Herewith latest news from the BBC :- The High Court is hearing the latest stage of the case into the fairness of bank overdraft charges, by studying historic contracts. Judge Mr Andrew Justice Smith will determine whether charges going back for years can be challenged. The banks are set to appeal against his first ruling - that the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) can assess whether fees are unfair - by the end of 2008. The current hearing is expected to last for three days. Significant case The OFT has been seeking legal confirmation that it can rule if bank overdraft charges of up to £35 are fair or not. Eight banks, which provide about 90% of the UK's current accounts, have been keen to oppose this to protect the estimated £3.5bn a year of income they generate from charging customers who go overdrawn without permission. Under pressure from hundreds of thousands of customers suing them for the return of their overdraft charges in the county courts, banks agreed to a High Court test case in two stages. The first was on the authority of the OFT under consumer contract regulations. The second will be on the fairness of the charges themselves, which the OFT has been investigating since April 2007. Tens of thousands of claims for the refund of bank charges have been frozen in the county courts since the test case was agreed. Looking back The current High Court hearing relates to whether overdraft charges levied historically can be assessed for fairness by the OFT. The latest High Court hearing is expected to last for three days The judge's initial decision - that the OFT did have the authority to consider fairness, which is being appealed against by the banks - only relates to current agreements between the banks and their customers. The current hearing will consider fees from the banks' old terms and conditions for current accounts. Meanwhile, the OFT is continuing its investigation into the fairness of overdraft fees and is expected to offer the banks its "preliminary views" by the end of July. The entire legal process is expected to last several more months.

The banks and OFT know the verdict !

Yes it was agreed the Banks would be given advance warning of the Judge's decision.

Correct me if i am wrong but the Bank's already know the Judge's decision ! It was agreed the Banks would be given advance details of the decision (3 days?)

And we have until July 08 for the Judge to decide !

'Mail on Sunday' today says OFT Test Case decision now delayed until July 08.

'Obtaining money by deception' springs to mind ! I would not persue this one !

Customers vote with their feet and change banks ? yea right ! It's a CARTEL and the sooner it's broken the better. If the Banking Industry stays the same what choice have customers in the UK got ? NONE ! If banks start charging what choice will we have ? NONE ! If the Banks loose the forthcoming court case you can bet they will want to recover their losses with introducing other new charges -( credit card companies come to mide ) What we need is PROPER COMPETITION within the UK banking industry.

I can smell a deal in the pipeline ! Banks will not want full disclosure of their costs therefore I can see a deal being done of say max £10.00 for 'bounced' cheque etc and in return banks will have to refund all excess charges over the agreed amounts going back 6 years ! We can only live in hope !

Yes i have had similiar experience with Barclays (Woolwich) Barclays have now changed the 'goalposts' regarding my mortgage reserve account ! Previously if i was within my credit limit i could issue a cheque however now they say i must have a minimum of £2,000 available before i can use this facility ? I have asked them to explain this change and under what condition they are allowed to change the 'goalposts' . Still waiting for a response! Also seems many offices of Woolwich now closed however i get letters from Leeds/Bexleyheath/Leicester etc - very confusing.

Yea submitted claim in Altrincham County Court and enclosed fee of £35.00 however Court returned my claim saying the correct fee was £150.0. Decided against court action !

warhorse Took me 6 months of many letters/phone calls to get my statements for period 1996-2000. Only received my data records for period 1992-2000. Nat West will not give up the statements for 1992-1996 easily as i know thousands of £ were charged. Have involved Information Commissioners Office in Wilmslow to see if they can help regarding the missing statements for 1992-1996 however have been waiting since May for the ICO to act.!

Am i entitled to the return of my AQ fee of £100 ? My payment was received by the Court AFTER the stay ? The AQ deadline was 13th Aug but my case was stayed on 8th August. Court received my payment on 9th August.

My case against National Westminster Bank was stayed earlier this week in the Altrincham County Court.

Sent in AQ and £100.00 fee yesterday however received a letter today from the Altincham County Court :- General Form of Judgement or Order It is ordered that :- 1. This action is stayed until 14 days after the decision in the test case involving five banks and the office of Fair Trading is handed down. 2. Within 7 days of the end of the stay the parties shall jointly notify the Court in writing of what, if any, further directions are required whereupon the file will be referred to a District Judge for further directions. 3. Any party affected by the terms of this order may apply to have it set aside or varied. I don't know if this stay is on directions from NatWest ? Would appreciate suggestions as to my next course of action. (ie) : a) Object to the stay as per the template letter or b) Try and negotiate a settlement with NatWest Comments would be welcome

Bump

UPDATE Sent to Court earlier this week N244 with amended POC. Have now received AQ which needs to be returned by 10th Aug along with the usual fee of £100. Will complete AQ as per template. Any further advice especially regarding the defence and CPR3.4 (2) (a) & CMP 27.14 (2) (d) Should i answer the defence at the same time as the AQ ? or do i wait for return of my amended POC for serving on Cobbetts ?

