Hi Ims21 Thanks for replying so quickly Is there another tack - the bank in question have taken a long time to respond to the PPI complaint, so I can go to the Ombudsman. Could I ask the Ombudsman to consider specific bank charges as well? It wouldn't be all of them, but it would be a start... Does anyone else have any thoughts on this or am I clutching at straws? keytar

Hi, I have a stayed bank charges case. The same bank also mis-sold me PPI and are paying out for that. If I can show that the bank charges were in part caused by the level of repayment to the Loan would I have a new angle to restart the Bank Charges case? Has anyone else tried this? I remember hearing that we now needed to go after specific charges on an individual basis rather than the previous approach. What do you think?

Hi - I have a case with Abbey (cahoot) too, stayed since late 2008. I posted their defense here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/145013-keytar-abbey-abbey-nationals.html

Abbey met my total claim amount of £1750 with a cheque sent 2 weeks before the hearing (this was their 4th offer) and I'm waiting to see if I'll get the hearing fee refunded. I calculated daily interest and added the court interest to both the claim and the interest I thought they'd charged me. I haven't really posted much about this claim but can give more details if you need.

one more question if you have time - I'd sent them a part 18 request for clarification of their defence requiring them to respond within 14 days - they wrote back saying they would not because of the Stay - can I act on this deadline or should I clarify that they should have 2 weeks after the stay is lifted?

would they have to win the case, or could the the court award these costs even if They settled or I won?

thanks tomterm8, it would be small claim as it is for about £2k. The other claim which got a hearing was for for 7k which might be why, although I was still asked to fill out an N149 in which I indicated that small claims would be the most appropriate.

Hi, things are quiet in the stays forum so I hope you don't mind me asking here: In the last couple of weeks I made an N244 application to remove the stay that had just been ordered on my case Keytar vs Abbey. Abbey wrote asking me to withdrawn my application or they would seek their costs from me if I failed to get the stay lifted at the hearing. Is this possible and what chances are there I would have to pay their costs? I applied for the stay to be lifted because a bank charges claim I issued on the same day has not been stayed but given a hearing in september to decide if a stay should be ordered and thought both cases should be treated the same way. So should I withdraw the application or press ahead and give it a go? I've already paid the fee.

I'm still not quite sure about this, but Abbey (Cahoot Credit Card) also referenced this document that the post refers to. ("Calculating fair default charges in credit card contracts" by the OFT 2006). Their letter told me that charges of £12 had been "recommended" by the OFT which I thought was really cheeky and definitely a distortion of what this document says. It consistently says that the OFT has decided to expend resources on taking legal action against credit card issuers with charges set above £12, and that only a court can decide what is fair even if the charges are below this level. If they refer to the document then it must be current. There is paragraph at toward end about Disguised Penalties, and if a court where to find a bank has done this then they would be in trouble. As I understand it from Bankfodders post, disguising a penalty must amount to a concealment and therefore they lose the protection of the Limitation Act, and anyone can claim beyond 6 years. That is just my understanding from what I have read on this site.

I could really do with some thoughts on what to do next (2 questions): - I just submitted an N244 to appeal the recent stay in my claim against Abbey and attached a slightly modified version of the http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/17065-application-removal-stay.html and a list of 106 settled Abbey cases as well as 1300 others. - I also submitted a part 18 request for clarification of their defence http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/111050-abbeys-new-no-breach.html Abbey have written back saying that: - if I do not withdraw my application to remove the stay, and if the stay remains after a hearing, then they would ask the court for their costs. - they are not going to answer the part 18 request because of the stay. So, should I: - withdraw the stay application because (do) I risk having to pay their costs? - continue to try to get their defence struck out for not providing the part 18 clarification or will this not work because of the OFT case/stay?

Hi animal_lover, I'd like to know this too. I've just got to the point where I'm expecting a hearing date and I've also just recieved an offer for half of the claim - which I've rejected. Some of the charges I'm claiming are beyond 6 years and the credit card issuer has pointed this out. This is the only post I can find about it: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/81799-issues-raised-llloyds-bank.html So I have sent them a copy of the OFT document (as well as to the court) pointing out this paragraph and I'll see what happens.

