Oh - yes, something else! The judge knew of this website and referred to it. I told him it was a huge site and not only dealt with issues of bank charges but all manner of consumer support and advice. He sounded really impressed and I had the feeling he was so interested in it, he might look at it as well.

We've gone through the usual faff to get to the point where most other financial institutions realise they're losing a lot of money and settle..... not CITI. Anyway, we were given a date for an 'allocation hearing' (yesterday) which allows the judge to meet the parties involved and decide whether or not to pop your case into the fast-track, which requires full disclosure, etc. Naturally, we want to keep our claim in the small tracks court, as, after we received CITI's offer of the difference between their original charges and £12, my husbands is a couple of hundred quid and mine is about £800 and we don't fancy incurring large legal costs. Crazy. This is what happened:- The allocation hearing was 2pm and firstly, the judge was a district judge - name of AYERS. WHAT A NICE MAN. Complete gentleman. He was so reassuring and relaxed and seemed chuffed when I asked if we were going to have him for the actual hearing - he said 98% probability. Said these cases were the talk of the circuit, ie "I've got 54 to do today, how many have you got?" He told me that out of all the cases he was due to do that day - they all settled - he said the financial institutions just do not want to go to court. Full stop. Only CITI were left standing and I sensed he was completely at a loss as to why they were - ie they were completely daft. Their legal rep didn't turn up and he told us they had written to him informing him they were going to full contest it. He said they have quoted a case in which they won. I said "Yes, that's Kissick - I know the guy involved quite well". He looked down at the paper and looked up over his glasses, smiled and said, "Yes, that's right!" He sounded impressed! He then said "And .... so what? These cases do not set a precedent. We only listen to Court of Appeal cases". I could have hugged him. He checked with us whether we were broke (we said not, even tho' that's not quite true - I think he would have brought the case forward otherwise) and were there any dates we couldn't do for the hearing, such as skiing hols ?!!!!!!!!!! He has allocated us 3 hours hearing as he said if CITI bring all their fancy solicitors, press, etc - he didn't want to have to interrupt the hearing. He said we were the first in Bedford to get this far with CITI. Gulp. So, there's the low-down, folks. For those folks who are facing any kind of court scenario - don't forget that these are not the criminal courts, ie magistrates - these are the courts where family matters are dealt with, etc and are v. reassuring places. No frightening security or oiks hanging around in the corridors. We had two v. nice old boys who were the ushers - even joked they make cups of tea for people sometimes!

YAY 40Bear !!! Got your PM ! Well done. My goodness - it seems the only cases being heard this afternoon will be for CITI. They are spending a fortune in legal fees, I'm sure trying to defend themselves when all their fellow financial institutions are seeing the light! So, unfortunately, as a claimer against CITI, I'll still be going to Bedford Court this afternoon. Will report back....

Good luck with your claim. Citi are not the easiest lot to crack and have proved to be pretty devious but there is extraordinary help in this site - particularly on this forum, so keep taking heart by reading these threads. Hopefully, by the time you get to the point where you're facing court, us lot before you will have cracked their dodgy defence. BTW, don't get too hung up on their figures and facts that they state - nearly everyone have found they make mistakes in their defences, from still owing money to them, still holding a valid account, to wrong amounts owing and claiming they've sent part-payments when they haven't. Some people fear they do this deliberately to faze you. No, they're just extremely inefficient (hope you're reading this, Brian and I look forward to meeting your lackeys over a cup of tea and biscuits with the judge next week). R xxxxxxxx

Hi 'Bedford Court guys' I haven't even started on the reasons why I want to put it onto the small claims track. This week has been absolutely frantic at work and at home. My law degree coursework is due in next week and I haven't started it yet (equity & trusts) yeurgh. My daughter's 16th party is this weekend - I just can't see how I'm going to cope. I am working myself into a right stressy that I had a nose bleed right in the middle of the office yesterday - as I sat there talking to my assistant. Bet you my blood pressure is up, too. Any advice on cheap health farms?!!!!!

Boot and a *bump* Anyone have any ideas on this (see above)?

And one from me too! A nice sticky one. X

Arrrr - Martin - that was loverly!

WHAT have you lot been drinking last night? Here am I - respectable middle-class women, going to bed at 10.30pm with hubby and hot chocolate and I get up in the morning and see I've missed a party!!!!

Why - had they been holding out on everyone? Surely there has been more payouts than that one on the news??

With that name, Keren, there is no guessing. But GIZMO sounds like a boy! You know, surrounded by all his gizmo-y things that boys have! I've gone into trauma here and am now deeply troubled! HOW could I get it so wrong *she wails*. Thank goodness life isn't the same?!!!!!!!!!

LTWFB has just given me your news Gizmo. WOT a clever boy you are! This will really wind BS up not knowing what we're referring to. However, for the benefit of others who are just scanning these threads, we should register on here soon what we're on about but not yet.... not yet !!! BTW - I'll probably need similar help shortly as I'm up in front of the judge on 15th November over CITI cards.

