This topic was closed on 10 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 09 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

anyone have any latest news on what is going on with the OFT case?

i best remember to make sure i have all my paperwork prepared and my best Perry Mason attitucde in place.

was in Liverpool. where the judge also indicated that a significant number of cases were being awarded to the banks. hmmmmm wonder if its to late to try to get it moved to another court somewhere.

ahhhhh another wasted day. Court today granted Barlcays a stay in light of OFT test case. Judge took a very dim view of them only informing me 5 minutes before going into the court though. awaiting a copy of the Directions for Stay (or whatever its called) and preparing form N244. it aint over till the fat lady sings. and since i have got her tied up and gagged that isnt likely to happen unitl i am ready. will post details of Stay directions when recieved. so be warned anyone currently with cases on the way with Barlcays, they are going for a stay every time. be prepared for it.

oh forgot to update for a while. Allocation Hearing is set for next Tuesday.

not about bank charges but very definitely worth bringing to peoples attention http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6686415.s... anyone else see this latest from our wonderful Home Office? apparently (and i admit i only caught part of the item on the news) John Reid has said the government may have to opt out of some aspects of the European Human Rights laws when dealing with terror suspects. apparently Control Orders don't work so he has decided to just take a hatchet to the Human Rights Act to solve the problem. mind you it looks like the Tories and Lib Dems are no better, urging greater use of phone taps and other 'intercept evidence' to bring more suspects to trial. so basically, if they dont have any evidence agasint you but someone reckons you might just be one of them dodgy terrorist types then they slap you with a Control Order. you maybe have to wear an electronic tag and report to the local police every day. but now not satisfied with that, Reid has decided he wants to be able to lock these people up. we dont need to bother with all that silly evidence business. its fine we'll just rip up the Human Rights Act then we can do what we want. i mean who really cares if these people are innocent or not. i mean look at them. they're muslims. they must be guilty.

what does anyone think of the advisability of a combination of the two ideas; first a request to have the defense struck out, and if the judge is happy to let it stand, then the disclosure of how they arrive at their figures.

OK another one being dragged right up to the court stage. got my allocation questionaire and defence. i am guessing it is a pretty standard defence. points 1 to 5 basically say 'we told him about the charges and he agreed to them as part of the terms of contract' point 6 then goes on to deny therefore that the charges are unlawful point 7 claims that 'such charges do not unduly enrich the defendant' point 8 is just pint 6 reworded point 9 is utterly irrelevant in that it says 'we charged him because he went overdrawn' point 10 is point 6 again point 11 is an attempt to wriggle out of part of the claim on the grounds of the limitation act. conveniently forgetting that those parts of the claim were inside the 6 year limit when the action to recover the charges was begun. 12 says ok we are entitled to charge something at least. and we will try to get some of the money back again. so basically my questions are is the rubbish about the limitations act valid? and if i wish to make mention of such things as the 'whistleblower report' do i need to put it on my AQ (in the witness section or somewhere

anyone know what the legal issues might be in having a (properly rent paid if necessary) stall situated outside a bank advising customers about claiming back bank charges? can we really get in the banks faces like this legally?

after reading the relevant article on the moneysaving expert site it would appear that any case you might have would depend heavily on the exact wording of the ad. and whether the item you recieved was 'as described'. read the full article here for more info eBay Golden Rules: protect yourself and cut the purchase price | MoneySavingExpert.com

on todays lunchtime news they were talking about it and apart from the obvious worrying things about them possibly being given greater powers to 'force entry'; i also noticed an almost throw away line about jail terms for 'obstructing the bailiff' ??????????????????? oh dear god as if these thugs didnt have enough power already. and all this new powers are being brought in without any talk of regulation or review.

yeah same address. it was just a pretty standard threatening letter. if you dont phone us our solicitors will issue legal proceedings and warrant of execution blah blah blah.

CCA letter sent on 23rd, then I recieved 'the threatening letter' on the 24th. if you do not respond blah blah DG Solicitors blah blah etc. then today recieved letter thanking me for my £1 payment, as a indication of my intention to pay. still waiting for the 12 days to be up before i do anything but my question is what happens after the 12 days? because Metropolitan clearly employ a bury their head in the sand approach to such letters. thanks