No replies but I thought I should let you know this was my next step as it did seem to be business as usual: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/111050-abbeys-new-no-breach.html

I didn't get any replies but I thought I should share what I decided to use in the end on the N149: On the form: Please find the following attached to this questionnaire: 1) Section G - Other Information 2) Draft Order for Directions These Attachments were sent to the Defendant on XXXX As an attachment stapled to the Allocation Questionnaire: XXXX-v- Abbey National Plc Claim No: Date N149 Allocation Questionnaire Section G - other information I should like to re-iterate that this case is in relation to Credit Card Charges and not Bank Charges. The court should note that the test case initiated by the OFT, Claim No. 2007 Folio 1186, clearly states it is testing the law in relation to current account overdraft charges, and not credit card charges. No credit card issuer has been acted against by the OFT in this test case. Details of OFT claim – “The OFT has initiated an investigation under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 into the fairness or otherwise for the purposes of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 of certain terms contained in each Defendant Bank’s personal current account arrangements providing for charges to be imposed upon customers who seek to make payments for which they do not have available funds.” If the court is in agreement, it is respectfully suggested that special directions may be given as per the attached draft order. I believe the proposed directions will further the Overriding Objectives in that they identify the most fundamental issues in dispute, and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously. If the Defendant has the serious intention of defending this claim at trial as is indicated by its defence, I would contend that it is incumbent upon it to disclose such information. Further, the proposed directions are now routinely ordered in claims of this nature in the Mercantile Court in London, as well as in small claims track cases in Leicester, Derby, Chesterfield, Northampton and Mansfield County Courts. As the law relating to contractual penalties is long established, I believe the outstanding issues to be of fact. Accordingly, I would respectfully request that this claim is allocated to the small claims track, and estimate that the hearing of the claim should last no longer than one hour. In the XXXX County Court Claim number: XXXXX Between XXXXX and Abbey National - Defendant Draft Order for Directions: The Claimant shall within 14 days of service of this order send to the Defendant and to the Court: a) A schedule setting out each charge repayment of which is sought, showing the date, amount, and reason given (if any) for that charge being made; b) Copies of any statement or other document relied upon as showing that each and every charge has been made; c) A statement of evidence of all matters relied upon as tending to show that the charges are irrecoverable as penalties or otherwise; d) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon. If the Claimant fails to comply with this order, the claim will be struck out without further order. 2. The Defendant shall within 14 days thereafter file and serve a response to the Claimant's schedule, stating in respect of each item claimed; a) Pursuant to what contractual provision such charge was made, producing a copy of the contractual document relied upon; b) Whether such charge is accepted to be a penalty, and if not why not; c) If such charge is alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions (whether or not such action is treated as a breach of contract between the parties), all facts and matters intended to be relied upon as showing that such was a proper estimate of such loss, and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to what the true cost of dealing with the matter was; d) If such charge is not alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions then facts and matters intended to be relied upon showing the basis upon which the charge was calculated and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to show that the charge was fair and reasonable. e) Any witness statements f) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon. If the Defendant fails to comply with this order, the Defence will be struck out without further order.

I didn't get any replies but I thought I should share what I decided to use in the end: On the form: Please find the following attached to this questionnaire: 1) Section G - Other Information 2) Draft Order for Directions These Attachments were sent to the Defendant on XXXX As an attachment stapled to the Allocation Questionnaire: XXXX-v- Abbey National Plc Claim No: Date N149 Allocation Questionnaire Section G - other information I should like to re-iterate that this case is in relation to Credit Card Charges and not Bank Charges. The court should note that the test case initiated by the OFT, Claim No. 2007 Folio 1186, clearly states it is testing the law in relation to current account overdraft charges, and not credit card charges. No credit card issuer has been acted against by the OFT in this test case. Details of OFT claim – “The OFT has initiated an investigation under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 into the fairness or otherwise for the purposes of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 of certain terms contained in each Defendant Bank’s personal current account arrangements providing for charges to be imposed upon customers who seek to make payments for which they do not have available funds.” If the court is in agreement, it is respectfully suggested that special directions may be given as per the attached draft order. I believe the proposed directions will further the Overriding Objectives in that they identify the most fundamental issues in dispute, and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously. If the Defendant has the serious intention of defending this claim at trial as is indicated by its defence, I would contend that it is incumbent upon it to disclose such information. Further, the proposed directions are now routinely ordered in claims of this nature in the Mercantile Court in London, as well as in small claims track cases in Leicester, Derby, Chesterfield, Northampton and Mansfield County Courts. As the law relating to contractual penalties is long established, I believe the outstanding issues to be of fact. Accordingly, I would respectfully request that this claim is allocated to the small claims track, and estimate that the hearing of the claim should last no longer than one hour. In the XXXX County Court Claim number: XXXXX Between XXXXX and Abbey National - Defendant Draft Order for Directions: The Claimant shall within 14 days of service of this order send to the Defendant and to the Court: a) A schedule setting out each charge repayment of which is sought, showing the date, amount, and reason given (if any) for that charge being made; b) Copies of any statement or other document relied upon as showing that each and every charge has been made; c) A statement of evidence of all matters relied upon as tending to show that the charges are irrecoverable as penalties or otherwise; d) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon. If the Claimant fails to comply with this order, the claim will be struck out without further order. 2. The Defendant shall within 14 days thereafter file and serve a response to the Claimant's schedule, stating in respect of each item claimed; a) Pursuant to what contractual provision such charge was made, producing a copy of the contractual document relied upon; b) Whether such charge is accepted to be a penalty, and if not why not; c) If such charge is alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions (whether or not such action is treated as a breach of contract between the parties), all facts and matters intended to be relied upon as showing that such was a proper estimate of such loss, and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to what the true cost of dealing with the matter was; d) If such charge is not alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions then facts and matters intended to be relied upon showing the basis upon which the charge was calculated and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to show that the charge was fair and reasonable. e) Any witness statements f) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon. If the Defendant fails to comply with this order, the Defence will be struck out without further order.

