Hi there fellow claimers
I made my claim against alliance & leicester via mcol
and within TWO days received a cheque for settlement from alliance & leicester for
full and final
Settlement of £124. plus court costs.
(I have since returned this cheque with a template letter from the libary)
7 Days after alliance & leicester's offer.
I received this 6 page Defence from Wragges this month.
If you haven't received your defence - this is what you are likely to receive (or similar)
I am led to believe they are sending out a standard document to everyone.
If you have already received your Defence -
please have a read of mine, and let me know how it compares to yours, or
how it differs.
I would also welcome any constructive advice from professionals/experienced claimers who are further down the line,
who may be reading this thread.
I am currently awaiting to hear from my local court, as I do not think it has been transferred from Northampton yet.
When you telephone mcol - (they are snowed under) - there is currently an ansafone message apologising for the slowness of the mcol site - due to a heavy load - which they say they are working on 'to put right'
Together we are Strong !
Good luck everyone
thankyou and may the Power be with you Flower !
Alice x x x
DEFENCE
1. Save insofar as the same consists of admissions and save insofar as it is herein expressly admitted or expressed not to be admitted, the Defendant joins issue with the Claimant's claim.
2. This Defence is served and filed without prejudice to the Defendant's contention that the Particulrs of Claim disclose no reasonable cause of action and ought to be struck out pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Procedures Rules Part 3.4 and/or that summary judgment ought to be granted against the Claimant pursuant to the
Civil Procedure Rules Part 24.2 as the Claimant has no real prospects of succeeding on the claim or issue and there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue ought to be disposed of at trial.
General
3. It is admitted and averred that the Defendant is a company providing Banking services.
4. It is further admitted and averred that the Defendant agreed with the Claimant to provide banking services for the Claimant in accordance with the Defendant's standard terms and conditions.
5. It is admitted that the Defendant has debited various chages to the Claimant's account with the Defendant in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed to be the Claimant.
6. It is denied that the charges debited to the Claimant's account with the Defendant are a penalty and invalid as is alleged or at all. In particular, it is denied that the charges are unfair and/or invalid pursuant to the provisions of the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 and/or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations or otherwise.
7. With respect to each and every charge, the Claimant is put to strict proof of the allegation that the charge is a penalty and/or unfair and/or invalid, as is alleged or at all.
8. It is denied that the charges, or any one of them, are punitive in nature and/or a penalty. The charges were incurred as part of the banking services provided by the Defendant and calculated in accordance with Defendant's terms and conditions agreed to by the Claimant.
Insufficient Particulars of Claim
9. It is denied that the Defendant has applied charges to the Claimant's account with the Defendant as claimed and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the amount claimed and that such amount has been unlawfully debited from the Claimant's account.
10. The Claimant has failed to particularise the claim against the Defendant adequately or at all and the Claimant is requested to particularise each and every charge that the Claimant alleges the Defendant has added to the account, specifying the amount charged, the date of the charge and the explanation given for the charge.
11. The Defendant repeats paragraph 2 above.
Charges:
12. In accordance with the Defendant's standard bank account terms and conditions agreed to by the Claimant, the Claimant agreed to pay charges as levied by the Defendant for banking services provided by the Defendant in the course of the banking relationship. It is admitted that, in accordance with those terms and conditions, the Defendant has debited the Claimant's account with
bank charges as set out below.
13. The Defendant's terms and conditions from time to time, which are incorporated into the agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant, provide specifically for the debiting of these categories of charges as follows:
13.1 PAID ITEM FEE
This is where the customer (the Claimant) presents an item for payment, and the Defendant is prepared to pay the charge, but the payment is in excess of the Claimant's agreed credit limit.
the charge for this is currently set at £25. per item, with a maximum of no more than four paid item charges per day or six paid item chages per month being levied.
13.2 FAILED TRANSACTION FEE
This is where the customer (the Claimant) goes in exces of the agreed overdraft limit, or where the customer (the Claimant) never had an overdraft limit and went overdrawn.
The charge for this is £25 for the first day and then a further £25 if the customer (the Claimant) remains overdrawn for five or more days during the month.