Morning 40bear Plan to do it this weekend. I am also going to create it like a letter to the judge and send it in advance of 15th. I am also going to write to Lloyds solicitors reminding them of the date. Trouble is I don't want to talk about my plans too much as I also have CITI cards in the afternoon (along with my husband's card) and their solicitor has been watching all these threads and we have evidence that he has been acting on them, too. How about you? R

Well done Karen! Bet he did that through gritted teeth!!!

Andrew - hope you can see it. It makes for very interesting reading but read from the top down and read it slowly digesting each bit - don't be tempted to read from the middle. S(3) is most enlightening.... !!

No - it's too big but 'Lickthewallfatboy' in #118 has the link. I'm reluctant to discuss this too much, as I feel we're doing the thinking and debating for the benefit of Mr B.S. & Co. Although as solicitors, they'll be aware of the salient points and will be arguing the same points but from a different perspective, no doubt.

Hi Andrew Yes, I had tried to highlight and paste the relevant important bit in the OFT report, but it failed to copy across the highlighted bit only and I ended up with a monster of a paste!!! Scary! Anyway, I'll try again.

Hi all - further thoughts... certainly looking at the OFT statement, this seems to cover all these areas. However, we're not saying we won't pay their losses - just what are they? Firstly, Citi have to establish that our 'breaches' are the direct cause of their loss complained about (which they have typically claimed in their £30+ charges). The test for breach of contract is that our breach is the effective or dominant cause of their loss (ie. the doctrine of causation). If Citi have suffered losses which have flowed as a result of our 'breaches', what are they? However, these losses are limited by the rules of remoteness, ie. whilst our breach may be a factual cause of the harm suffered by Citi, the rule of remoteness of loss prevents them claiming consequential losses which extend too far. AND THIS IS THE RUB. What could they reasonably claim. If the direction of the OFT is to be relied upon, then this is the line Mr BS is following (bettcha dollar he is!) So, what are his commercial costs for running his department and how many accounts do they have to spread those costs over? Interesting!? Mr BS - any comments?;-)

..

What does that mean in english??

Hi Laura No worries - we all started new once. The forum is a wealth of information and my advice would be to print anything off that you find interesting or useful. I've kept plastic wallets labelled up with things like 'default information', 'court bundle', 'Limitation Act', 'Account closure', 'good wording to use when the bank has asked for a stay', etc etc. Please don't be alarmed by all that - it's extra stuff you learn along the way by reading all the different stories on these threads. Do beware - Lloyds are known to be one of the 'sticky' ones who will try and make you sweat it out. So long as you are not desperate for the money, you won't feel the pressure - they'll pay out in the end and quite frankly - with your son having difficulties, he should have been treated with extra kid gloves and looked after much, much better than the treatment he's received. You go get 'em, girl!!!

WAY TO GO PAULA!!!!! WELL DONE - YOU'LL GET THE INVITE TO GO ON GMTV BEFORE YOU KNOW IT !!!!!!!!!

Good luck Dorset strider. We were all new once, too! You'll also gain a lot of confidence, too. Interestingly, in my claims, (even though I wasn't made bankrupt), I - and I suspect others, too, are never asked about your personal state of affairs, ie bankruptcy. So I would have thought you can just go ahead and claim. The only concern I would have is whether any money you get back automatically goes to your creditors. Howver, if it has been discharged - surely any money that comes into your hands now is yours??

I BET you he wouldn't have come on if they had Martin sitting next to him. I suspect Martin would have LOVED to have come on but wasn't invited. I suspect it isn't so much a conspiracy as people genuinely believing that these corporate banks behave responsibly and within the law. Most people don't even know the difference between illegal action and unlawful action. We're all taught to be nice to grown ups and school teachers and the bank manager, and we've carried it through into our adult lives!!! The first response from my parents when I told them what I was doing was genuine disbelief in what I was saying. No WAY could I be right in this and I'll get into a lot of trouble, too. Even now, I meet people who don't believe the banks would do something unlawful. I have to then explain that this is in the domain of civil action - what they've tried to do is not criminal (or illegal). It's just a case of basic contract law and the courts are full of disputes in this area of law. Both contract and consumer law are probably the biggest and fastest moving areas and this is partly down to the good old consumer fighting back (helped along with Human Rights Act and Data Protection Act). That's why you get the warm, safe and cosy well-paid GMTV presenters a bit goggle-eyed at this revolution. AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN EVEN A WEE BIT POLITE ABOUT IT!!!! OOOOOH!

Just to remind everyone (and Brian, too). From one lawyer to another ...... Citi have to plead and prove each loss and show that these losses would NOT have occurred but for your breaches. So they cannot claim any surrounding costs such as staff training, implementing systems and computer software. Just the losses which DIRECTLY flowed from your breaches.....