Reclaim Unfair Bank Charges article discussion Part II

realshannon

I put 2 claims in with Halifax months ago for 2 accounts. One was eventually paid the 2nd was challenged and part paid. The court paperwork had been done and we had our date through for today for the o/s amount. Although we knew of the news re all claims being put on hold, we felt that because 2 claims were lodged together, one paid and one part paid and well before the dates of this new announcement, Halifax wouldnt be able to get out of paying the remainder. They paid for a barrister to attend even tho their defence papers said we hadnt given them our calculations.We had of course, otherwise they wouldnt have paid at all presume. We asked the judge to consider the specific and personal facts of our case above but he agreed to "stay" the case. We arent happy about this as we feel in principle they have already agreed in principle and by paying part sorta stuffed themselves. The remaining amount is just over £500. Have to wonder how much it cost to pay the barrister? useful feedback if anyone in same position - not sure what to do now but otherwise on a positive note we are still better off by the payments achieved so far which is great news in our present circumstances

ian_id_murray

Barclays
£1300

The 28 days are up tonight at midnight and Barclays have not defended so I am staying up until then and entering judgement at 12:01. Yey!

shaun01332

Hi everyone,

I just love this site and i have visited it at least two to three times per day. I can't say just how valuable i have found so many peoples advice it really is a great community all with a fantastic common cause.

I am currently at the court stage ie no date set yet. I have a question i am hoping someone can answer. he judge has given me 28 days to submit evidence. I hace done in the way of the court bundle. he has given Barclays 21 days thereafter to submit there defence. my question is do they have 21 days from the date that i submitted my evidence to them and the court or is it 21 days from the expiry of the 28 days the judge gave me.

Any help in this would be great many thanks.:D

TigerTiger26

Ian id Murray,

The bank hadn't acknowledged my claim at 7am on the 15th day but my request for judgement got rejected as MCOL received the letter on the 14th day. Don't get your hopes up but best of british too you.

catoxley

so what will happen now my claims been aknowledged?

