Jump to content

Gertrude

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. Hi Slick132 I didnt write to Barclays but I wrote to DDJ Webber on 8/11/07 and Distict Judge Rutherford on 29/1/08 staing that Barclays had taken out fees. I have a Skeleton Argument on behalf of BArclays, dated 28/1/08, section 5 states as follows: 5. This is the hearing of the Claimant's application to lift the stay by a letter dated 8/11/07 on the ground that the Defendant has failed to comply with the condition of the stay as to the the addition of further bank charges to the Claimant's account. The Defendant accepts that it has added further bank charges totalling £215.00 to the Claimant's account since the stay was imposed. However, the Defendant contends that the claim should continue to be stayed pending the final determination of the Proceedings and that the stay should be unconditional. The Defendant relies on a witness statement of Rosemary Treves Brown in support of its position. The witness statement of Rosemary Siobhan Treves Brown, dated 28/1/08, (Bankfodder shoudl have a copy), section 13 reads as follows: The Defendant is fully aware that the sanction for breaching a Court order is contempt of Court, meaning such a breach could result in criminal proceedings. In light of this serious obligation, it is important to note that in these circumstances, the breach of the condition is merely as a result of error and the impracticality of compliance, as outlined above, as opposed to a posotive disregard for the terms of the order lain down by the honourable court. Regarding my two rent payments being stopped. They were not paid (I had to borrow money to pay the rent) but I was charged fees. If you need any letters scanned let me know and where to send them. Many thanks Gerty
  2. Hi Slick132 The amount Barclays have taken out between court date 28/9/07 and end of test case 25/11/09 is £457. They have stopped my rent twice on 3/9/07 and 3/8/09. OMG but as Barclays says it was an error!!!!!! Gerty
  3. Hi Slick132 Yes I did send the info to Bankfodder. The bank did take out the following amounts even after the court ordered that the bank does not add bank charges to my account from 28/9/07 and the outcome of the test case as follows: 2/11/07 £30 Paid referral fee 21/11/07 £30 Paid referral fee 3/1/08 £30 Paid referral fee 4/1/08 £30 Paid referral fee 7/1/08 £30 Paid referral fee 15/1/08 £35 Unpaid referral fee 21/1/08 £30 Paid referral fee (these were the ones listed in my letter to the judge) and yes they did stop my rent payment but I cant find the date at the moment, will let you know. Bankfodder should have the copies of letter of the order from the Judge and the reply from Barclays (Point 13 is interesting saying it was an error on their part). As the Court decision was final on 25/11/09 I have loads more that was taken out since Jan 08 to 25/11/09 but I will have to go through my statements and log them all. I will do a full list for you asap up until the 25/11/09. Gerty
  4. Hi All I received a letter from Barclays dated 19th Feb 2010 saying that if I still have a County Court claim (which I have) this will be addressed separately. I too am worried that Barclays will ask the courts to dismiss this case. I also looked at the template letter from Martyn Lewis's site asking Barclays to settle before I approach the courts asking for my POC to be updated. I even got as far as printing it out and putting in my details, but I am nrevous of what will happen. I so want to carry on fighting but I feel so anxious. Gerty
  5. I had a letter on 19th Feb 10 from Barclays stating that if I still have a County Court claim (which I have) this will be addressed separately. I am still waiting to hear. Gerty
  6. Hi Bankfodder I cant scan paperwork until tomorrow (Tues). It will be on your site tomorrow evening. thanks Gertrude
  7. Hi Bankfodder I dont have a scanner at home but I will do this at work, hope to do it today. Yes you are right the bank did still take charges out after the judge told them not to, they also stopped my rent going through . I will scan everything I think you need. Manya thanks Gertrude
  8. Hi Bankfodder POC as follows: 1. The claimant has an account with the Defendant which was opened on 19th Jan 1998. 2. During the period in which the Account has been operating the defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between intself and the Claimant. 3. A list of charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim. 4. The Claimant contends that: a)The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; are are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit. b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999); the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law. 5. Accordingly the Claimant claims: a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £2400.00 and any interest charged thereon; b) Court costsl; c) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act as set out on the attached list of charges or at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just. 6) Alternatively, if the charges are a fee for a service, then they must be reasonable under S15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act (1982). Gertrude
  9. Hi Bankfodder My claim was for unfair bank charges for £2400.00 + interest, they offered my £1800 before court which I refused, and I went to court on 7/9/07. The letter they sent is typed below: Letter dated 19th Feb 2010 We refer to your complaint relating to bank charges which was previously stayed under the terms of the FSA Waiver. The Waiver has now lapsed and we are therefore writing to you to respond to your complaint. We consider your complaint to have been about the level, and accordingly the fairness or lawfulness, of these charges. As you will be aware when we last wrote to you, we (and several other banks) entered into agreed legal proceedings with the Office of Fair Trading in relation to bank charges on 27 July 2007 in order to determine their legality. Following the Supreme Court decision on 25th November 2009, there is now a final outcome for these legal proceedings which means that the bank charges you have complained about do not amount to penalties at common law and that their level cannot be assesased for fairness under the Unfair Terms consumer Contract Regulations (UTTCRs). We do not believe that there is any legal basis on which the amount of the charges can be challenged and