thanks all. -the £100 paid and further £75 compensation offered - was described as being "in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused". Goodwill gestures? -the correct ROI should have been 8.651% but charged me 9.011% - the simple Int't 8% s/sheet indicates that the combined £175 above exceeds the 8% int by some £60.. I appreciate this is all small fry and am grateful for you taking time to respond.

Thanks both for your responses. FOS believe the offer is fair & reasonable as it stands..though, to date, I have not suggested nor requested their consideration of appropriate interest redress. Your thoughts?

Hello All, some advice requested - please and thank you. long story short - Following SAR, I discovered that the bank had applied an incorrect rate of interest to a loan i took out way back in 2002 (i had thought the "extra" was due to PPI). After an amount of to-ing and fro-ing bank rejected PPI had been included. Bank argued re the "extra" monthly repayment amounts but paid £100 for distress and inconvenience directly into my account and advised me to contact FOS if not happy. Matter therefore promptly referred to FOS. The bank now agrees that the 16 monthly repayment amounts were incorrect and have offered to refund the overpayments ONLY with an additional £75 for distress and inconvenience. Question - is this offer fair and reasonable? i.e. no offer of interest % repayment- be it statutory 8% and/or other related and claimable interest...and on what substantiated basis could one put forward an argument for repayment? I have to respond to this offer within a matter a days and thus it would be marvellous to hear from you all in due course. Many thanks indeed.

Thanks PM and DS for your advice. I am NOT 100% sure that it is indeed a "bulk" hearing. I think someone suggested in earlier posts that it could be the case. My fiancee now recalls a telephone conversation (earlier this week) with an admin gentleman at Central London CC who advised that the file is still with the judge. Another phone call later a few days later and a different admin chap at the same court then advised that according to their computer records the hearing is a "directions hearing". So it seems like we need to prepare for a "directions" hearing, bearing in mind our case is for just over £11k & involves charges pre 6yrs?? Advice please? Please point us in the right direction re: "directions" hearing preparations. To err on the side of caution i guess we really ought to prepare the court bundle? But if it is likely that the judge will just "stay" the case then it seems a ridiculous waste of everybody's time turning up only to be told that the matter is to be "stayed" Thanks to all again. S9

Dear All, We have today received from SC&M a "skeleton argument on behalf of the defendant" which basically requests a stay until the resolution of the proceedings commenced by the OFT. In all probability it seems that a stay will in fact be granted during this upcoming hearing. What is annoying is that we will have to arrange time off work to attend the hearing, only to be told that the matter will be stayed. Edmonton CC had already stayed the matter anyway??!!?? Further, despite numerous calls to the Central London CC, we have been unable to ascertain the exact reason for the hearing and hence, we do not have the foggiest idea, as to: a)how to properly prepare; b)what documentation we ought to provide. Any ideas/thoughts/advice? Cheers, S9

Hi DS and everyone else, Yes I do support Spurs...always have...always will... good result today vs Man City. Anyway, we are still trying to obtain a definitive reason for the hearing. I will post once we get this confirmed. However, the hearing is listed for 4th January 2008 at 2:00pm...Does this confirm the "bulk hearing" theory? Any thoughts/comments? We really want to attend fully prepared hence the need to ascertain the exact reason for the hearing. I will post again once I hear further from Central London Civil Justice Centre. Best regards to all, S9

Hello DS, Very interesting!!...a block hearing?? the plot thickens!...but what exactly is the reason for the "block hearing"? We also opposed the stay (at Edmonton CC),but not on hardship grounds as you did, but on the other grounds as per the helpful advice on this site. Then we were advised that the stay had been granted...then the case was transferred to Central London CC...then an allocated date for a hearing...we are still unclear as to the reason for our hearing and will speak to the court in the next few days in an attempt to obtain some clarification. Regards, Spurs9

Hi Els, Thanks for your message. Yep, I am being a bit paranoid in omitting the date and time. I guess you're right and will therefore leave it for a few days, then contact the court again for clarification. Regards, Spurs9

"Bump"

An update....we have just received a "Notice of Hearing" wording as follows: TAKE NOTICE that the Hearing will take place on .. January 2008 at ..:..PM at Central London County Court, Civil Justice Centre, 26 Park Crescent, London W1N 1HT When you should attend 1 HOUR has been allowed for the Hearing Please Note: This case may be released to another Judge, possibly at a different Court. This Notice does not give anymore information and as a result we are a bit flummoxed as to what the exact purposes of this "Hearing" is. Presumably it is a directions hearing-but the case had already been "stayed" by Edmonton County Court (ECC)??!!?? We rang Central London County Court (CLCC) who advised that they still await the paperwork from (ECC) and therefore could not tell us the reason for this hearing. We are claiming contractual interest+charges incurred over 6 six years ago. We will leave it a few days and ring CLCC again and hopefully they would have received the paperwork. Seems strange that a Notice of Hearing could be issued without the case file having being transferred (altough we were told over a month ago that this case was being transferred to CLCC) - see General Form of Judgement or Order issued by ECC during mid-Oct 2007 as detailed in 1st post. Not sure what is going on here and would dearly appreciate your thoughts/comments/advice. Possibly a good time to nudge SCM, or leave things as is? Thanks, Spurs

Many thanks indeed Photoman for your comprehensive response. I will PM one of the mods as suggested. Will keep all updated.