Should I appeal the stay? I submitted both claims on the same date this year at Croydon, and on the same day recieved letters ordering an indefinite stay in my claim against Abbey, and a hearing date for my claim against Lloyds. I've heard it is £35 to apply for the stay to be lifted - should I try? The Lloyds claim is nearly identical (just different value and statements but same argument) and I have a hearing date to see if a stay should be ordered or if the case can proceed. I thought the order was unfair because it makes it my responsibility to notify the court of the implications of the test case to get it going again: QUOTED TEXT: IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1 . The Claim be stayed until further order to await the decision in the test case, which shall be interpreted to include the outcome of any final appeal or the expiry of time for permission to appeal the first instance decision. 2. The Defendant shall within 28 days of the fianl decision in the test case file at Court and serve on the Claimant a case summary of not more than 500 words setting out the effect of the decision in the test case in relation to this particular claim and their proposed directions. 3. Upon filing of the documents set out in paragraph 2 above, the file be referred forthwith to a resident District Judge to consider directions. so should I try to get the stay lifted - or could I try and get the order changed to a finite amount of time?

Hi all, I've just got Abey's defence for my claim against Cahoot Credit Card charges from the court and now have to fill out an Allocation Questionnaire by Friday. I thought I'd post their defence as it is different to the one I had from them for my bank account. Can anyone help me with what I should put in the allocation questionnaire (G extra information bit)? I've already done this for bank charges and wondered if it would be different and whether the draft order would still apply? They state in 13 that the burden of proof of each charge has to be provided by me, so do I need to provide more evidence than the list of charges I have already submitted? and in 11 say i need to provide more detail on my wasted costs so I'm assuming I should include my detailed time/activity log? Is there anything else I should watch out for? they say that the charges aren't penalties, that the Regulations don't apply and that the charges were fair and proportionate to their costs. I assume it is therefore a case of showing they do apply and asking them to demonstrate the charges were proportional to their costs? Thanks for reading in advance! BETWEEN: Keytar -and- ABBEY NATIONAL PLC T/A CAHOOT --------- DEFENCE --------- 1 Save as specifically admitted in this Defence, the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the particulars of claim. 2 It is admitted that the Claimant had a credit card account with the Defendant, numbered XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (¨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 obtained the Account. Fees applied as a ¨Penalty¨ 4 It is denied that the amounts debited to the Account constituted a ¨penalty¨ as is claimed by the Claimant. All fees and charges are imposed by virtue of the Conditions and the particulars of the applicable fees and charges were provided by the claimant. 5 The fees and charges applied to the Account were imposed for specific services provided by the Defendant. For example, the Claimant was at all times aware that he would be charged a fee should he choose not to make the monthly payment. The claimant was entitled to not make a payment in accordance with the Conditions. However, as the Claimant was aware that fees would be payable should they choose not to do so, the Calimant's contention that the said fees are unenforceable and/or are ¨penalty charges¨ is denied. 6 In addition, the fees and charges cannot be said to be penalties as they represent and are proportionate to the Defendant's administrative expenses incurred due to the Claimant's purported breach of the Conditions and are a genuine pre-estimate of the damage/costs suffered by the Defendant. 7 Further, or in the alternative, even if the said fees are not proportionate to the Defendant's expenses incurred (which is denied), the Claimant remains liable to pay suc 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. Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 8 The fees and charges applied to the Account were fair and reasonable and not rendered unlawful by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (¨Regulations¨). The sums applied by the Defendant constitute the price payable by a consumer for the services provided. On this basis, they are excluded from any consideration of ¨fairness¨ by virtue of Regulation 6 of the Regulations. 9 In the event that the Regulations do apply and teh fees and charges were subject to an assessment, the fees and charges would not automatically be deemed unfair. The whole of teh circumstances whereby the Claimant agreed to take out the Account will need to be taken into consideration. ¨Cost of Time¨ 10 In paragraph 19(5) of teh Particulars of Claim the Claimant claims £XXX for ¨wasted costs¨ in relation to preparing this claim. 11 The Defendant contends that paragraph 19(5) of the Particulars of Claim is insufficiently particularies in relation to how the purported losses have been calculated, merely stating that XX hours of time has been expended conducting research and preparation in relation to this claim at a rate of £XX per hour. 12 The Defendant avers that there is simply no legal basis for the Claimant to rely upon to claim such purported lost time as damages. Part 24.14(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (Small Claims) states that ¨the court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party's costs, fees and expenses¨. Accordingly, the Defendant avers that there is no legal basis for such costs as damages. 13. No admissions are made as to the amounts claimed by the Defendant and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the same. 14. For the reasons above, the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief sought or any relief. The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true etc etc etc. any comments or advice would be much appreciated

