I`m more than happy to wait to wait for the judge to respond. What is bothering me is the fact I have not seen anyone receive the defense I and another person have received. It makes me think with the Test case, have they changed their wording in their defense? Plus what does it all mean and where do I stand???????? Ladidi xoxo

ZootsCoot can you please check out the last page of my Forum. I would appreciate your advice. Many Thanks Ladidi

I forgot to add that I Pmd Gary H in the hope that he will be able to give a reply as I have not seen this kind of defense and as I can gather on here it seems they have issued this to someone else on here too.

Cheers Kia. You know you was saying that the Judge threw out the defense before allocation. Does that mean there is a chance the Judge may do the same and not issue the AQ? So my best bet is to wait and see what the judge has to say once he receives the papers for him to decide what needs to be submitted next? Ladidi

Hiya all I need ya help.. I got my DEFENSE fromt eh Abbey today, Sunderland County court have agreed they have also received theirs. I have asked about filing for abuse of process considering they have no intention of turning up at court. Anyway, here is what it says... 1.2 The Defendents Accounts Conditions will be refered to as the conditions. 1.3 References to an "unauthorised" overdraft are to an over draft permitted by the defendent without prior application and arrangement under clause 6.1 of the conditions. 2 It is admitted the claimant holds an account with the defendant. It is admitted and averred that the contractual provisions between the claimant and the defendant in relation to teh account are set in the conditions. 3 It is denied that those charges are payable and that rate of interest applicable upon customer going into unauthrised overdraft or exceeding an authorised overdraft constitute penalty at common law. it is denied that those charges and that interest is payable on a breach of contract. 4 The true position as follows. 4.1 each and every payment instruction presented by or on behalf of the claimant to the defendant would, if honoured, take the account into unauthorised overdraf or beyond an autherised overdraft, constitued a request (in law, an offer) by the claimant to the defendant for a loan of the requiste 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 claimants offer. 4.4 Accordingly, the claimant beacame bound to pay interest and charges in relation tot he loan at the stipulated rate. 4.5 That liability does not, at common law, constitute 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 unauthrised overdraft or exceeding an authorised overdraft consitiutes breach of contract (for which a customer is liable to pay damages). It is averred that clause 6.3 of the conditions operates a trigger to bring into effect certain provisions of the Conditions. 6 It is denied that those charges are payable upon the defendant dishonouring a payment instruction presented by the claimaint by reason of the state of account (namely that had the defendant honoured the insrtuction in question, it would have taken the account into unauthorised overdraft or beyond an authorised overdraft) constitue a penalty at common law. Such charges are no payable on the breach of contract. They are, by clause 6.4 of the conditions. a Fee. 7 the defendant understands the claimants allegation to be that the fees and interest payable in repsect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft in excess of an authorised overaft and fees in respect of the dishonouring of the payment instructions are not binding and the claimant by reason of regulation 8(1) of the unfair terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. 8 Regulations 6(2) of the regulations provides that: In so far as it is plain intelligible language, the assesment 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 renumeration, as against teh goods or services supplied in exchange 9 Fees and interest payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an ovedraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and fees in respect of dishonouring of payment instruction are (i) set out in plain intelligble language int he conditions, and (ii) ammount to the "price or renumeration" in repsect of the 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 an overdraft in excess of an authorised 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 shedule 2 of the 1999 regulations is applicable. As pleaded above, the fees and interest payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and fees in repsect 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 tot he fees and interest payable in respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an authorised overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and fees in respect of the dishonouring of payment instructions fall to to be assessed for fairness under regulations 1999. The defendants case is as follows. (a) Regulation 5(1) of the 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 as presently relevant) that : "the fairness of the contractual term shall be assesed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was conluded and by refering, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion 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 defendants charges and interest rates are published and provided to its customers from time to time and are expressed in clear language; (ii) the occuring 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 claimants actions: and (iii) the defendants charges and interest t=rates are not, in teh circumstances, excessive in relation tot eh value of the services provided in relation thereto. (d) The defendant reserves the right to the 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 Saves as expressly plead above, each and every alleagation contained in the particulars of claim is denied as if teh same were individually traversed. Signed Willem Basson Ok Guys and Gals.. What can i do now?????? I spoke to the court and they said AQ will be sent out, I asked about filing for Abuse of process???? Any advise please..A.S.A.P Many thanks Ladidi

James, the reply was my own personal opinion. What you could do is ask one of MODs or someone who knows more than me. I maybe wrong, but the Abbey being Abbey. I wouldn't hold your breath into getting the answer you would like..The Abbey only dish out answers that suit them and not the other way round..

The courts told me they until Monday. OS I`ll have to wait till Tuesday Mroning before I file for my WIN...Hopefully I`ll file my BIG WIN come Saturday or Sunday Morning Sure I`ll send some ya way...I gotta win it first

James, My understanding is that if the Abbey made you an offer and you rejected it and said more or less I`ll see you in court and now due toe OFT annoucement you want to accept that offer. I`m afraid they are right in telling you that it has been withdrawn. Its a case of once you get an offer and you reject you cant go back and say I would like that offer that I rejected. I am in the same boat. Shortly before they annoucement, they offered me £4k, I refused thinking, na I`ll go to court get my money will all be over by Sept. Then the annoucement was made. Too late to do anything about it then. Which makes me thing the Abbey were offering settlement well below what you are claiming knowing that you were gonna reject and knowing that they and OFT had this big annoucement up their sleeve.

