Defence entered by Abbey

[Docubot]

Hi everyone,

today, my partner received a copy of Abbey's defence of our claim that their charges are punitive and not representitive of their actual costs.

Their defence is essentially that the charges are a true reflection of their costs.

Oh well. It'll be nice seeing how they justify them once and for all.

...such overdrawing was unauthorised and in breach of contract....

- I like that!

The fees reflect and are proportionate to the Defendant's administative expenses incurred due to the Claimant's breach of contract and are a genuine pre-estimate of the damage suffered by the Defendant.

..Love it!!

Further or in the alternative, even if the said fees are not proportioante to the Defendant's administrative expenses incurred (which is denied), the Claimant remains liable to pay such fees as may be found to be proportionate and the Claimant is not entitled to claim repayment of the full amount of each charge made to the account.

...nice!

Well, in that case, I would argue that an interest free loan of just over £2.5k for 6 years and the subsequent monies that they would no doubt have earned from such a loan (and similar) over the same period would more than cover any loss they may have incurred for a breach of contract.[/b]

I will look at the public accounts and profits Abbey have gained over the past 6 years and work out proportionatly how much extra they made from the £2.5k and let them keep it.

Let's not forget that the interest rate doubled as well - this would be a fairer way of regaining any lost revenue through a breach, and we will not contest the interest even though the non-eforcable charge was responsible for taking the account over it's limit and thus 'liable' for the extra interest.

[MoneyBAGs]

This is really interesting because, as you have intimated, by saying that the fees is proportionate to their costs they have clearly decided to fight the case on the basis that they are relying on a penalty clause.

Secondly they are clearly admitting the principle that the penalty must be proportionate - and I have never seen this admitted so clearly before.
Thirdly, you can now require them to show the court a detailed account of the costs incurred because the court will not find in favour of the Bank in the absence of a full account.

Actually this means that the case will never go to court because the the Bank will not want to lose and furthermore will certainly not want to dislcose the true value of the penalty to the court and therfore to the rest of us.

************************* ************************* ************

Are you seeking interest on this claim?

[Docubot]

Yes, the actual amount claimed for is £26xx (?), add the interest and the £100 (costs so far) it comes to £3200.

[Docubot]

Is it true that I have to send a copy of the court questionnaire to Abbey once we have (received and) completed it?

I seem to remember someone in the Yahoo group mentioning something about this last time.

[BankFodder]

Do you mean the allocation questionnaire?

here is a question on it which asks whether you have sent the defendant a copy of it. I have never understood that this means you have to but I always have a I felt that it was always better sned everything you can to do the other side so you can salways say that you have been fully open with them.

[Docubot]

That was my thought also. Thank you. I did mean the allocation questionnaire by the way.

I actually hope that Abbey don't roll over and bark like dogs on this one; both myself and my partner are looking forward to actually seeing them attempt to prove that a reasonable pre-estimate has been made of their losses and that they are not punitive.

Not to mention the other acts that you have mentioned to me.

[kevin.philips]

Dave - Good Luck with your claim, I can't wait to see the outcome

[Docubot]

I imagine the outcome will be that they pay up. After reading their defence I cannot imagine that they would want to risk a) actually showing up and losing (it's very flimsy) or b) show up and have to demonstrate that their charges are valid and accountable for admin costs.

[jonnypoo777]

I had a similar response ( word for word).I predict abbey will offer to settle out of court for 50/50 a few days before the questionasirre deadline.
Stick to your guns and you WILL get ALL charges back.

[Docubot]

I know - I've been here before!!

This is my partner going back for her charges now!

We're more than happy for it to go to court if they don't give us back our money in full.

[Docubot]

Well, as predicted by Jonnypoo (and myself) we received a letter offering 50/50, which I, of course, refused.

Today we received a letter 'offering' the full amount plus costs plus interest, without admitting liability (of course).

So, yet again, they folded and rolled over and coughed up and [insert analogy here].

[western promise]

Originally Posted by Dave

Well, as predicted by Jonnypoo (and myself) we received a letter offering 50/50, which I, of course, refused.