Should I appeal the stay? I submitted both claims on the same date this year at Croydon, and on the same day recieved letters ordering an indefinite stay in my claim against Abbey, and a hearing date for my claim against Lloyds. I've heard it is £35 to apply for the stay to be lifted - should I try? The Lloyds claim is nearly identical (just different value and statements but same argument) and I have a hearing date to see if a stay should be ordered or if the case can proceed. I thought the order was unfair because it makes it my responsibility to notify the court of the implications of the test case to get it going again: QUOTED TEXT: IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1 . The Claim be stayed until further order to await the decision in the test case, which shall be interpreted to include the outcome of any final appeal or the expiry of time for permission to appeal the first instance decision. 2. The Defendant shall within 28 days of the fianl decision in the test case file at Court and serve on the Claimant a case summary of not more than 500 words setting out the effect of the decision in the test case in relation to this particular claim and their proposed directions. 3. Upon filing of the documents set out in paragraph 2 above, the file be referred forthwith to a resident District Judge to consider directions. so should I try to get the stay lifted - or can I try and get the order changed to a finite amount of time?

Thanks majik - hope someone has done this before...

Hi all, I've just got Abey's defence for my claim against Cahoot Credit Card charges from the court and now have to fill out an Allocation Questionnaire. I thought I'd post their defence as it is different to the one I had from them for my bank account. Can anyone help me with what I should put in the allocation questionnaire (G extra information bit)? I've already done this for bank charges and wondered if it would be different and whether the draft order would still apply? They state in 13 that the burden of proof of each charge has to be provided by me, so do I need to provide more evidence than the list of charges I have already submitted? and in 11 say i need to provide more detail on my wasted costs so I'm assuming I should include my detailed time/activity log? Is there anything else I should watch out for? they say that the charges aren't penalties, that the Regulations don't apply and that the charges were fair and proportionate to their costs. I assume it is therefore a case of showing they do apply and asking them to demonstrate the charges were proportional to their costs? Thanks for reading in advance! BETWEEN: Keytar -and- ABBEY NATIONAL PLC T/A CAHOOT --------- DEFENCE --------- 1 Save as specifically admitted in this Defence, the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the particulars of claim. 2 It is admitted that the Claimant had a credit card account with the Defendant, numbered XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (¨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 obtained the Account. Fees applied as a ¨Penalty¨ 4 It is denied that the amounts debited to the Account constituted a ¨penalty¨ as is claimed by the Claimant. All fees and charges are imposed by virtue of the Conditions and the particulars of the applicable fees and charges were provided by the claimant. 5 The fees and charges applied to the Account were imposed for specific services provided by the Defendant. For example, the Claimant was at all times aware that he would be charged a fee should he choose not to make the monthly payment. The claimant was entitled to not make a payment in accordance with the Conditions. However, as the Claimant was aware that fees would be payable should they choose not to do so, the Calimant's contention that the said fees are unenforceable and/or are ¨penalty charges¨ is denied. 6 In addition, the fees and charges cannot be said to be penalties as they represent and are proportionate to the Defendant's administrative expenses incurred due to the Claimant's purported breach of the Conditions and are a genuine pre-estimate of the damage/costs suffered by the Defendant. 7 Further, or in the alternative, even if the said fees are not proportionate to the Defendant's expenses incurred (which is denied), the Claimant remains liable to pay suc 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. Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 8 The fees and charges applied to the Account were fair and reasonable and not rendered unlawful by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (¨Regulations¨). The sums applied by the Defendant constitute the price payable by a consumer for the services provided. On this basis, they are excluded from any consideration of ¨fairness¨ by virtue of Regulation 6 of the Regulations. 9 In the event that the Regulations do apply and teh fees and charges were subject to an assessment, the fees and charges would not automatically be deemed unfair. The whole of teh circumstances whereby the Claimant agreed to take out the Account will need to be taken into consideration. ¨Cost of Time¨ 10 In paragraph 19(5) of teh Particulars of Claim the Claimant claims £XXX for ¨wasted costs¨ in relation to preparing this claim. 