MAGICIAN

MARTIN,
Just wanted to let you know that I am taking the fight into another area, that is having a go at the bank acting as agent for a debt collecting company who have unlawfully manipulated my protected data...
the skeleton argument and statemant of case is below:
ffice:office" /><O:p></O:p>
Skeleton Argument and Statement of Case<O:p></O:p>
Claimant xxxxx (in person) <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
Authorities:<O:p></O:p>
· Dunlop Pneumatic v New Garage [1915] AC79.<O:p></O:p>
· ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com[IMG]http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/ /><st1:City w:st=[/IMG]<ST1:place w:st="on">Murray</ST1:place></st1:City> v Leisure Play [2005] EWCA Civ 963.<O:p></O:p>
· Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 Para 8 and Schedule 2(1)(e).<O:p></O:p>
· Unlawful Default Notices issued under Section 87(1) of The Consumer Credit Act. <O:p></O:p>
· The Malicious Communications Act 1988 Section 1 (ii) a threat and Section 1 (b) causes distress or anxiety. <O:p></O:p>
· Social Security Administration Act 1992, section 187. <O:p></O:p>
· The Financial Services Authority fine avoided by Directors and levied on defendants membership for loss of protected data, circa £980,000. <O:p></O:p>
· Compensation under Section 13 of the Data Protection Act.<O:p></O:p>
· Mutual Society Act.<O:p></O:p>
· Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.<O:p></O:p>
· CDPA 1988s 16(3)(a) substantial part of trade mark copied.<O:p></O:p>
· CDPA 1988 s 94,101,102<O:p></O:p>
· Michael O’Mara Books v Express Newspapers [1099] F.S.R.49.<O:p></O:p>
· Trade Marks Act 1994, s 10(4)(d) using trade marks on business papers. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
1. All copies of documents to be relied upon have been served on the defendant and the court office.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
2. There has been no change in circumstances and the claimant is still as of todays date unable to access or verify the monies claimed to have been paid in or withdraw any funds paid in, or the dates the monies have been paid in or not. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
3. The defendant in a continuing attempt to frustrate this legal process has withdrawn the claimants ‘financial identity’ embodied in an ATM swipe card and staff at the defendants branches have also repeatedly denied the claimant access to information on the claimants funds and refunds of unlawful penalty charges/ default fees held by the defendant. Such action and prevarication by the defendant adding to the needless stress and further delay in complying with the directions of the court encountered by the claimant <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
4. The defendant claims in his defence, the right of set off in its amended defence and or by counterclaim but unless the defendant can prove to the court that any alleged debt or amount claimed in set off, namely the default charges being claimed are the result of lawful actions imposed on the claimant by the defendant and those proven lawful actions giving rise to the defendants claim for set off by the defendant and are not contrary to common law and the (UTCCR 1999) Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999; the right of set off for an unlawful act is clearly not available to the defendant. Should the Court allow set-off, this would give the defendant, the courts consent and approval in the commissioning of past and sanction further acts which remain contrary to common law and the UTCCR 1999, and therefore unlawful.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
5. At the previous hearing the defendants treated this legal process with contempt, the defendant did not properly serve bundles of copies of the documents they intended to rely on in court on the claimant. District Judge Farquhar was forced to waste valuable court time to call for a 30 minute break in proceedings, causing the court to rise, and to hand over the district judges own court file papers lodged by the defendant for the claimant to peruse. Consequently disadvantaging the claimant, who is acting in person.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
6. Curiously the defendant unable or unwilling to serve documents on the claimant in good time had however previously managed to serve a full set of unbound loose documents on the court, but it is thought to be policy for the defendant to routinely frustrate the timely service of documents on claimants of which there are many thousand following a similar path of court action against this defendant. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
7. The defendants name of city branch has repeatedly told the claimant, that the claimants flexaccount on orders at head office level remains blocked. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
8. Under a statement of truth dated 27<SUP>th</SUP> February in the initial defence lodged by the defendant, in order to prevent the claimant from obtaining a judgement by default, the defendant fraudulently claimed to have paid in £653.00 on 27th February 2007 this was totally untrue and accordingly both the claimant and court accepted that defence duly served under a statement of truth, at face value and did not at that stage grant a summary judgment to the claimant. The claimants account with the defendant was blocked and so the claimant could not verify the defence as stated. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
9. The defendant made no attempt to correct this deceit or error (by slip rule or other process) until immediately before the date of the directions hearing on 26<SUP>th</SUP> June 2007, and for the claimant the substantial change in the defence was not made known until the claimant attended court and was able to peruse by courtesy of the District Judge the court file as no documents had been served on the claimant by the defendant before the hearing. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
10. An open letter from the defendant dated March 8<SUP>th</SUP> to the claimant but not to the court, alleged a refund of [unlawful] charges, for no particular reason changes to £583 saying that they have only refunded £545.60 taken as unlawful charges and £36.87 in pending unlawful charges a total of £583.47, leaving a shortfall of £107.40 on the original claim and the claim for statutory interest at 14p per day not accounted for. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
11. The claimant in order to not waste time due to the defendants delaying tactic and to free up court time consented under duress and consequently the defendant, who did not attend the court but was represented by an agent, with little or no authority to act on behalf of the claimant was granted leave to amend the defence as per their application. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
12. This consent was on the basis that the defendant would fully consult with the claimant in order to bring about a speedy resolution. To date no effort or contact whatsoever has been made by the defendant to settle, negotiate or bring about an orderly resolution of this matter. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
13. The main point of the outstanding claim is that on December 4<SUP>th</SUP> 2006 the defendant by open letter signed by xxxxxxx, Member Relations Officer said that no refund of charges was due and the letter contained a clear threat (in paragraph 3) summarised as: if the claimant was unable to abide by the [unlawful] terms and conditions of the flexaccount then, regrettably, it may be an appropriate time to consider changing the account to another provider. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
