Heard from your bank/court about your claim being restarted? Please let us know.

BenS1

esmerellda wrote: »

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?t=20932

it is NOT a template tho - just an idea and you have to go through and make sure it applies to your situation and you can evidence things which show the imbalance. The onus of proof is on the bank tho.

Just read the draft, looks good, certainly alot different compared to the original bank charge templates on MSE. Do we know when the template will be ready to use?

esmerellda

I think Martins said middle of January

oscar52

Well, Sharkleys have written to me today regards all the bank charges stuff - pretty much gloating that all charges were fair and proper blah blah blah. Strangely, their letter is dated 21/12 - prior the the OFT announcement

wayne99

i had the same letter from barclays, dated 21/12 same as you.

MisterSmith_2

I got my letter from Barclays today as well. Is it worth responding to them straight away advising them that I will be persueing this through other avenues, just so they hold the case open? Or to wait for templates?

[Deleted User]

MisterSmith wrote: »

I got my letter from Barclays today as well. Is it worth responding to them straight away advising them that I will be persueing this through other avenues, just so they hold the case open? Or to wait for templates?

They should of given you the mandatory 8 weeks to respond which should hopefully be enough to get new templates or similar sorted out.

skinnybowler

I got the same letter from Barclays. They have split my Claim in 2 (1 for reserve fees, and one for other charges, although I am still dealing with them together). The letter had the reference for the older charges.

I have drafted a letter stating:

Further to this, your response to my complaint is unsatisfactory in that it seeks to mislead and deceive me. Whilst it is correct that the Supreme Court decision did conclude that the level of the charges could not be assessed for fairness by the OFT under Regulation 6 of Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCRs), the decision did not declare that the levels were fair. In fact the judgement specifically stated that the charges could well be challenged successfully under other elements of the UTCCRs, specifically Regulation 5.

My claim was not brought under Regulation 6 of the UTCCRs. My claim for Bank Charges is brought under Regulation 5 of the UTCCRs and section 140a of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA, as amended), and is therefore not affected by the recent Supreme Court Judgement. In fact the Supreme Court has indicated that a challenge to "fairness" of my Banking Contract under Regulation 5 may be an appropriate route to take. I consider that the regime of bank charges you operate is unfair within the meaning of these Regulations as they are not individually negotiated, they operate in much the same way as charges operated by other High street banks and therefore there is little alternative to myself but to agree to the charges. Under the CCA, it is a requirement that the relationship between a Creditor and a Debtor must not be unfair to the Debtor. The CCA also states that the burden on proof is on the creditor to prove that the relationship is fair. I contend that for the reasons stated above, in addition to the disproportionate nature of the charges, the unfair cross-subsidy, and the design of the charges intending them to multiply (i.e. charges being applied on charges), these charges are unlawful. Furthermore the charges are contrary to the requirement of good faith and fair dealing as they lack basic standards of commercial moral practice and take an unfair advantage of the weak bargaining power of the consumer. They impose a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations between the contracting parties which is to our detriment.

However, what concerns me more is the fact that they addressed the letter to my father, who does not live at my address. Surely this is a breach of the Data Protection Act and I should report to the Information Commisioner.

Dan_Bailey

I'm with Nationwide, as yet no letter. Will probably read identical to the other Banks' - however will keep you updated.

Dan_Bailey

eira wrote: »

My daughter today got a letter refusing to pay back the charges and giving her 8 weeks to respond.They have had debt collectors out to get back these charges (£500) worth-alll the money she owes them is entirely composed of bank charges.

She's a student,

This happened to someone I know as well - to me the epitome of the profiteering system, massively scaled up debt at the true cost of a few system generated letters.

lindilou39

Someone answer me if they possibly can were I stand here...I won my case against LLoydsTsb before the oftcase commenced, this was by default as lloydsTsb did not comply with Court Directions, they had to comply by 20th September 2007 they did not so I entered Judgment to Northampton County Court before the case whereupon the banks solicitors requested immediate stay, I argued by written correspondence to the court and via telephone as to how a judge can overrule the judgment given by another as he was only a deputy, but they insisted the stay remains. Where now do I stand legally? I have been informed to contact the court to see if stays are lifted and to fax the solicitors for immediate payment, I have also been told they may try to have my judgment set aside, but if I won by default...then what grounds do they have to set it aside?