11 The Defendant contends that paragraph 19(5) of the Particulars of Claim is insufficiently particularies in relation to how the purported losses have been calculated, merely stating that XX hours of time has been expended conducting research and preparation in relation to this claim at a rate of £XX per hour. 12 The Defendant avers that there is simply no legal basis for the Claimant to rely upon to claim such purported lost time as damages. Part 24.14(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (Small Claims) states that ¨the court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party's costs, fees and expenses¨. Accordingly, the Defendant avers that there is no legal basis for such costs as damages. 13. No admissions are made as to the amounts claimed by the Defendant and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the same. 14. For the reasons above, the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief sought or any relief. The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true etc etc etc. any comments or advice would be much appreciated - I'll be checking back if you want to chat

...

Hi - I filled my N1 a week or so ago for bank charges and have just recieved Abbey's defence. I typed it out to fully understand it, and thought you guys might be interested. The big question is: Is this the same as what you've got? If it has changed what do I need to look out for? Thanks in advance and hope this is useful..... In the XXXXX County Court Between: XXXXX Claimant - and - ABBEY NATIONAL PLC Defendant DEFENCE INTRODUCTION 1) In this Defence: a) The Defendant’s Account Conditions will be referred to as “the Conditions” b) 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, account number 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 an 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: a) 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 Defendant’s usual terms as to such overdrafts as at the date of the payment instruction in question). b) The Defendant was free to accept or reject each such request. c) If the Defendant honoured the payment instruction in question, the Defendant thereby accepted the Claimant’s offer. d) Accordingly, The Claimant became bound to pay interest and charges in relation to that loan at the stipulated rate. e) 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 unauthorised overdraft constitutes a breach 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 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 and 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) The Regulations, by regulation 1, came into force on 1 October 1999 and are of no application to any event occurring before that date. 9) Regulation 6(2) of the 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 gods or services supplied in exchange.” 10) 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 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. 11) 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 the dishonouring payment instructions are not liable to be assessed for fairness under those regulations. 12) 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 in respect of the dishonouring payment instructions are not payable on a breach of contract by the Claimant. 13) Alternatively, if (contrary to the Defendant’s 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 in respect of the dishonouring payment instructions fall to be assessed for fairness under the the 1999 Regulations, the Defendant’s 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 as 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 contact, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all other items of the contract….” c) It is denied that the Conditions breach the 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 respect of an unauthorised overdraft and an overdraft in excess of an authorised overdraft and in respect of the dishonouring 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. 14) 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 etc… thanks for reading - so it this business as usual ?

any help would be great!: I've filed my N1 against Lloyds to claim back my bank charges and interest. I went for Croydon and i've had a letter from them last week saying that the bank has received my claim with an N205 form stapled to one of my N1 copies. I was a bit confused about the N205 Request for Judgment form - should I return it straight away or 2 weeks after the claim was served on the bank? Also I've just opened a letter from Lloyds' Solicitors which says they have written to the court asking for a stay - which I was expecting. In their letter they invite me to also write to them and the court: " In light of the above (the OFT case), we have today written to the Court asking for a 'stay' until the resolution of the bank's proceedings with the OFT. As a result, we would be most grateful if you would confirm, in writing to us and the Court, whether or not you are in agreement to a stay of these proceedings" but I was wondering if this was the same procedure everyone else had experienced recently and what the best response would be to stop the Court staying the claim? Thanks