Well, just about to send my
AQ off...
Herewith a full and faithful transcript of Barclays' defence. It seems slightly more fleshed out than some of the ones I've seen on here, but I can't get the search tool to work at the moment, so I don't know if this is the new standard defence they are offering... All comments welcome:
1. It is admitted that the Claimant had two accounts, numbers xxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx, both of sort code xxxxxx, and that both were closed on 30 June 2006. To the extent that it is alleged that the Claimant incurred
bank charges on his accounts for unauthorised borrowings (whether unpaid fees for returned cheques, ?Paid Referral fees? Or any other such fees), it is admitted that such charges were debited from the Claimant?s accounts; however, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of each charge and the date thereof.
2. The Defendant was entitled to charge the Claimant for unauthorised borrowings by reason of its standard terms and conditions. The Claimant accepted the same when the accounts were opened, including (in particular but without limitation) the following terms and conditions (which are summarised):
a. The Defendant?s right to charge a ?Paid Referral Fee? where the Defendant pays an amount (either by compulsion or election) which causes the accounts to become overdrawn - £30 per item (previously £25).
b. The Defendant?s right to charge an administrative fee if any cheque, standing order or
direct debit cannot be paid because of insufficient cleared funds in the accounts - £35 per item (previously £30)
c. The Defendant’s entitlement, if the Claimant becomes overdrawn without an
overdraft limit, to charge
interest at the unauthorised borrowing rate on the excess balance.
3. The Defendant?s standard terms and conditions gave the Claimant a fair and transparent view of those terms and the charges applicable for unauthorised borrowings (including where the accounts are overdrawn without an
overdraft limit or where the Claimant exceeds his authorised overdraft limit).
4. If and to the extent that it is the Claimant?s case that the failure to make necessary payments and / or failure to remain within authorised overdraft limits constituted a breach of the terms applying to the accounts and that the contractual entitlement to debit charges from the Claimant?s accounts constituted a liquidated damages clause, the same is denied. The charges constitute payments the Claimant agreed to make by reason of the terms and conditions of his accounts and were consideration for the Defendant advancing credit to the Claimant, which the Defendant was under no obligation to advance. The Defendant was entitled to impose such charges and interest when the Claimant incurred the overdraft.
5. Accordingly, it is denied that the legal principles relating to liquidated damages clauses and penalty charges are relevant or applicable to the facts set out above. Further or alternatively it is denied that any such charges constitute unlawful penalty charges or are in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (particularly but without limitation to, paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 2), or are in breach of s.4 of the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 (or any other provision), or are unreasonable within the meaning of s.15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (or indeed any other provision).
6. Therefore, it is denied that the charges were unlawfully debited from the accounts.
7. If and to the extent the Claimant incurred charges on his accounts, this was caused by the Claimant having gone into overdraft without having agreed with the Defendant to increase the overdraft facility and / or his failure to make payments to bring the balance of the accounts back into credit.
Barclays defence - comments please 
Re: £5000 limit and interest question 
Re: Cautiously optimistic!!! 