14. The threat is again repeated in paragraph 5 summarised as: We do not want to lose you as a member so hope that on reflection you [the claimant] will now feel able to accept and comply with the [unlawful] flexaccount terms and conditions. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
15. The court many also wish to consider that as the defendant is a mutual society with members, not customers, as the defendant in its public advertising frequently and deceptively suggests, in addition to losing the facility of banking by the enforced closure of an account, the claimant is denied his lawful membership and all the rights and conventions associated with that membership of a mutual society and accordingly has also lost all financial and material claim to title to a proportion of the defendants assets should it at any time be dissolved and a distribution of assets is subsequently made to the membership as required under the terms of mutuality. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
16. The lost of membership forced on the claimant by the defendants employees (ie not voted on or formally agreed by the membership in open session) should also therefore be considered by the court. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
17. Loss of membership also means that the claimant is further disadvantaged and is unable to attend, vote and cast proxies at general meetings, annual general meetings and extraordinary general meetings of the mutual society and without consultation or agreement is unable to vote for or against the appointment of directors. Inter alia, the court is being asked to approve a succession of unlawful acts by the defendant, which must be accepted by the member ie claimant. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p><O:p></O:p>
19. The defendant, a mutual society, a society owned by its members – something the defendant seems to forget in its printed publications and commercial advertising - has however ignoring the court process has recklessly filed and registered an untrue adverse credit report seriously damaging the claimants credit rating and causing the claimant personal and professional damage. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
20. This reckless and unlawful action has manifested itself in extreme stress which impacts on the defendants heart related condition; the claimant has regular blood pressure checks and is on a daily medication of 5mg xxxxxx for the rest of his life, to constantly lower blood pressure. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
21 Any form of stress as a consequence, created and exacerbated by the defendants unlawful actions cannot be approved or condoned by the court. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
22. Unnecessary stress created by the defendant and their employee Moxxxxxxxx (who was at all times perfectly aware of the legal process and the series of unlawful charges levied by the defendant) her unlawful act in serving and registering debt default notices under Section 87(1) of The Consumer Credit Act. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
23. The claimant is seeking a ruling from this court that the debt default notices are withdrawn and a document to that effect is lodged with this court, the claimant has already requested the defendant to immediately withdraw the default notice and to serve papers on the court confirming that this has been done, but as usual the defendant has totally ignored throughout this process, the detail of the claimants correspondence.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
24. The further reckless actions of the defendants debt collection agency, for which the defendant must under law accept full legal responsibility for the actions carried out in the defendants name by its appointed agent, and the further unlawful charge or assignment of social security benefits transmitted to the defendant as protected by the Social Security Administration Act 1992, section 187 have all contributed to the claimants extreme stress, all due to the defendants unlawful application of penalty charges and associated further interest debit charges has from time to time also caused social security benefits to be forfeited, assigned or charged to the absolute benefit of the defendant. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
25.
<O:p></O:p>
26. The defendants continuing deliberate and calculated frustration of the court process and the consequent building of stress is a well known contributory factor towards cancer, the defendants reckless and cavalier actions in causing these totally untruthful actions and calculated prevarication throughout this process should be taken into consideration. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
27. The claimant asks this court to consider in addition to the claim exemplary damages and or compensation at the courts discretion, if challenged the claimant has previously asked the court to set this at figure of £2,000 but as the defendants and their agent are continuing to needlessly frustrate the court process with the late and non filing of documents, and manipulation of the slip rule which as this relates to monies subject to unlawful transactions by the defendant, the slip rule is not available to the defendant for unlawful acts, the claimant respectfully suggests punitive damages should be not more than £5,000 as an appropriate higher lawful penalty if the court deems fit, if only to show the defendant and others like the defendant that they can no longer play fast and loose with the legal process and their own restrictions as a mutual organisation, one owned by its members and as custodians of the claimants protected legal data, should not recklessly part or distribute that data without lawful authority and having due regard for any consequences <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
28<O:p></O:p>
The court should be aware that the financial services authority recently fined the defendant some £980,000 for the simple loss of a single laptop computer, a machine valued at £900 but containing data protected information identical to the claimants data protected information. The BBC Money Box Radio programme reported the matter and carried a report on their website WWW.BBC.CO.UK which is reproduced below: <O:p></O:p>
The customers, not the directors, of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1:place w:st="on">Britain</ST1:place></st1:country-region>'s biggest building society will pay a £980,000 fine for lapses in data security. <O:p></O:p>
Nationwide was fined, February 2007, after a laptop was stolen from an employee's home in August 2006. It took three weeks before the society realised the extent and sensitivity of the customer details on the computer. But Nationwide has told the BBC that it "would not be fair" if the directors paid the fine. ...........abridged see BBc website for full report... the FSA take the lead in the investigation of what was almost certainly a breach of the Data Protection rules. <O:p></O:p>
Assistant Commissioner Phil Jones told BBC Money Box: "It sends a very important wake-up call particularly to banks and others in the financial sector and to all organisations that hold personal information." BBC Radio 4's Money Box was broadcast on Saturday, 17 February 2007 at 1204 GMT. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