we are satisfied that the bank charges you seek to reclaim were properly charged. The final outcome of the legal proceedings confirms our position. If you complaint relates to a different issue or you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact us on the number above. You may also finf the following link to our website useful in answering any questions you may have www.barclays.co.uk. Our aim is to resolve all complaints internally, although we recognise this may not always be possible. If we are unable to agree a way forward you may be able to ask the FOS to review your complaint and we will help you if you would like us to do this. Before you dec ide whether or not to take your complaint to FOS, you may find it helpful to consider the information about this subject on their webiste FAQs complaints about bank charges. If we do not hear from you within the next 8 weeks I will consider your complaint to be resolved and accordingly I will close our file. If you still have a County Court claim this will be addressed separately. Yours sincerely Neil Henderson Retail Banking Customer Relations Director Thanks Gertrude
  10. Hi My claim has been stayed at the County Court. Just received a letter from Barclays stating "We do not belive that there is any legal basis on which the amount of the charges can be challenged and we are satisfied that the bank charges you seek to reclaim were properly charged. The final outcome of the legal proceedings confirms our position. We are therefor not upholding your complaint and we will not be refunding the bank charges you have complained about. If we do not hear from you within the next 8 weeks I will consider your complaint to be resolved and accordingly I will close our file. If you still have a County Court claim this will be addressed separately." Could someone tell me if I have to reply to this letter or (worried about the 8 week bit) or do I just wait for some other letter to come from the Courts? I just don't trust the little weasles. Thanks Gertrude
  11. Hi slick132 No trouble at all. Thank you to all on the site and your kind, encouraging and sometines very funny comments. You make us feel that we are not alone. Gerty
  12. Hi Martin3030 The judge asked Barclays solicitor and that was what he said. Anyway I am going to type the bits I think is relevant from the paperwork I received today. it is better than going to Asda. Here goes Witness Statement from their legal counsel which was sent registered this morning, it start off with introduction and relevant backgoung of the test case then goes on to Practical points to consider in respect of the condition sought by the Claimant. 1. By imposing such a condition on the Bank, the Court would be presupposing the outcome of the test case. Further, the Proceedings are already underway so it will not be long until the matters in dispute are resolved (or at least made clearer). 2. The condition imposed in the order dated 7 September 2007 places a very heavy burden on the Bank in amending its procedures to not levy charges against only this Claimant. The charges are applied both by the Bank's systems and by a detailed manual process involving several employees and in order to comply with an order not to impose further charges, the Bnak would have to deactivate part of those systems and treat the Claimant's account differently from all other current account customers. Also, were the Bnals to win the Proceedings case, the Bank would then have to manually reapply all the charges that would have been levied during the course of the stay which would cause the Bnak to expend a considerable amount of time and money which would be disproportianate to any inconvenience that might be suffered by the Claimant. 2a The Claimant is not forced to incur any charges and there are alternatives. It is entirely wihtin the Claimant's and not the Dedendant's control whether she attempts to make an unauthroised payment. The Claimant has incurred six paid referral fees and one unpaid referral fee since September 2007. Therefore six of the seven times the Claimant has made an informal request for an unauthorised overdraft (by making a payment request without the funds to meet it) the Bank alloed the payment and extended the Claimant's overdraft. Indeed, in the case of guaranteed cheques the Bnak is obliged to honour any instruction the Claimant issues, despite funds not being available. 2b The Claimant is protected financially in respect of any further charges incurred. If the OFT is successful in the Proceedings in January, the Claimant will be able to claim interest on any charges levied at a higher rate of interest than it is likely she would otherwise have benefited from. Also, the Bank would be able to satisfy any eventual claim for damages, while it may not be the case that the Claimant would be as well placed to later compensate the Bank. 3. Both the FSA and the Financial Ombudsman Service have both considered their positions in light of the imminent test case and in the case of the FSA, provided detailed guidance for the banks. Neither of these regulatory bodies have expressed the view that the banks should be prevented from continuing to impose charges for the duration of the stay. The OFT has similarly not made this a condition of the agreement between the banks (including the Defendant) dated 25th July 2007. 4. The Bank is obliged under the Banking Code to treat all cases of financial difficulty "sympathetically and positively" and the Bank it has every intention of honouring this duty to the Claimant. This point is further reinforced by the FSA Direction following the OFT agreement with the banks'. It would be more appropraite for the Claimant to engage in discussions with the Bank as to how it might be able to assist her. 5. If the Claimant ultimatley loses, but this specific condition remains, the Claimant may owe a significant sum of money all at once which she may find hard to pay and the Defendant difficult to recover. 