We are looking for some advice please. We have today received a General Form of Judgement or Order from the Edmonton County Court stating: "Upon the Courts own motion. The court has made this order of its own initiative without a hearing. If you object to the order, you must make an application to have it set aside varied or stayed within 7 days of receiving it. IT IS ORDERED - This case be transferred to Central london County Court.... for consideration of His Honour Judge Collins CBE" The last we knew was that this matter was stayed due to the test case. Now all of a sudden we receive a letter instructing us that the case has been trasferred. It seems quite out of the blue and a bit of a surprise. The case is for £11k+. Any thoughts? Should we apply to have it set aside varied or stayed or shall we just accept this and wait for the "Test Case" result? Regards, Spurs.

Edmonton County Court IS PROCEEDING with my Credit Card claim, which has been allocated to the small claims track. The hearing is scheduled for 7 December 2007.

Edmonton County Court has stayed claim. General Form of Judgment or Order received today stating: "It is ordered that the claim is stayed pending decision of the high court in the case of OFT v Abbey National PLC and other"

Thanks for your assistance, H! Spurs9

Thanks H. gosh, you were up early today! Yes, we pinched bits and pieces from letters posted on this most excellent site.Thanks to all involved. All the loans are closed. Should our acceptance (as part settlement) of their 2nd goodwill offer include any language insisting they stand by their original offer (contract law-offer made, & accepted in good faith etc)? The 1st offer would have paid off debts, accumulated as a result of LloydsTSB expensive/ineffective PPI & LloydsTSB bank charges during student days. Or, should we just keep it simple...i.e...accept as part settlement (by a cheque being issued and forwarded immediately) with further 14 days to issue another chq for balance? After 14 days then court action. Any suggestions for wording of this next LBA? Is it also worth a telephone call to LloydsTSB to express our disgust that they have gone back on their word due to their own admitted mistakes? Many thanks indeed, Spurs9

Hiya H, just pm'd you again...rather long read (sorry)... Would appreciate your thoughts once you have had a chance to review. cheers, Spurs9

Dear Hellhas, sorry to jump in on this thread. I have pm'd you and reidnet asking for your advice; start of my thread is: Lloy dsTSB-RENEGE on their initial PPI Refund offer Again, sorry to hijack this thread. Spurs9

Dear Reidnet and Hellhas, I have just pm'd you both. Lloyds TSB made an initial offer of settlement which they have now retracted, and then made a second, less attractive, offer. Full details in my pm to you both. Your urgent advice would be very much appreciated. Kind regards, Spurs9

Bump

Any advice re above please?

Hi all, At the stage of completing the N149 AQ (vs Barclaycard) and need some advice. Could someone please confirm: 1)that I can use the new more aggressive strategy for the AQ against a credit card i.e.Barclaycard? 2) if so then: i) are there any sections that need to be amended? ii) do we still attach and refer to the Lincoln County court order (even though this specifically relates to LloydsTSB). iii)any other points we need to be wary of? I spent a lot of time reading this thread and cannot seem to find the specific answers to my queries as above (i may have overlooked by mistake) and would appreciate any help. Kind regards, Spurs9

Bump

Phew! Thanks Bookworm. In the interim do I proceed submit the completed AQ (N149) as per CAG normal recommended procedure, and then just wait for the judge to later, come back to us about the unsigned POC? The AQ has to be submitted by 20th Aug 07. Thanks again for your prompt response. Spurs9

Hi all, We have just received B'Card's defence and the AQ (N149) to complete. The defence is the standard B'card defence, BUT, point 2. states: "The Particulars of Claim are not verified by a signed statement of truth. The Statement of Case would appear to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings and does not comply with CPR r16.2.8 The Defendant respectfully requests an order that the claim be struck out" It appears that we have not signed and dated the POC. Is this a major error? Can we re-print a new POC then sign and date it(today's date-or back date it?) and then attach it to the completed N149 (noting the attached POC in Section G - Other Information of the N149)? Any advice would be appreciated as we are very worried that we may have badly slipped up. Thanks in advance. Spurs9