Many thanks Zootscoot - will do as you suggested.

I think i have now addressed the errors on my original POC as raised by Zootscoot so here is the final draft of my amended POC :- PARTICULARS OF CLAIM The Claimant had a bank account 01032690 (branch sort code 01-07-71) with the Defendant's Personal Banking Terms and Conditions (''The Contact'') The Claimant admits to breaches of the terms of the contract that require the Claimant to stay within any agreed overdraft limit. The breaches have led to the defendant debiting the account with numerous default charges, between 14/07/1992 and 27/01/1999 a list of the charges are attached. The Defendant has declined to answer the Claimant's written requests for information about any manual intervention necessitated by, and/or any administrative costs incurred as a result of, the said breaches. The Claimant avers that the defendant's default charges are not intended to represent any alleged actual loss, but instead unjustly enrich the defendant, which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit. The Claimant will rely on a report from the Competition Commission entitled ''Northern Ireland Personal Banking'' published on 20/10/2006, as evidence that the defendant is aware that the income derived from its default charges calculated to generate material profits and is not merely a means of recouping losses incurred in relation to account defaults. The Claimant will further rely on the statement of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) concerning default charges in credit card contracts, published on 5/4/2006 to demonstrate that:- The OFT's recommendations regarding standard default terms in credit card contracts have wider implications, as regards bank current account agreements. In a consumer contract, where the parties are not of equal bargaining power any estimate that included costs which could not legitimately be claimed as damages from an individual consumer in a case frought at common law, and which made a material difference to the overall charge, is likely to constitute a penalty at law. The interest ordinarily charged on an overdrawn balance of account would of itself be deemed sufficient compensation to the defendant in a claim of damages arising from account breaches of the said nature. Accordingly the defendant's default charges are:- A penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are an unreasonable pre-estimate of the probable loss to the defendant and therefore contrary to common law – Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd (1915) AC79 Invalid under s4 Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977(''UCTA'') &/ the Unfair Terms in the Consumer Contacts Regulations 1999 (''UTCCR'') In the event that the court finds that the charges are not a penalty they are unreasonable within the meaning of s15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. The Claimant is seeking the return of charges totalling £1200.00 and statutory 8% interest applied on the charges of £1.177.76 giving a total of £2,377.76 The Claimant seeks permission to proceed with the claim under Section 32 (1) (b) of the Limitation Act 1980. This is on the grounds that the Claimant could not have reasonably have discovered the defendant's deliberate concealment of the facts relevant to the Claimant's right of action, before the report of the OFT was published on 5/4/2006. Section 32 (1) (b) of the 1980 Act postpones the commencement of the limitation period where '' Any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant'' The facts relevant to the Claimant's right of action under s32 (1) (b) are that the defendant has continually presented its charges as if they were in respect of a legitimate loss or cost, whilst it is actual fact profiting in a material sense from the charges. Thus the Defendant can be seen to have been operating without accountability to its customers and so to have consciously concealed the facts. The Defendant deliberately concealed the true cost of administering the contractual breaches committed by the Claimant and thus an essential fact relevant to the Claimant's right of action was concealed. Alternatively the Claimant seeks permission to proceed with the claim under section 32 (1) © of the Limitation Act 1980. This is on the grounds that payments and interest thereon were conceded under the mistaken presumption that that did not amount to penalties. The Claimant would not reasonably have discovered the said mistakes before the report of the OFT was published on 5.4.2006. Section 32 (1) © of the 1980 Act postpones the commencement of the Limitation period where :- '' the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake'' The Claimant cites inter alia Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council (1999) 2 AC 49 as a precedent in this matter. In respect of paragraphs 11 and 12 section 32 of the Statute of Limitations Act (1980) stipulates that :- ''the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it'' The Claimant paid the charges in the belief that they reflected the true cost of administering the contractual breaches. The Claimant has now discovered following revelations relating to a similar organisation true costs are likely to be much lower and have thus been concealed and continue to be concealed by the Defendant and that the belief held by the Claimant was in fact mistaken. In regards to paragraphs 11 & 12 of the Claimant draws attention to inter alia the following cases, in relation to the notion of stare decisis, to support his case :- Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council (1999) 2 AC 349 Deutsche Morgan Grenfell v Inland Revenue (2003) EWHC 1779 (ch) Cave v Robinson Jarvis (House of Lords) (2002) UKHL 18 Accordingly the Claimant claims:- The return of £1200.00 taken by the defendant in charges between 14/07/1992 and 27/01/1999 Court fees Interest under s69 County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 14/7/1992 to 28/06/2007 of £1,177.76 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.26p I would appreciate if Zootscoot could now confirm this is ok to attach to by form N244 for filing at Court on Monday ?