14. The only charges relevant to this claim are those which have been debited to the Claimant's account within these three charge categories in the last six years from the date of issue of these proceedings.
15. These charges were incurred as follows:
15.1 The paid item fee is a charge incurred where the Claimant presents an item for payment which, if honoured, would give rise to the Claimant's account being overdrawn in excess of any overdraft limit at that point agreed between the parties, and where the Defendant decides nevertheless to make payment in relation to the item.
15.2 The failed transaction fee is a charge incurred where it is necessary to return a cheque or other item unpaid as a rsult of the Claimant presenting an item for payment which, had it been honoured, would have given rise to the Claimant's account being overdrawn in excess of any agreed limit.
15.3 The unauthorised overdraft fee is a charge incurred where the Claimant's account becomes overdrawn and no overdraft facility has then been agreed in advance by the Claimant; or becomes overdrawn in exces of the overdraft limit at that point then agreed between the parties.
16. As to any allegation (if any) that these charges are penalty clauses, they are not. The charges are administrative fees levied by agreement in the circumstances set out above. They are not charged by way of damages for breach of contract. The charges are thus not capable of constituting penalties, and the principles of law in relation to penalty clauses have no application.
17. As to any allegation (if any) that these charges are unenforceable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, the charges are administrative fees levied by agreement in the circumstances set out above. As such, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 has no application to these charges.
18. The terms are not in any event unreasonable in relation to the service in question.
19. As to any allegation (if any) that these chages were unenforceable under the Unfair terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:
19.1 The charges are administrative fees levied by agreement in the circumstances set out above. There are not levied contrary to the requirment of good faith and do not cause any or any significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract to the detriment of the Claimant. In consequence, by reason of section 5 they are not unenforceable.
19.2 The terms relate to the price or remuneration as against banking services supplied in exchange, as explained above, and therefore constitute a 'core' provision. In consequence, by reason of section 6 they are not unenforceable as no assessment of the fairness of the term is to be applied to such terms.
19.3 The terms are not in any event unreasonable in relation to the banking services in question.
20. However, without prejudice to the above, the Defendant will refund and/or has refunded the Claimant's account part of each failed transaction fee to the extent of any excess above a debited charge of £12 per item.
Limitation
21. The charges incurred by the Claimant at any time prior to six years before this action was commenced are statute barred by virtue of section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980.
22. The charges incurred by the Claimant were in accordance with the Defendant's standard terms and conditioins agreed to by the Claimant when the Claimant opened the account with the Defendant. The charges were incurred as part of the banking services provided by the Defendant and calculated in accordance with Defendant's terms and conditions agreed to by the Claimant. The Claimant was notified in monthly statements of the charges to the account as provided for by the terms and conditions.
23. The Claimant has been aware or ought to have been aware of the charges incurred from the date of each statement: the charges are open and apparent on the face of each statement.
24. It is denied that there has been any fraud on the part of the Defendant which, in any event, the Claimant has failed to particualrise or substantiate against the Defendant. It is denied that the Defendant has concealed any of the charges and it is denied that the claim is for relief from consequences of a mistake. The Claimant knew, or ought to have known, of the charges when they were levied and section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 is not applicable. The Defendant has no duty to advise the Claimant on the law, and there is no fraudulent and/or any concealment just because the Claimant did or did not know whether a legal remedy was available.
Overdraft/Set-off
25. In any event, if at the trial of this action the Claimant holds overdrawn accounts with the Defendant, then even if any money is due to the Claimant by way of refund, the the Defendant is entitled to and claims to set off the sum refunded agains the overdraft sum then outstanding on that acount(s) and owing by the Claimant to the Defendant.
Conclusion
26. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the loss and damage as pleaded. The Claimant is not entitled to the relief sought, or any relief.
STATMENT OF TRUTH
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I am duly authorised by the Defendant to sign this statement on its behalf.
Signed: Elizabeth Bridges
Position: Trainee Solicitor, Wragge & Co
Wragge & co
Birmingham office
55 Colmore Row
Birmingham
B3 2AS
telephone 0121 20 5050
Here is WRAGGES 6 PAGE DEFENCE - have a read 
"
