Thanks Kazzie, as you say, it's worth a shot and I'll call the court on Monday; just wish I'd realised the significance of this weeks ago! Will keep you posted.

No, nicsussex, never heard a thing!

My hunch would be that you'd be OK leaving it and that the minor discrepancy can be resolved when it comes to settlement; I can't imagine the court striking it out for such a minor error: BUT that's only my hunch; the only absolutely safe way is to amend I would have thought.

If you need to amend your claim you need to complete form N244, for which a non-refundable fee of £35 is payable. Get the form here: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/c.../n244_0400.pdf.

Hi Yes, there are loads over several dates, see: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/98035-central-london-county-court.html One, who is due in a week before me before the same judge has kindly offered to post how it goes. I was just wondering if I had a bit of "extra" mileage with the AQ. I guess I need to double check with the court that they haven't submitted the AQ since I was last told they hadn't, then fax the Court on Monday at least drawing the judge's attention to Lloyd's failure - all helps paint them in a bad light?

Thanks for your input here fightinghard, I'm pretty sure we were both ordered to file AQs although I don't have the paperwork in front of me; I had to file one and I know when I spoke to the Court a few weeks ago to find out what the delay was, the person on the phone said "the Defendant doesn't seem to have returned their AQ". As for the preliminary; this is the Order I received: ORDER 1) There will be a preliminary hearing of this case (and in several others which raise the same or similar issues and involve the same Defendant) at a time and date to be notified to you with this Order. 2) The hearing is intended to give directions for the hearing of some or all these cases in a way which saves time and expense. 3) It is hoped that all parties will attend but if this is not practicable the Court will be pleased to consider the written views of any party provided that these reach the Court by no later than 3 clear days before the hearing. 4) In the event that one or both parties fail (either in person, through a proper representative or in writing) to attend the hearing the Court shall make such order as it sees fit including striking out the Claim and/or Defence, as the case may be. 5) Notwithstanding the value of any claim and whether it falls to be allocated to the Small Claims Track or otherwise it is the provisional view of the Judge that the costs rules for the Small Claims Track should apply to them all. 6) Because this Order has been made by the Court without considering representations from the parties, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed. A party wishing to make an application must send or deliver the application to the court (together with any appropriate fee) to arrive within seven days of sevice of this Order.

Wow, thanks fightinghard. I wish I'd known that a few weeks back! The problem is I have is that I have a preliminary hearing in less than 14 days so I'm wondering whether I've missed the boat on that one. Might fax the Court Monday morning and try anyway, unless anyone can see a downside to doing so?

Absolutely superb news fightinghard, well done! I quite understand what you mean about doubting yourself even when you know the principles well. Really chuffed for you. You mention Lloyds did not file their AQ - was that significant? As far as I know they didn't in my case either, so if I can make any mileage out of it I will! Well done again

Appreciated

That would be wonderful, Camdenite, if you could post after your hearing. I don't envy you "going first" as it were but it would be hugely helpful to those of us going in a week later if we have the benefit of your experience. Thanks in advance and good luck

I now have a preliminary hearing on 24th July. At this point is it wise to chase ****/[problem] on the phone re settlement? On the one hand I have heard of cases where they have simply "forgotten" to settle, so I'm tempted to do so, on the other they might "forget" to turn up at the hearing, so might my call increase the chances of them putting it in their diary? Also, a member of court staff thought Lloyds never submittedtheir AQ - is there any way I can use that against them? Advice from anyone who's passed this stage greatly appreciated!!

The thread below seems to indicate what needs to be taken to the preliminary hearing, but can any mods just reassure us that a preliminary hearing will definitely by just that; there's no way we can be "bounced" into a full hearing, or examined by the judge there and then on the legal merits of the case? I'm just nervous because I'm not sure WHY there's a prelim when AQs were supposed to serve this purpose (although in my case I believe LLoyds never bothered sending theirs in!) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/guidance-notes/64911-got-court-date-guide.html#post553523

Yes, Maximus, I now have a date for 24th. I am going to post the entire order below so we can see if they're all exactly the same - I guess they will be. Maximus, I thought I should point out that above you say you have a hearing on 23rd, but later in post No 16, you say you have a hearing on 24th. Just thought I'd mention it in case you inadvertently turn up on the wrong day :o ORDER 1) There will be a preliminary hearing of this case (and in several others which raise the same or similar issues and involve the same Defendant) at a time and date to be notified to you with this Order. 2) The hearing is intended to give directions for the hearing of some or all these cases in a way which saves time and expense. 3) It is hoped that all parties will attend but if this is not practicable the Court will be pleased to consider the written views of any party provided that these reach the Court by no later than 3 clear days before the hearing. 4) In the event that one or both parties fail (either in person, through a proper representative or in writing) to attend the hearing the Court shall make such order as it sees fit including striking out the Claim and/or Defence, as the case may be. 5) Notwithstanding the value of any claim and whether it falls to be allocated to the Small Claims Track or otherwise it is the provisional view of the Judge that the costs rules for the Small Claims Track should apply to them all. 6) Because this Order has been made by the Court without considering representations from the parties, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed. A party wishing to make an application must send or deliver the application to the court (together with any appropriate fee) to arrive within seven days of sevice of this Order.

Nice one, well done!

Superb!!

Lol. I hope it was them, then they might do the same to me

Fantastic news, but on what basis did they INCREASE your claim, do you know? Well done!

If I was worth my weight in gold I wouldn't be suing Lloyds TSB, I'd be buying them

Wow, this really is wonderful news and I think we all owe a huge debt to CAG for organising a QC and to those who donated to the fighting fund.

Thank you for this matreb. I'd urge everyone to read this link, it is very positive and shows again that despite their odd "accidental" victory, the banks really do seem to be running scared.

Wonderful news Thanks for the prompt confirmation.

There was talk on the first message of this thread of legal representation perhaps being arranged to defend these strike out applications. Does anyone know if that happened, or whether the claimants are acting in person?

Hi Maximus, I'm unexpectedly away for a few days so suspect my letter will be waiting for me when I get back at the end of the week! My guess is that this will, if you say it's a "preliminary hearing", just be for directions, rather than a full hearing, but then why do we need a directions hearing when we have sent in AQs and (certainly in my case at least) a draft order? Surely the point of doing that was to enable the judge to make directions without a hearing. Hmm ... this is something we need to look into. I'll post again when I get my copy of the letter, but meanwhile the views of others would be welcome

That really is some result!!! Congratulations!

Wow, just stumbled on this thread and it was like reading one of those fast-paced books that you can't put down! Just glad it had a good ending I do hope mine's not quite so action-packed!!!