Abbey's new "no breach" defence

[GaryH]

Removed due to recent developments - Abbey's new "no breach" defence

[GaryH]

Anyone who has recieved the new defence please post here. I can't attach it here becouse I'm out of attachment space, but mine is 5 pages long and has 14 paragraphs. Para 3 is;

It is denied that those charges payable and that rate of interest applicable upon a customer going into unauthorised overdraft or exceeding an authorised overdraft constitute a penalty at common law. It is denied that those charges and that interest are payable on breach of contract.

Also, anyone who has recieved the old one (which admits a breach of contract) recently can you please post here with details of when it was recieved.

Thanks.

[psm]

Can u look at my thread please it may be important.

[psm]

old defence recieved 07/06/07

[ICY]

Old defence received 02/06/06

HTH

[Clippy]

I think mine is the old one. Dated 26 /04 /07. How do I tell?

[GaryH]

Only really after details of the old one's if they were served within the last week or so - say, sometime in August.

[yourturntopay]

I have the new one - have 3 claims going through and have been served the new one with 2 of the claims. They haven't defended the 3rd yet (they have till first week of sept to do this). One of the claims looks like it will still be heard, but the other 2 are/will be stayed at MCOL.

Do you need a copy of the new defence?

[AmySue]

I have 2 claims with Abbey.

The first one is dated 21/05/07 and is the old still defence where they say I have breached the contract and the fees charged reflect and are proportionate to the defendants admininistrative expensed incurred because of this breach. It then goes on to say even if they are not proportionate (which is denied), I remain liable to pay such fees as may be found to be proportionate and I am not entitled to claim repayment of the full amount of each claim.

The second defence dated 08/08/07, (mine is 7 pages and has 24 points)is totally different and denies that going into overdraft constitutes a breach of contract!
I also says:-
18. An overdraft constitures a loan, not a contract "under which a person ... agrees to carry out a service" within the meaning of section 12 of the 1982 Act. Accordingly, section 15 of the 1982 Act is of no application to an overdraft.

[GaryH]

I have the new one - have 3 claims going through and have been served the new one with 2 of the claims. They haven't defended the 3rd yet (they have till first week of sept to do this). One of the claims looks like it will still be heard, but the other 2 are/will be stayed at MCOL.

Do you need a copy of the new defence?

Yes please, to compare if its the same. Either type it up here or if its easier I'll send you my e-mail address.

I got this defence through yesterday for my o/h's claim. They must think we are stupid - they have defended on the basis of terms that weren't even in existance when the charges were taken. Its ridiculous! I'm applying for summary judgment, and would advise others to do the same. I'll post something up here later on.

[Curlyben]

Originally Posted by AmySue

I also says:-
18. An overdraft constitures a loan, not a contract "under which a person ... agrees to carry out a service" within the meaning of section 12 of the 1982 Act. Accordingly, section 15 of the 1982 Act is of no application to an overdraft.

Now that's an interesting twist, because surely CCA 74 s77/8 now takes effect and without an executed agreement it is unenforceable.

[GaryH]

Originally Posted by AmySue

I have 2 claims with Abbey.

The first one is dated 21/05/07 and is the old still defence where they say I have breached the contract and the fees charged reflect and are proportionate to the defendants admininistrative expensed incurred because of this breach. It then goes on to say even if they are not proportionate (which is denied), I remain liable to pay such fees as may be found to be proportionate and I am not entitled to claim repayment of the full amount of each claim.

The second defence dated 08/08/07, (mine is 7 pages and has 24 points)is totally different and denies that going into overdraft constitutes a breach of contract!
I also says:-
18. An overdraft constitures a loan, not a contract "under which a person ... agrees to carry out a service" within the meaning of section 12 of the 1982 Act. Accordingly, section 15 of the 1982 Act is of no application to an overdraft.

Excellent. The charges were taken under the same terms and one defence admits a breach and the other completely contradicts it! Its almost funny!

Can you e-mail me yours, please? It seems much longer than mine.

[GaryH]

Does anyone have a copy of Abbey's new terms and conditions? If so, when do they take effect? The ones published on their website are still the old ones.

[amethystdragon]

I have a copy of their new terms and conditions - I'll find it later and let you know

[GaryH]

Excellent - thanks.

[kev2b3]

i am not sure if this helps but i received my abbey defence on the 31st of july and its is only 3 pages long with only 11 paragraphs.

[GaryH]

Great - have you got a scanner? Who signed the statement of truth?

[kev2b3]

it was signed by vivian roux and i do have a scanner but i will need to wait until one of my kids to come home if you would like a copy.