proportionate to the Defendants administrative expenses incurred due to the Claimants breach of Contract or in the alternative, it is found that there has been no breach of contract by the Claimant, that the fees have been reasonably incurred in accordance with Conditions and Tariff of Charges detailed in the contract. 9. Further, the Defendant denies being in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and or the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and that the terms and conditions satisfy the test of reasonableness. 10. Further or in the alternative, even if the said fees are not proportionate to the Defendants administrative expenses incurred (which is denied), the Claimant remains liable to pay such fees as may be found to be proportionate and the Claimant is not entitled to claim repayment of the full amount of each charge made to the Account. 11. No admissions are made as to the amounts claimed by the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the same. The defendant believes that the facts stated in the defence to be true. What does anyone think? Has anyone had same?

Here is how Halifax defence is worded:- 1. Save as is specifically admitted in this Defence, the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the POC. 2. It is admitted that the Claimant had an account with the Defendant, numbered XXXXXXXX & XXXXXXXX ("Account"). 3. At all times, the Account has been subject to the applicable terms and conditions ("Conditions"), which form part of the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant and to which the Claimant agreed when he opened the Account. Under the Account Conditions, the Defendant is entitled to apply charges to the Account, inter alla and so far as is relevant to this claim, for; 3.1 each calendar month when a debit balance on the Account exceeds any authorised overdraft limit; 3.2 refusing to honour payment instructions issued by the Claimant where there are insufficient funds available for withdrawl from the Account (after taking into consideration any authorised overdraft limit); 3.3 honouring payment instructions issued by the Claimant where the overdraft limit has already been exceeded, or is exceeded as a result of honouring the payment instruction. 4. The Defendant will contend that the Claimant received a copy of the Conditions and the said Tariff Charges. 5. The Claimant appears to be claiming charges applied to the Account since August 2001. By vitue of the Conditions referred to in paragraph 3 above, the Claimant was in breach of Contract and the Claimant became liable to pay fees to the Defendant in accordance with Tariff of Charges applicable at the relevant time. In accordance with the Conditions, such fees were debited from the Account. 6. Further or in the alternative, even if it is said that the Claimant did not breach the terms of the Conditions referred to in paragraph 3, the Defendant was entitled to Charge the fees in accordance with the Conditions and the Tariff of Charges applicable at the relevant time, and the charges were reasonably applied for the agreed banking services. 7. In view of the facts and matters referred to in paragraphs 3,4 and 5 above, the Defendant denies that the amount of £6721.46 or any amount was unlawfully debited from the Account and the Claimants claim for the repayment of that amount is therefore denied. 8. The Claimants contention that the said fees are unenforceable is denied. The fees reflect and are proportionate to the Defendants administrative expenses incurred due to the Claimants breach of Contract or in the alternative, it is found that there has been no breach of contract by the Claimant, that the fees have been reasonably incurred in accordance with Conditions and Tariff of Charges detailed in the contract. 9. Further, the Defendant denies being in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and or the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and that the terms and conditions satisfy the test of reasonableness. 10. Further or in the alternative, even if the said fees are not proportionate to the Defendants administrative expenses incurred (which is denied), the Claimant remains liable to pay such fees as may be found to be proportionate and the Claimant is not entitled to claim repayment of the full amount of each charge made to the Account. 11. No admissions are made as to the amounts claimed by the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the same. The defendant believes that the facts stated in the defence to be true. What does anyone think? Has anyone had same letter?

Help SSL, lol. Anyone else with advise too much appreciated. I have PM'd SSL and a few others that have been fantastic since I started this.

Well today I have received a letter from Optima Legal Services (Halifax Solicitors) enclosing a copy of their defence which submitted to Hull Courts. The defence denies all allegations made in the POC. It goes onto say I had a copy of T&C's which they have always stuck to and that I have breached the contract. Halifax deny the amount of £6741.46 owed to me and that all fees were enforced legally. HELP!!! What now?

Kind of a bit late to ask for a stay when judgement already granted but then again they haven't stuck to any other rules yet have they!!! Keep watching this space and I'll be updating all the way.

Hi Guys and thanks everyone. Will be checking my bank accounts on Saturday after 4pm and unless the money is in will be filing for judgement. I have not heard a thing from the Courts but due to the fact their so busy at the moment they probably wouldnt keep me informed off their own backs anyway. If Halifax had filed for defense I presume I would have heard something by now and 3rd well out of date now. Nevertheless the reality of a stay still looms over me but I will stay positive in the hope this does not happen. If it does I will just keep at it. I have read alot of people putting in for a stay to be lifted due to financial hardship. As Halifax are still screwing me over due to missed DD's and I am once again over my overdraft this will be my next line of defence if the worst happens!!! Good luck Deadly, will be watching your thread. - Kelly

In reality what is the chances of this test case coming off in the banks favour? I thought the banks had already been seen to commit legal procedures in the beginning hence why this all started so why can they now go to court to try to get off with this? How can they pay hundreds of people off and then in the next instance the rest of us cant claim? Im really narked as I got over £6500 on this. Whats the chance of me ever getting it now?