Congratulations....I first applied for my bank statements back in August last year and it took them til Feb to send them and When finally got them I am now in the process of taking them to court..Abbey have said they will defend, but the way I see it they have nothing to defend!!!!!! They have until Monday to file it, if they dont I will go for payment and if they counter it I will them file for abuse of process.. Either way I`m praying I`m gonna be a winner too

Or, they will just put out message via their websites and in thei banks to state that if you gonna claim back your bank charges, please be aware we will not be dealing with it until the outcome of the test case.. That way they save a fortune and dont have to pay for staff... Lets face is ...BANKS like to TAKE IT!!!!!! NOT....GIVE IT BACK!!!!!!! and laying off the workforce and stopping overtime is one way for them to make sure they are still keeping hold of their...UN EARNED INCOME!!!!!! Which is what I think I`m gonna call their fleecing bank charges from now.. THE UK BANKS UN EARNED INCOME..YOU EARN IT WE TAKE IT!!!!!!

I phone Sunderland County Court today before I went to work praying for a miracle and so far I`m getting it. She said they are dealing with claims as they were before the annoucement I asked her to check if they had filed their defence so far. She came back with NOTHING as of yet!!!! I`m still smiling and praying and hoping Oh I think I`m gunna win LOTTO this weekend...LOL

Hiya ICY hun...I hope for you it is a means to an end!!! God knows you and the rest of us are hoping for the same thing these days!!! Let me know how you get on ;-) Ladidi

Oh I think it took them all of 5 SECONDS!!!!! not much when it compares to how much people are losing every day We have until Monday for them to come back and say they are defending or they do nothing at all!!!!!! Well heres hoping huh... I sure as hell it comes back and they have forgotton..I`m praying for end to this with a WIN on the grounds of abuse of process! grrrrrrrrrr I`m tired and fed up of the whole damn world today, all they seem to care about is money and more of it and they dont care if they have to screw the likes of us to get it...

There is an apparent message from the Governement about the petition that has been drawn up and by my understanding has over 9000 signatures.. http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page11950.asp Go take a a look, same usual babbble the Governement spews when the people want something from the people we put in power. Goes to show they all stand on their soap boxes and make false promises everytime they open their mouths...

LMAO, no I wish I had!!!! I have just put this posting on Matin Lewis Website too... I just felt like YELLING!!!!!!! and added a bit of a ryme to it too... I`m hoping I dont get into bother with it tho...LOL

Come on PEOPLE POWER, get behind us all put ya name on this petition The more people that sign this the more they will sit up and take notice of the PEOPLE !!!!!!! The following petition has been put on the government website We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Ensure UK citizens have the right to recapture illegal bank charges up until the day a UK court find them legal. More details Petition to: Ensure UK citizens have the right to recapture illegal bank charges up until the day a UK court find them legal.

Already signed up to that petitiion I added my hubby too As long you get good news hun, cos if you get good news I`m sure to be not far behind

YUP too right...if you beleive in power to the people sign our petition that is advertised on here and state your claims with the big man himself PM Gordon Brown..About time he he put his body where his mouth is and spoke for every little man and woman of "Great Britian" I say great because we are the people behind the word that makes our country so "Great" Without every little man and woman, the higher uppers wouldn't be so higher up..So time to give back your dues to us, or the next time you think your calling the shots. You might come in for shock and find it is the people of "Great Britain" calling the shots!!!!!!!!!! POWER to the PEOPLE = PEOPLE POWER = OUR MONEY AND WE WANT IT BACK!!!!!!!! What do we want?????? PEOPLE POWER!!!!! When do we want it?????? NOW!!!!!!!! What do we want????? OUR MONEY BACK!!!! When do we want it?????? NOW!!!!!!!!!!!

I`d give ya mine to chew, fingers and toes and all. Might get a naughty but nice feeling But i reckon ur other half and mine will have something to say about that lmao Good luck for tomorrow let me know wont ya Ladidi

You know that was good question Caroline. if the banks that have signed up for this Test Case and said all cases will be stayed until the outcome of this, then I agree, all charges they intend to charge the consumer with from now and until the decision should be stayed too. Ladidi

YUP I agree Kia hunny. One things for sure, the banks are loving teh fact that they scaring those already scared stiff and trying or even contemplating to claim back what is rightfully theirs. The abnking industry has been caught bang to rights, and after so many years of getting away with it they should no longer be allowed to do this and they should not be allowed to have this dragged through the courts for the amount of time they are saying. i think the judge should just ask them one question and see if they have a good enough answer for it to be allowed to be dragged out. DO any of you, who signed up for this "Test Case" believe you have a case to answer, and before you answer that, if you believe you do, why? have you shelled out millions already that you judge to be deemed as fair and proportionate within your costs? If they dont have a good enough answer for simplest questions then case closed and save us all a fortune from going down the drain and get the banks to repay whats not theirs but the consumers. They took the money without permission and took it everytime a credit hit the account not caring who paid it in and why, so therefore we dont care they are going to be out of pocket, so pay up and shut up!!!!!

I have signed up to the petition and I signed my hubby too Thats another 2 added. I think the petition would be put to better use if it was put on the main forum where everyone can see and have acess to it. The more the merrier

Woooohoooooooo not long to wait now ICY Unless they finally sent you a nice email offering you full settlement ahead of tomorrow the same as they have been with a few peeps on here. I hope so for your sake and mine

I think what is not helping the most is the fact they are reporting that the test case will take a year or more. To many people that wont make much difference if they are just beginning their claim but to those who have been waiting a while and hoping that they will get some kind of return to pay off debts they have, well its a real bummer I dont think they should be allowed to take a year to decide this. I think and feel that if they have in the past as it proves they have paid out millions already should be in court and asked why they are defending and what they claim to be defending when they have already paid this enormous amount. If they had a case to answer they would not have paid out what they have already. I think and previous actions speak loud enough and the top and bottom of it is, there is no case to answer because if there was, the banks would still be the millions up they have paid out. My own personal view, anyway.

Well done How much was ya claim for?