Reclaim Unfair Bank Charges article discussion Part II

oldandskint

kome wrote: »

Hi Dave

Thanks for the advice.

I'll start the MCOL process tomorrow and keep the site updated on my progress.

I don't think I'd have got this far without the advice of people like you and others who have been through this hassle.

thanks again.



I'll go through the MCOL route tomorrow

Hi Kome

Glad I have been of help good luck and keep me posted on your progress

:beer: Dave

oldandskint

ak_wf1 wrote: »

Hi

Can someone help me please. I have recived a letter from Nothhampton Count Court saying the case has been refered to Wakefield Court (my local court). The date has been set for 21 August 2007. I have been asked to deliver to each party and court office copies of all documents 14 days before the court date.

My question is what do i need to include in my court bundle? Just the letters i wrote to them or something extra?

I also found some extra charges which i was subject to after i had made a claim on line. Should i add these as well or not??

Hi

Ring your banks litigation dept and tell them you have a court date and they should settle before it gets anywhere near it the banks do not want to go to court by my understanding you should also add on the other charges.

Wait and see what they say when you ring them if no joy then the information you require for court bundle is on the CAG site, there is a link on this site somewhere.( see 1266 on page 64 of this thread )

Regards
OAS (Dave)

Boxman27

Hi all,

I'm not sure how relevant this may be but in light of the Berwick decision I thought it worth pointing out.

We are in the process of taking Lloyds to court and its my understanding that one of, if not the main reason, that the judge in Mr Berwicks case decided to award against him was the confusion over whether his charges were in fact 'Fees' hence the scramble to find any and all terms and conditions in connection with Loyds accounts. We currently have a Lloyds Tsb Select account and I have noted that if you look on the online statesments you will see that there is a clear difference in the 'Payment type' column.....for instance, each month we are charged £7.00 which states 'FEE' in the payment type column and 'Account charge' in the 'details' column (fair enough).....however, for unpaid Direct Debits it says 'CHG' in the payment type column and Unpaid D/D in the Details column. Now call me old fashioned here but is not the bank clearly making a distinction here regarding what it deems to be a 'Fee' and what it clearly deems to be a CHARGE!. If the bank itself is referring to these ludicrous amounts as a CHG then surely they can be challenged as unfair (which they so obviously are)...surely the UTICC regs apply and surely hiding behind the 'FEE' defence is laughable.

Well, thats my little rant over....good luck to all claiming and thanks to all on the site for sticking up for the little guy!!!

Simon7685

Hi again Twinkly

Yes I have the banks defence as do the court. I have followed all the steps correctly to the best of my knowledge. The cc ordered the transfer and dispensed with the AQ, this is not a problem. Obviously I now know I need to wait for the DJ at my court to decide whether or not a hearing is required and then get the date and prepare my bundle (which is already underway).

My concern is that that the DJ has the banks defence in b&w but nothing from me apart from the online application and POC therein. A number of people on CAG site have been saying that in this instance a number of DJ's are striking out the claimants case due to a lack of supporting evidence. I personally do not see how that could be because, as with myself I have not had the opportunity to present any evidence etc.

I hope this answers your questions on my claim a bit better and it would be good to hear your, or others thoughts on this striking out thing.

Cheers
Simon

jennyowen

:rolleyes: I started my claim against Abbey in April and just got my offer letter for £1100, but I'm claiming almost £3000 incl. interest. So I've not even been offered the usual 65% that other people seem to be getting. Didn't have to go to court though, just waited the 8 weeks! I'll ring them on monday to see if they'll up the offer, if not then I'll send the 'accept without ppredujice' letter on Monday and use the money they've refunded so far to pay for MCOL.

I'll let oyu konw how I get on xx

PS- Martin, you're totally fab and gorgeous!!! Thankyou xx

gingerninja_4

I received a letter from the courts on Saturday 16th June, with Barclays defence. I am now so confused.

The letter from the court states that Without hearing it is ordered that the filing of an allocation questionnaire be dispensed with unless the district6 judge at the court of transfer orders otherwise.