29. Such information relating to the claimant in far more detail than that lost and the defendant subsequently fined £980,000 by the Financial Services Authority, recklessly supplied without any lawful authority to a debt collection agency instructed by the defendant but nowhere does this information appear in the data protection act information supplied by the defendant, under a data protection act request for information, but is later confirmed by the data protection act information supplied by the debt collection agency, thereby establishing a formalised legal agency relationship with the defendant, making the defendant fully aware and authorising all subsequent actions taken on its behalf. The information given to the debt collection agency on the claimant was far more detailed than the information ‘lost’ by the defendant and for which the defendant was fined £980,000, by the FSA, but lightly dismissed by a spokesman on behalf of the defendant claiming that as the defendant had some £315 billion in reserves and assets, the fine would be easily absorbed. Inter alia of no consequence… The implication being that such a fine is not a deterrent, and the defendant with such assets can cope with any size of punishment or financial penalty with impunity.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
30. Information not formally disclosed by the defendant to the claimant under a lawful request for information and a fee paid to the defendant under the terms of the Data Protection Act for that information. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
31. The defendant and also the defendants debt collection agent seemingly appointed when the defendant already knew full well that the legal process was underway, have repeatedly ignored the claimants request made under Section 14 of the Data Protection Act for the name and address of the data controller at the defendants address who caused the claimants personal information to be recklessly passed to them. The court has already indicated that elements of this could well form the basis of a substantial fresh claim against the defendant and its agent.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
32. In letters dated 19<SUP>xxxxxx</SUP>and 3xxxxxxx07, the defendants collection agency on behalf of the defendant and with the defendants full knowledge and consent knowing full well that the defendants outstanding balance of £515.81 was being disputed sent a brightly multi colour printed letter designed to causes extreme distress or anxiety to the recipient or any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated. Such letter being contrary to the The Malicious Communications Act 1988 Section 1 (ii) a threat and Section 1 (b) causes distress or anxiety to the recipient or any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
33. The defendant also acted in concert with and authorised its agent, the debt collection agency, on the claimants behalf to pass off, deceive and threaten the claimant suggesting in the body text of the letter dated 30<SUP>th</SUP> January 2007 (that part of the text after the salutation Dear Mr xxxx and before the Yours sincerely sign off) that they are associated with or linked to and their actions wholly endorsed and approved by Visa Electron, Delta, Switch, Maestro, Solo, MasterCard, VISA, Post Office, PayPoint and Payzone as these graphic designs and registered trade marks which can only be included with authority and permission from the respective trade mark and copyright, design and patent holders. This threatening letter is also contrary to the Trade Marks Act 1994, s 10(4)(d) with particular reference to using registered trade marks of another inter alia using it without lawful authority on business papers. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
34. The intended threat to the claimant being the implication in the passing off contrary to the Trade Marks Act 1994, s 10(4)(d) that the claimant would not be able to deal or transact business with the financial organisations so listed in the body text of the letter unless the claimant complies immediately with the defendants unlawful and repeated demand. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
35. The defendant in this action is fully aware of that data protected information and such information, the identity of the individual manipulating and in control of that data protected information and the date of passing of that data protected information should be fully disclosed., as repeated required under law by the claimant, but so far ignored by the defendant.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
36. The claimant is still waiting for this information. The claimant has made several formal requests. The claimant believes that he has suffered considerable damage at the hands of the defendant and their agent and accordingly is also entitled to compensation under Section 13 of the Data Protection Act from the defendant and/or their agents who unlawfully manipulated the claimants data protected information. Information still held without lawful authority by the debt collection agency and possibly others acting for and on behalf of the defendant. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
37. How does this current unlawful manipulation and distribution of the claimants protected data differ from the defendant parting with information on a stolen or mislaid laptop? The defendant knowing full well as they were advised under a formal letter before action that the legal process had been started. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
38. Still the defendant, totally ignoring the claimants detailed letters and e-mails continued sending or freely handing out the claimants data protected personal and financial information to a debt collection agency, recklessly registering adverse credit reports – which have not to the claimants knowledge been withdrawn and as a consequence are still materially damaging the claimants standing and impacting on the claimants professional standing in the community. <O:p></O:p>
:j 41. The membership of the mutual society would not lawfully pass any resolution or enable the executive to enact any subsequent society rule that operates outside of the Laws of England and further the constitution of the society would require the mutual society and its agents operate without exception within common law, the laws of the land and not by any terms and conditions set by the defendant which the claimant suggests are unenforceable as they are outside the law as it stands. The defendant is put to full proof by reference to appropriate legal authorities and case law that its so called terms and condition for the operation of its FlexAccount product operates fully within the Laws of England as set down by Parliament. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
42. The claimant is asking for the original claim as set out to be awarded (and not subject to set off, due to any alleged debt and partial correction being solely incurred as the result of unlawful actions knowingly carried out by the defendant) to the claimant and an additional amount for exemplary damages between the figures of £2,500 and £5,000 to be awarded.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
43. The claimant further seeks a clear legal undertaking in writing lodged with the court, from the defendant that it will immediately revoke all unlawfully registered default notices, naming the claimant, a public legal notice to this effect to be posted in at least two national newspapers and a formal written public apology to accompany the award of exemplary damages as seen fit and at the discretion of the court but not less than £2,500 and not to exceed £5,000. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
Statement of Truth<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
The claimant believes that the facts stated in this document are true.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>