Thanks Hedgey for your kind PARTICULARS OF CLAIM Thanks Hedgey for your kind help. Here is my suggested amended POC :- The Claimant had a bank account 01032690 (branch sort code 01-07-71) with the Defendant's Personal Banking Terms and Conditions (''The Contact'') The Claimant admits to breaches of the terms of the contract that require the Claimant to stay within any agreed overdraft limit. The breaches have led to the defendant debiting the account with numerous default charges, between 14/07/1992 and 27/01/1999 a list of the charges are attached. The Defendant has declined to answer the Claimant's written requests for information about any manual intervention necessitated by, and/or any administrative costs incurred as a result of, the said breaches. The Claimant avers that the defendant's default charges are not intended to represent any alleged actual loss, but instead unjustly enrich the defendant, which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit. The Claimant will rely on a report from the Competition Commission entitled ''Northern Ireland Personal Banking'' published on 20/10/2006, as evidence that the defendant is aware that the income derived from its default charges calculated to generate material profits and is not merely a means of recouping losses incurred in relation to account defaults. The Claimant will further rely on the statement of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) concerning default charges in credit card contracts, published on 5/4/2006 to demonstrate that:- The OFT's recommendations regarding standard default terms in credit card contracts have wider implications, as regards bank current account agreements. In a consumer contract, where the parties are not of equal bargaining power any estimate that included costs which could not legitimately be claimed as damages from an individual consumer in a case frought at common law, and which made a material difference to the overall charge, is likely to constitute a penalty at law. The interest ordinarily charged on an overdrawn balance of account would of itself be deemed sufficient compensation to the defendant in a claim of damages arising from account breaches of the said nature. Accordingly the defendant's default charges are:- A penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are an unreasonable pre-estimate of the probable loss to the defendant and therefore contrary to common law – Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd (1915) AC79 Invalid under s4 Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 In the event that the court finds that the charges are not a penalty they are unreasonable within the meaning of s15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. The Claimant is seeking the return of charges totalling £1200.00 and statutory 8% interest applied on the charges of £1.177.76 giving a total of £2,377.76 The Claimant seeks permission to proceed with the claim under Section 32 (1) (b) of the Limitation Act 1980. This is on the grounds that the Claimant could not have reasonably have discovered the defendant's deliberate concealment of the facts relevant to the Claimant's right of action, before the report of the OFT was published on 5/4/2006. Section 32 (1) (b) of the 1980 Act postpones the commencement of the limitation period where '' Any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant'' The facts relevant to the Claimant's right of action under s32 (1) (b) are that the defendant has continually presented its charges as if they were in respect of a legitimate loss or cost, whilst it is actual fact profiting in a material sense from the charges. Thus the Defendant can be seen to have been operating without accountability to its customers and so to have consciously concealed the facts. Alternatively the Claimant seeks permission to proceed with the claim under section 32 (1) © of the Limitation Act 1980. This is on the grounds that payments and interest thereon were conceded under the mistaken presumption that that did not amount to penalties. The Claimant would not reasonably have discovered the said mistakes before the report of the OFT was published on 5.4.2006. Section 32 (1) © of the 1980 Act postpones the commencement of the Limitation period where :- '' the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake'' The Claimant cites inter alia Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council (1999) 2 AC 49 as a precedent in this matter. In respect of paragraphs 11 and 12 section 32 of the Statute of Limitations Act (1980) stipulates that :- ''the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it'' In regards to paragraphs 11 & 12 of the Claimant draws attention to inter alia the following cases, in relation to the notion of stare decisis, to support his case :- Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council (1999) 2 AC 349 Deutsche Morgan Grenfell v Inland Revenue (2003) EWHC 1779 (ch) Cave v Robinson Jarvis (House of Lords) (2002) UKHL 18 Accordingly the Claimant claims:- The return of £1200.00 taken by the defendant in charges between 14/07/1992 and 27/01/1999 Court fees Interest under s69 County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 14/7/1992 to 28/06/2007 of £1,177.76 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.26p

Sorry forgot to mention i excluded reference to UTCCR 1999 as only 2 charges were incurred in Jan 1999 , all the rest incurred 1992-1998. ?