Their defence:
1: The particulars of claim do not provide details or particulars of the precise charges alleged to have been unlawful, or the date thereof. To the extent it is alleged that the claimant incurred bank charges on the claimants account for unauthorised borrowing whether unpaid fees for returned cheques "paid refferrel" or any such fees. the defendent puts the claimant to strict proof of each charge and the date thereof.
2. the particulars of the claim are summary in nature. accordingly this defence is summary in nature and the defendent reserves the right to amend this statement of case in due course.
3 the defendent is entitled to charge the claimant for unaouthorised borrowings by reason of its own standard terms and conditions. the claimant accepted the same when the accoount was opened including in particular but without limitaion the following terms and conditions which are summarised.
a. the defendents right to charge a paid referrel fee, where the defendent pays an amount either by compulsion or election which causes the account to become overdrawn £30 per item {previously £25}
b. the defendents right to charge an administative fee if any cheque standing order or direct debit cannot be paid because of insufficient cleared funds in the account £35 per item previously £30
c. the defendents entitlement if the claimant becomes overdrawn without an overdraft limit, to charge interest at the unauthorised borrowing rate on the excess balance.
4. the defendents standard terms and conditions give the claimant a fair and transparent view of those terms and the charges applicable for unauthorised borrowings (including where the account is overdrawn without an overdraft limit or where the claimant exceeds the authorised limit.
5. if and to the extent it is the claimants case that the failure to make necessary payments and or failure to remain within authorised overdraft limits and or failure to remain within an authorised overdraft limit and failure to arrange an authorised overdraft constitutes a breach of terms applying to the account and that the contractual entitlement to debit charges from the claimants account constitues a liquidated damages clause, the same is denied.
the charges constitue payments the claimant agreed to make by reason of the terms and consitions of the account and where consideration for the defendent advancing credit tyo the claimant, whcih the defendent was under obligation to advance.
the defendent was entitled to impose such charges and interest when the claimant incurred the overdraft.
6. accordingly it is denied that the legal principles relating to liquidated damage clauses and penalty charges are relevent or apllicable to the facts set out above. further or alteratively it is denied that any such charges constitute unlaw penalty charges or are in breach of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999 or are in breacdh of s.4 of the unfair {contracts} termas act 1977 or any other provision or are unreasonabale within the meaning of s.15 of the supply of goods and services act 1982 or indeed any other provision.
7. therefore it is denied that the charges were unlawfully debited from the account.
8. if and to theextent tha claimant incurred charges on the account, this was caused by the claimant having gone into overdraft wihtout having agreed with the defendent an authorised overdraft facility or to increase the overdraft faciltiy and or the failure to make payment to bring the account back into credit.
9. it is averred that the said charges and interest are and remain lawful and enforecable and that the defendent was entitled to debit the same.
10. the defendent denies that it is liable to the claimant for the sums claimed and interest as pleaded or at all. in the alternative the said charges are unenforcable and constitiuted a breach of contract by the defendent those charges which were aplied to the account prior to 23 march 2001 are not recoverable because they are time barred under the tems and of the limitation act 1980 in that more than six yerars have elapsed since the accrual of the course of action.
11. in the alternative and without predudice to matters stated above if which is denied the said charges and interest or any part thereof are unlawful of unenforceable as alleged by the claimant or at all and the charges were a consequnce of the breach of contract by the claimant the defendent has nontheless sufferd loss and damge as a consequence of such breach of contract in allowing the account to go into unauthorised overdraft. accordingly in the event that the defendent is unable to rely on its express entitlement to enforce the charges a set out above, it will seek to recover to the extent necessary such loss and damge as it actualy suffered, which will not necessarily be limited to the value of the said charges, and the defendant seekls to set of sums against ant liability owed hereunder to the claiment. barclays bank plc.

So boys and girls please help, dont know what i am supposed to do next.

cyberman_3

gingerninja wrote: »

b. the defendents right to charge an administative fee if any cheque standing order or direct debit cannot be paid because of insufficient cleared funds in the account £35 per item previously £30
c. the defendents entitlement if the claimant becomes overdrawn without an overdraft limit, to charge interest at the unauthorised borrowing rate on the excess balance.
So boys and girls please help, dont know what i am supposed to do next.

Super legal jargon letter but with a major flaw !!!!!

The above states it is their right. BUT, they go onto say that "if a direct debit or cheque cannot be paid, they charge £35. It is the cost of the admin charge that is there problem. The law states they cannot charge more than their costs (admin charges). If they do, they are not enforceable in law which means they (BARCLAYS) are acting illegally !

Have a look at this video on YouTube. It clearly shows a Barclays Bank Manager saying " the cost of bouncing a cheque costs £1.50 - £2.00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex1CfVrFHSQ

I wonder if Barclays defence lawyers have seen this, expect they have.

Everyone must ask the same question from their bank.

"Please provide me with a full breakdown and calculation of these charges"

Let your Bank also know that you will ask the court the same question.

THE BANKS WILL NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. They will not risk going to court because of this question

So, even though you have received a long legal defence letter, it means very little if Barclays cannot give you a breakdown on what they consider is their right.

Edinburghlass_2

gingerninja wrote: »

So boys and girls please help, dont know what i am supposed to do next.

Standard defence, you need to wait until you hear from the court and/or the banks solicitor. Have a read of the Reclaim Help Thread and you'll find links to appropriate threads along with the link to the Barclays bank thread where you'll find plenty of users in the same position.

gingerninja_4

Why have the court decided to dispense with the allocation questionnare? Very confused.

sugar_daddy1237

Cheers Mr. Oldandskint