I succeeded with natwest, 3 in 1 claim But keep business accounts separate Innocent

Another forgotten aq from them good luck Innocent

BIG CONGRATULATIONS!!!!! & WELL DONE!!!!! :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: Glad you got what you wanted and the waiting is now over for you... and many thanks for an entertaining thread my friend Innocent

It hasn't been this long for me with other banks..... ......and its true to say more people are claiming now There is a definite inevitably though to your win... no matter how long it takes Innocent ;-)

Thanks Angi...... Been keeping an eye ;-) on ur thread too The run around........ ur not kidding..... Innocent ;-)

Very relevant point Guido ;-) I will ensure my second letter (compiling today) to be more like ur 'cobbled' then my 'past' ;-) Lesson to be learnt: don't rush (Got the order so late and working as I do weekends..... I probably felt rushed oooops) Thanks again Innocent

Sorry Griffin to be away........ been rather busy I cannot add to GaryH and Guido; I respect them both;-) How much is the difference between ur CI and 8%? Would u ultimately loose the ur charges+8% if you continued? Probably not..... I'm not there yet buddy, but am watching (what has to be ur decision) carefully Innocent

Thanks Griffin appreciating your support I will pop in on your thread later, but needless to say, good luck for tomorrow. Bit rushed today actually, which explains why I have almost copied the following letter (but the original is fantastic anyway) from the aq's-stays and strike out request thread. Here goes.... Innocent, Innocents Mansion, Innocent Lane, down the lane in Innocentshire. IN1 IN1 Sechiari, Clark & Mitchell Solicitors, Department So, PO Box 499, Upper Ground Floor, 1-5 Queens Road Quadrant, Brighton. BN1 3XJ. 21st June 2007 BY ROYAL MAIL SPECIAL DELIVERY Dear Sir/Madam Innocent -v- Lloyds TSB Bank Plc Claim Number: 7PO00835 I write in relation to the matters as detailed above, and specifically the order of a stay in proceedings made by District Judge Manuel on 13th June 2007. The clause of the order was that the parties negotiate to file an agreed directions order, no doubt to attempt to narrow the issues in dispute. I consider that the object of a negotiation is to avoid litigation by having a sensible discussion in order to try and achieve a solution, which would anticipate the decision of a court if the matter were actually heard. This means that we need to clarify the issues and then see if we can reconcile our areas of disagreement. As you know, I object to the charges which the bank makes because I say they are penalties and that they exceed actual costs, and as such are contrary to well established principles in common law and statute. Your position is that they are not penalties, but they are merely fees, which are levied for a contractual service, and because of this you are entitled to profit. My position is that I do not accept that the charges are for a contractual service. However I have already signalled to you and to the court that in the event they were to be accepted as such then you should only be entitled to charge a reasonable fee for this service. On the matter of penalties, let me say that I accept without reservation the Bank’s right to recover its actual losses caused by my contractual breaches. As you know, it is only that I do not believe that the level of penalty charges levied by the bank is only sufficient to cover those losses. It goes without saying that your defence that the charges are not penalties is tantamount to an admission that they are profit-making. However, if you will provide evidence to show that the charge's levied exactly equal your losses incurred by my breaches then I will be happy to give up my action or to amend it so that my claim is only for a figure which is above that which is required by the bank to cover its costs. On the other hand, if the charges are contractual as you say they are, then as you know, my position is that the charges may only be levied at a reasonable rate. Section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 makes this clear. If I were convinced that you were correct as to the status of the charges then I would agree that I should be obliged to pay you a fee. However, the fee would have to be reasonable. I consider that the test for reasonableness in this circumstance would be to measure the reasonable mark-up of a reasonably successful high street business. This is because the bank is a UK high street business. The present normal mark-up for high street businesses is about 100%. If I did accept your position as to the status of the charges then I would require you merely once again to provide evidence of the actual costs to you of supplying your "service" and I would be happy to pay you the reasonable mark-up. (However as you know, I do not accept that your charges are contractual fees). I am sure that you are aware that ever since the law relating to penalties was established in the late 1800s that contractual parties have regularly attempted to disguise their penalties as contractual services of some type. The relevant Cases are full of discussions about this, and the courts are fully aware of this technique of avoiding the Common Law. Even the Office of Fair Trading report earlier this year referred to this and stated that institutions should not attempt to disguise their penalties. In this regard I would draw your attention to Section 4.21. It seems to me this whole case can be easily settled if you simply provide evidence of your actual costs. It is very clear that this is the absolutely fundamental crux upon which the matters in these proceedings involving bank charges rest. I have a sample list of 40 claims which have been started against Lloyds TSB bank PLC, including their claim numbers, all of which have been settled in full by the bank, shortly in advance of the scheduled hearing date. In fact I have a list of nearly 500 claims, including claim numbers, which have been brought against UK high street banks this year and which have all been settled by the banks. Every bank refuses to disclose its costs information. There were even difficulties in disclosing this information under conditions of confidentiality to the Office of Fair Trading when they were investigating charges over the previous couple of years. It goes without saying that the current flood of litigation is putting a heavy burden on private individuals but also on the Courts Service which is a scarce public resource. A reasonable inference is that the banks are not serious about their litigation and that they are merely attempting to wear out claimants. I am sure that if the banks were not Defendants, that they would by now have been judged Vexatious. Please provide the evidence of your client’s costs and I think that the remaining issue can be dealt with very swiftly. I believe that a court would require no less than this, and should this matter proceed to allocation without a suitable resolution having been reached amicably, rest assured that I would seek an order of disclosure, notwithstanding probable allocation to the small claims track. Specifically, also, I am suggesting the attached draft order to the court, to help narrow our issues in dispute. I look forward to your prompt response. Yours faithfully, I plan to write a second letter next week, and then communicate with the court on the 3rd July for the 4th showing every effort has been made by me to talk to [problem]. And then push the draft order even more!!! Any thoughts welcome Innocent