Today we received a letter 'offering' the full amount plus costs plus interest, without admitting liability (of course).

So, yet again, they folded and rolled over and coughed up and [insert analogy here].

Nice work. I would think there would be at least 3 avenues by which you could bu99er them up in court if they ever did take it that far.

#1 would be if you could show that they have ever claimed their charges are similar to everyone else's. Far from being a justification of them, that's as good as an admission that they do not work out their actual loss at all before deciding on what to charge. If everyone in unison upped the charge for a nasty letter to 100 quid, presumably they'd charge the same - so it is plainly not a pre-estimate of costs. It's an estimate of how much they think they can get away with.

#2 would be to show that their charge is levied whether they are adding it automatically to a statement or sending an actual letter. I would argue that since the two transaction are demonstrably of different costs, this proves the charge does not reflect any specific loss.

#3, of course, is to make them produce an analysis, unambiguously pre-dating the imposition of charges, and generated by someone authoritative in the bank and not a call centre manager or lawyer, which shows how the charges are arrived at. The analysis doesn't exist, and if it did, it would entail disclosing their margins, which they are not about to do.

[adeyk]

Hi, New to the site posts, ( been sitting, reading and taking everybody's opinion in ) but I think you guys have hit the big abbey nail well and truly on the habbits head.
I have been following post for a while now but not posted my thoughts as too much information sometimes can be confusing. My thoughts were to see it through with my claim first then, if I reclaim MYYYYYYMONEEEEY I could possibly help others.
Here goes, My argument would be in court ( coss it will get there I think and Hope ) is, in year 2000 a clearance charge was £10 ( long before cheap call centers in India ) now in 2006 ( in days of cheaper skype call centers, and faster internet conections and phone calls ) it is £30.00
TALK YOUR WAY OUT OF THAT ONE MR ( sorry to upset the girls, but you know what I mean (pc to one side ) ) Unless of coarse you are paying your staff 3 x the wage they was earning in 2000, don't think so !!!!
HIT them for everything you had and they've got !!!!!!!!!!!!
Use this with every credit card, bank acount and exploitive, geedy so and so that thinks they can make money out of somebody who falls on difficult times.
Money clain tomorrow, ARE YOU READING ABBEY - NOW WE'VE GOT YA !!

[bish]

Agree with you there adeyk,was also saving those questions for court. Cleared transaction gone from £9 in 2000 to £20 in 2006, all of their charges have either doubled or trebled in the last six years, yet their costs have been substantialy reduced. Also with the advances in technology and automated systems, why have these charges/fees increased at such an alarming rate.

Well done imported for getting your money back, wish I could say the same, looking at the MC.

Regards bish.

[bryan williams]

Hi i have receved an exact same letter as you.
In total there are 10 points to which they say they are going to defend the claim. An example is
number 8;
the claimants contention that the fees are unenforceable and/or are penalty charges is denied. The fees reflect and are propotionate to the defendants administrationative expenses incured to the claimants breach of contract and are a geuine pre-estimate of the damage suffered by the defendant. The defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to claim interest in the sum claimed or at all.
Is this usually what happens when nearing court date or is this unusual

[micko19]

I have also received the exact same letter and have been heartned by other contributors on this thread. I have asked abbey to demonstrate true value of penalty charges in terms of verifed and audited accounts showing the element of profit and the element genuine cost to the bank. I suspect cost to the bank to be in pennies. They wont do this and let nobody be intimidated by their pathetic defence letter

many thanks

[toonmagpie]

I am acting on behalf of my 18 year old who originally had charges amounting to £315. They creditted his bank with £175 some time ago as a GOGW. He hasn't touched the money and we have proceeded with the money claim route for the remaining £140 plus £10 interest. We have now received the allocation questionaire for our local court and low and behold on the very same day we received from Abbey a letter of defence citing points already printed on this thread with another GOGW for £75. Well they can ram it - we will press ahead. Do I need to reply to the defence letter?