Edinburghlass_2

catoxley wrote: »

so what will happen now my claims been aknowledged?

The bank will now probably defend and then your claim will be transferred to your local court and MCOL will let you know.

catoxley

Thank you x

theozziend

Hi everyone. Just returned from 2 weeks in France, and knew nothing about the 27th decision. I have received the bulk of my refunds from Barclays, but this explains why they have ignored my letter requesting the refund of the subsequent charges! However, my question is - my husband has a court date of 23rd August for his hearing - on return from holiday he had a letter asking him for the Application fee of £100. He phoned them yesterday, before I had had chance to log onto here, and asked what it was about, and they explained about the questionnaire and the fee to be paid. Not wanting his claim to be struck out, he paid the sum over the phone. Will his case go ahead now? If not, should the court have not taken the fee, which I assume will not be returned until all of this is sorted out.

Or perhaps being so far down the line Barclays will offer him the out of court settlement, as they did with me, 10 days before. What should he do?

Ms_Attitude

APops wrote: »

Hi there - I am in the same boat I have been trying to claim from Halifax since April - I received the letter you are talking about - pushed on and sent the court letter and just received this weekend an even longer letter from Halifax again saying they believe the charges lawful. It also basically says not to try the ombadsman or county court as they have already aplied for a stay etc.!! I have no idea what to do next and if they are just trying to scare me off!!??
Can anyone else advise??

I've been claiming since April as well, i got the rejection letter but rang up and asked them re evaluate my case (about 2 weeks ago) which they did and have now offered me £200 (which is to debited into my account within 14days) but i was originally asking for £425 so now im going to call them in a second and ask for at least 75% of the £425;) . I will come back and post their response.