Unfortunately, although not surprisingly, I got stayed at Lambeth. The judge heard my representations and a couple of sentences from the guy representing A&L, and then read a prepared statement telling us he saw no reason for the case not to be stayed pending outcome of the OFT case. I produced copies of the OFT update from their website that said the case was only the first step in the process and that they are obliged to reach a settlement out of court if they can, but to no avail. However I suspect the banks were well aware of the requirement that the OFT attempts to settle without going through the courts and have abused the whole process to delay the inevitable. It clear that people are taking offers because they cannot afford to wait until the whole process is complete. I suspect cost benefit analysis has shown that coupled with interest the banks accrue on the money they have taken off of us, this is the least costly course of action. Were I a bank, this is probably the course of action I would go for (having few morals myself). The last thing they want is legal precedent to be set, and their best option is a long delayed settlement. If OFT accept a £12 charge as they have with credit cards, many people will accept this and probably a much smaller number won't. It will be much more cost effective to accept £12 on future charges, offer £12 on all existing claims and then settle the much smaller number that still wish to go to court at the 11th hour. Clearly with the amounts of money that are now being discussed that the banks have fleeced us of over the last 6 years, full settlement is not an option. The payments would destabilise the banking sector acutely and I have no doubt the government will intervene to prevent this.

Had my hearing today. Judge heard my arguments and those of the legal guy from the other side, then read from a piece of paper a load of jargon. The upshort of which was that the stay stays until the court case. I assume from the fact that the paper was already written out, the hearing was a fore gone conclusion.

Thanks for your help Scott - if only claiming the charges was so easy.

Apologies - forgot to say thank you to you both, Martin and Tilly for your help

Sorry to be dumb, but how do I do that:confused: Also does anyone know where I can get the exact wording of advice issued to judges regarding staying of cases - probably another dumb question (sorry again).:? :? Cheers Steve

Ultimately my experience was very rewarding with them. They dragged their feet and we went through the whole summons process, but caved in eventually. I got everything I asked for quite a bit more as they overpaid me quite bit too much. They definitely struggled with the concept of deadlines - which was odd because they always seemed to get them when they were slapping me with late payment charges.

After some absence I am back again (worrying). I have had my case against Alliance & Leicester stayed, against which I have appealed and am due in court on Tuesday to discuss/argue it. My partner's father, a solicitor, has drafted a statement addressing each of the objections Wragge & Co have made to the stay being lifted. I am hopeful that the judge will come down in my favour. To accompany this statement I have been asked to try to track down details of any case(s) where a stay has been lifted NOT on hardship grounds and NOT on the grounds of a technicality or the defendant not showing up for the hearing. If anyone can point me in the direction of one, I would be hugely grateful

Croydon is not staying - they say they are a much larger court (??) and are continuing to hear cases. Lambeth are staying cases. I am appealing my stay at Lambeth on Tuesday, so will update with the results.

I too have just received notification of my claim being stayed by Lambeth County Court, pending judgement being delivered in the claim entitled 'The Office Of Fair Trading and Abbey National Plc.' I had received with my original court papers a letter from Judge David Mackie QC of London Mercantile Court setting down his views on our claims for repayment of penalty charges. Phrases like 'they rarely last more than a few minutes' and 'the only real issue in most cases is whether the claimant has paid the amount of charges he or she claims' left me feeling a good deal more confident. His comments regarding the award of limited costs 'except where a party "has behaved unreasonably"' also encouraged me, as several of the examples of this applied to my experiences with the bank. However, now if my loose understanding of the law is correct, I must wait for the test case to be heard, which could be repeatedly ajourned for some time to come. Assuming the bank lost, for this to become case law, the bank would then need to appeal the decision. If they didn't the decision could not be used by other courts (as with all of the other similar decisions by the the London Mercantile Court. Again this could take forever. It also strikes me that it would not be in the banks' interests to appeal. Only when this was all done and assuming the Office of Fair Trading won, would there be a chance of me getting my money. In order for me to be conpensated for the suffering caused by the various unscrupulous practices A&L have used against me, I would still have to take them to court though. In additional to all of this, I have a brain injury that has left my memory clinically retarded. More often than not, monthly my account is further plundered by A&L for even more charges. As I have pointed out to my bank, there is little or no chance of me maintaining my account in the good order I did before I suffered my disability. Is it me, or is the playing field slightly uneven. I noticed a story in the Yorkshire Post indicating that a court had banned Barclays from levying further charges on a customer in a similar situation pending the outcome of the (potential) test case. This seems a little more even handed approach.:?