Understand to amend my POC i need to complete form n244 along with payment of £35.00. Also understand i have to attach to n244 a new N1 showing my amended details. The Court will return my new N1 and i have to serve this on the defendants. I then send back to the Court completed certificate of service (n215) along with a copy of the n1 form. This just leaves completion of form n244 ? Help would be appreciated on completing this document in a draft form.

Thanks Zootscoot for your kind help which is very much appreciated. My POC was a copy of Bongs earlier claim against HSBC ! which she won. Could you guide me on my next step please. What form do i use to amend my POC and what is the fee payable ? Your help in drafting my amendment would be appreciated.

Particulars of Claim The Claimant had a bank account xxxxxxx Branch Sort Code xxxxx with the defendant governed by the defendant's Personal Banking Terms & Conditions (The contract) The Claimant admits to breaches of the terms of the contract that require the claimant to stay within any agreed overdraft limit. The breaches have led to the defendant debiting the account with numerous default charges between 14/07/1992 and 27/1/1999. A list of the charges is attached. The defendant has declined to answer the claimants written requests for manual intervention necessitated by and/or any administrative costs incurred as a result of the said breaches. The claimant avers that the defendant's default charges are not intended to represent any alleged actual loss, but instead unjustly enrich the defendant, which excercies the contractual term in respect of such charges with aview to profit. The claimant will rely on a report from the Competition Commision entitled 'Northern Ireland Personal Banking' published 20.10.2006 as evidence that the defendant is aware that the income derived from its default charges is calculated to generate material profits and is not merely a means of recouping losses incurred in relation to account defaults. The Claimant will further rely on the statement of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) concerning default charges in credit card contracts published 5.4.2006 to demonstrate that :- a) The OFT's recommendations regarding standard default terms in credit card contracts have wider implicacations as regards bank current account agreements. b) In a consumer contract where the parties the parties are not of equal bargaining power, any estimate that included costs which could not legitimately be claimed as damages from an individual consumer in a case brought at common law, and which made a material difference to the overall charge, is likely to constitute a penalty at law. c) The interest ordinarily charged on an overdrawn balance of account would of itself be deemed sufficient compensation to the defendant in a claim for damages arising from account breaches of the said nature. 7. Accordingly the defendant's default charges are :- a) A Penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are an unreasonable pre-estimate of the probable loss to the defendant and therefore contrary to common law- Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd (1915) AC 79. b) Invalid under s4 Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 c) In the event that the court finds that the charges are not a penalty they are unreasonable within the meaningof s.15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. 8. The Claimant is seeking the return of charges totalling xxxxxxx and statutory 8% interest applied on the charges of xxxxxxx giving a total of xxxxxxx. The Claimant seeks permission to proceed with the claim under s.32 (1) (b) Limitation Act 1980 on the ground that the Claimant could not have reasonably have discovered the defendant's deliberate concealment of the facts relevant to the claimant's right of action before the report of the OFT was published on 5.4.2006. The facts relevant to the claimant's right of action are that the defendant is unjustly enriched by excercising the contractual terms in respect of default charges with a view to profit. If the defendant has elected top present its charges as if they were a legitimate loss or cost, whilst it is in actual fact profiting in a material sense from the charges. the defendant can been seen to have been operating without accountability to its customers, and to have consciously concealed the facts. The defendant is clearly in a privileged position to have a direct means od withdrawing monies from the claimant's bank account. The claimant is entitled to know whether the charges paid represent a justifiable business cost, or whether they are in fact a penalty, and to expect that the defendant will always conduct itself with integrity. 10. Alternatively the claimant seels permission to proceed with the claim under s.32 (1) © Limitation Act 1980 on the ground that the payments were conceded on the mistaken presumption that the said charges and interest thereon did not amount to penalties - Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council (1999) 2 AC 349-and that the claimant would not reasonably have discovered the said mistakes before the report of the OFT was published on 4.4.2006 Accordingly the claimant claims;_ 11. The return of xxxxxx taken by the defendant in charges between 14.7.1992 and 27.1.1999 Court fees# Interest under s69 County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from the 14.07.1992 to 13.11.2006 of xxxxxx and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.26p

For people claiming beyond 6 years you might want to see my Nat West thread and the defence from Cobbetts !