6. The Defendant is fully aware that the sanction for breaching a Court order is contempt of Court, meaning such a breach could result in criminal proceedings. In light of this serious obligation, it is important to note that in these circumstances, the breach of the condition is merely as a result of error and the impracticality of complaince, as outlined above, as opposed to a positive disregard for the terms of the order lain down by the honourable court. Phew now on to the Skeleton Argument on Behalf of the Defendant The Claimant's Application 1. The Defendant accepts that it has not complied with the condition of the stay imposed by Deputy District Judge Webber's order of 7th September 2007. The Defendant has applied unauthorised overdraft charges totalling £215.00 to the Claimant's account since the date of the stay. The Defendant apologises to the Court and the Claimant for its failure to comply with this condition. The explanation for the Defendant's con-compliance with the condition is that the application of unauthorised overdraft charges to the Claimant's account is a partly automated process which cannot be disabled in respect of just one account. 2. Despite the Defendant's non-compliance wth the condition of the original stay of this claim, it is submitted that the Claimant's application to lift the stay should be dismissed for the reasons set out above. Further, the Defendant argues that today the Court should unconditionally stay the present claim pending the final determination of the Proceedings for the following reasons: 2a The condition of the stay imposed by the order of 7 September 07 (or indeed any other condition) pre-supposes that the Proceedings will be concluded in favour of the Claimant. It is submitted that the Court should seek to maintain the staus quo by refusing to impose any conditions, particularly since the OFT and the Banks have agreed to pursue the Proceedings (including any appeals) expeditiously. 2b While it is very difficult for the Defendant to comply with a condition that it should not impose further unauthorised overdraft charges, it is relatively easy for the Claimant to avoid the imposition of further charges. If necessary, the Claimant should approach the Defendant with a view to agreeing an increased authorised overdraft limit which would accommodate her financial needs. (I did this and Barclays refused). 2c The Claimant would be adequately compensated by the contunuing accrual of interest and/or damages for any consequential losses (subject to ordinary remoteness and mitigation rules) if she is ultimately successful. The Defendant clearly has financial resources to meet any obligations in that regard. 2d By contrast, if the charges are subsequently found to be lawful, the Defendant would suffer unjustified prejudice as a result of the condition without any prospect of receiving compensation from the Claimant. Further and in any event, if the Proceedings were to be determined in favour of the Banks, the Claimant might be placed in a worse position by the simultaneous application of a large number of overdraft charges which would otherwise have accrued over the period when the claim was stayed. 2e Insofar as the Claimant seeks to rely on financial hardship to support her argument that the stay should be lifted or the condition of the order of 7 September 07 be maintained, the Defendant submits that the Claimant has not yet produced any documentary evidence of the existence or cause of any financial hardship. Furtherm the Defendant continues to have regard to its obligations under section 14 of the Bnaking Code to deal sympathetically and positvely with cases of financial hardship. 2f It is more appropraite to deal with cases of financial hardship by way of constructive dialogue between the bank and its customer than through lifting the stay or imposing conditions on any stay of proceedings. The Defendant offers its customers a wide range of products which would help a customer facing financial hardship. In particular, there are more cost effective finance options than unauthorised overdraft borrowing. Further and in any event, the Claimant might wish to downgrade her current account to basic account without an overdraft facility. This would prevent her from incurring any further charges but she would also have no access to a debit card or to cheques drawn on the basic account. 2g None of the regulators which has been involved with bank charges (namely, the OFT, the FSA and the Financial Ombudsman) has suggested that stays of bank charges claims ought to be conditional. Conclusion For all reasons set out above, it is respectfully submitted that the present claim should be stayed pending the final determination of the proceedings. The Proceedings provide a just, efficient and binding mechanism to resolve issues of principle that underlie the present case in a manner that could not occur if this case (and others like it) proceeded. RUPERT ALLEN Fountain Court Chambers Temple EC4Y 9DH 28th Jan 08 thats it, I am off for a cup of tea now. Gerty
  13. Your are quite right Lula. If I got time I will try and write some of the info I was given tonight. One thing I will type now is the following: The Defendant is fully aware that the sanction for breaching a Court order is contempt of Court, meaning such a breach could result in criminal proceedings. In light of this serious obligation, it is important to note that in these circumstances, the breach of the condition is merely as a result of error and the impracticality of compliance, as outlined above as opposed to a positive disregard for the terms of the order lain down by the honourable court. Yeh right Gerty Got to go home now,
  14. Hi all Not good news as you can imagine. Barclays sent a solicitor down from London. The case has been stayed again and the condition has been taken off. I received a letter in the post this morning from Barclays which was a witness statement of Rosemary Siobhan Treves Brown (legal counsel) and I was given by the Barclays solicitors a skeleton argument on behalf of the themselves. Judge Rutherford took the condition off as he put it, in case I go to the papers next week and say that the Barclays did not do what they should have. He also said that as the outcome should be known within 5 - 6 weeks he was not going to lift the stay. The Barclays rep said I should have contacted Barclays and asked for an increase in my overdraft facilities, I told him I had done that and I was turned down. If any of the mods want to give me a fax number I will fax them the papers, makes interesting reading (its too much to type). My email at home is not working yet (I'm typing this at work). I said I was extremely annoyed why Barclays seems to think they are above the law and can get away with this. It seems they can. Me fed up? No cos we will win in the end!! I am at work until 4:10 otherwise I will have to fax papers tomorrow Gerty
×
×
  • Create New...