Thank you dw190 for such a comprehensive and easy to follow response. Cheers mate!

Good news is that Halifax have now settled and are re-paying the money back onto my account. MBNA (the real one) have now also settled and overpaid me by £5.00. I am assuming that this is a gesture of goodwill rather than an oversight (.... I could be wrong .....). I've now issued a summons against MBNA (Alliance & Leicester). Much more upbeat about this one now, as MBNA(MBNA card) has been settled, so it looks like its not compnay policy to be too difficult (if anyone has a different take on that, please don't burst my bubble). My latest worry is my Alliance & Leicester Current account. I have made a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service that they threatened to close my account if I did not accept an offer of about 30% of the amount I was reclaiming. Their response to the ombudsman has been that they had settled this already, paying a completely different amount. The ombudsman seems to think they have confused my case with that of someone else (and I trust what little money I have with them). That can runs its course though and probably amount to nothing, but i've got it off my chest anyway. My parachute account is poised and ready to bear the weight of my income ... sorry, overdraft. However, I have been served notice that my claim for just over £2700 is being defended by Wragge & Co and that it has been transferred to Lambeth County Court. I got the defense from Wragge and Co a few weeks ago, and although a bit taken back, when I read it, it was clear that it was a template letter that mostly did not relate to anything I was claiming. Having now received the notification of transfer to my local court, I'm a bit jittery. As I mentioned previously in this thread, I have aquired brain injury, and the thought of having to stand up in court and argue for what I believe is rightfully mine is going to be a waking nightmare - the phrase 'car crash TV' springs to mind. My memory is clinically retarded and, as with many people with brain injuries, I suffer from 'use of inappropriate' language. Of course both of these get much worse when I'm nervous. Can anyone advise whether Wragge & Co are likely to show, or am I worrying for nothing. Cheers Steve

Thank for the advice Louis - apologies also for my spelling of 'summons' - oops! I have received a further cheque for £240.00 today from MBNA, in relation to my MBNA card, which I also rejected on the 10th April, following a letter they send on the 4th April. Interestingly, again this letter told me that they would send the cheque within 10 days, which in my book is a late payment. Boot's on the other foot now matey!! I've selected my next letter (thanks Louis) and I'll whack them off this weekend. Halifax only have until tomorrow to file an acknowledgement of my claim for £391.00. i'm assuming that nothing will be processed on a Sunday, and therefore I win by default. Is it really that easy?

I have been working my way quite successfully though the template letters for reclaiming charges from my bank and also a number of credit card companies. I have had an offer slightly below my requested sum from Morgan Stanley. Amex have also made an offer a bit below the amounts I requested for each of my two cards, which in light of a conversation with a very pleasant guy from the company I'm mindful to accept. I have aquired brain injury, following a brain infection a few years ago, leaving me with severe brain damage. My memory is now clinically retarded and my ability to remember anything to do with number, be they PIN numbers, payment dates or anything else, is near to non-existant. Having explained this to the guy at Amex as the reason that my account is no longer kept in perfect order as it was for many years before my disability, he promptly offer to waive all future late payment charges on my account.:grin: My current problem however is with Alliance & Leicester Credit Card Services (run by MBNA). I refused a derisory offer from they made 15 days ago, in which they stated that the would send me a cheque within 10 days. I gave then 7 days to pay up (which ended yesterday) before I issued proceedings. Today I have received the cheque (in full and final settlement) promised within 10 days which I refused. Not sure whether to cash the cheque and issue a summonds for the difference, or sent the cheque back and summods for the whole lot. If anyone can advised I would be very grateful. Cheers Steve