BIG CONGRATULATIONS!!!!! Bradden & WELL DONE!!!!! :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: Like I said JS..... they "always" pay out a few days before (any sort of) court date..... patience.... if it helps? they are not as bad as lloyds.... lol Innocent

OOOOooops sorry late BIG CONGRATULATIONS!!!!! ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC NEWS..... MY FRIEND AND AID & WELL DONE!!!!! :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: I can particularly understand that this has been you most enjoyable claim to date I too have claimed previously, other banks and cc's. as you know....... I cannot wait to win against lloyds; because of their past years of (almost) malpractice, and their continuing ignorance, and just the way the draggggggggg things along.... SINCERELY WELL WELL WELL DONE & thankyou for a fantastic thread.... Innocent

Good thinking (again) Guido Innocent

Thanks Guido and for the link too PM thankyou for your interest but I can assure you.... this is the order! Bit strange though isn't it?? Just spoke to the court, and they said "its obvious isn't it"? Is it? "Get in contact with Lloyds and agree an order?" Then he said "Oh.... lloyds? You probably won't have much luck" ? "Just resubmit your draft order and demonstrate to the court you have tried to contact LLoyds"!!! I am hoping I am one step closer to a win by default Innocent (now returning to his own thread where ALL are welcome)

Guido Thankyou "very kindly" for your reply..... I didn't remember seeing the order before and I am not quite sure what the DJ is trying to achieve? Anyone?? perhaps communication between [problem] and me??? I came to a conclusion last night that I stand no chance of [problem] communicating with me, esp within 2 weeks, albeit clearly I am willing to communicate with them... so all I can do is demonstrate to the court this willingness... Agreed.... win by default is the way forward.... lloyds submitted their aq late; they are unlikely to "action" the DJs order this time too; so my "mission" has to be to get that draft order..... ordered Guido I will re-read your carefully crafted letters; get in the mood; and write the first letter to [problem] (which I will copy immediate to the DJ) and I will post today.... and I will do today.... Thankyou Innocent

Has anyone seen this before?? Received general form of judgement or order form "N24" dated 13th June 2007: IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1) Stay to 4th July 2007. Parties to file agreed directions order on conclusion of period allowed. For those that dont know; I have submitted an aq, as have Lloyds (late) and I included the draft order of directions.... Innocent :?

Hi all...... an update (at last) Received general form of judgement or order form "N24" dated 13th June 2007: IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1) Stay to 4th July 2007. Parties to file agreed directions order on conclusion of period allowed. Um??? I will phone the courts on Wednesday (later) to clarify.. I have to agree a directions order with Lloyds?? Should I at least make contact with [problem] urging them to settle, as per many past cases, and sent the draft order again..... copy all to the courts??? Or.... has the DJ granted the directions order and I should file info by the 4th July??? Anyone seen this before? Advice welcome..... Innocent

Strange (delaying) things hapening to me to Angi.... Oh well at least they can't delay forever Innocent

FANTASTIC news Guido; really really pleased for you.... Should only be a matter of weeks lets hope now eh... Innocent

I agree totally with benny and trucker Like I said yesterday they do like to settle over the phone (usually) and normally only a few days before the court date As others have said, please submit your court bundle as per normal, but I think perhaps you will never actually use the bundle within the court Well done! Innocent

I think congratulations are in order!!!! (albeit they might drag it out a little longer) Boy, I bet we all wish we had DJs like yours...... Griffin, well done!!!!!!! Absolutely Fantastic news!!!!! If I may quote GaryH "Wooooooooooooohoooooooooo!!!!" Innocent

Griffin. Absolutely b****y FANTASTIC news...... I quote GaryH "Woooooooooohooooooooooooooo"!!!!!!! Well done buddy Innocent

Disappointing news Guido but thanks for highlighting (to summarise here) There is a precedent against the awarding of "contractual" interest on the implied term basis. If you've claimed CI pleaded on the basis of mutuality and reciprocity then you should accept any offer of charges + 8%. If you have been paid the charges + 8% already and are pursuing only for CI you should withdraw. Willful pursual of a claim solely for CI is now highly likely to be met with a (successful) summary judgement application from the bank, and you could be liable for costs. Well Im hoping for a win by default, if I can get the draft order happening? Also, Im not convinced I added all the OD interest on the charges in the beginning because of the lack of info at the time; I would certainly now want this.... Just to clarify what GaryH said: If you have only been offered charges + 8%, the you need to go back with a counter of (Charges + Overdraft interest on the Charges) + 8%. My note of what the judge actual said is: Quote: The customer has a right to the charges, any interest deducted and a right to claim statutory interest for the period he was deprived of the deductions, provided he brings proceedings to recover them.

What did the letter say? What type of court date is it? You would be directed to submit your court bundle normally Innocent

Hi there Looking at various barclays and barclaycard threads (incl mine) they often like to settle (often via a phone call from you to the solicitors) as soon as any court date is received.... is there any reason to think monument would be different?? who are the solicitors? whats your court date? Innocent

BIG CONGRATULATIONS!!!!! ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC NEWS..... BRILLIANT & WELL DONE!!!!! :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: Innocent

OOOps heres the link Innocent vs barclaycard