Thread: Barclays Bank - claim pending during 'test case'

I lodged a claim with Barclays in January 2008 for bank charges and interest suffered against my overdrawn current account during Feb-Dec 2007. It amounts to £590 in penalty charges and £46.70 in interest charges. Barclays acknowledged my claim immediately, but put it on hold during the 'test case' which is about to come to a conclusion.
After the judgement of the case is made public on Weds 25th November what action should I pursue in order to get my claim resolved.

sorry can you confirm that you issued a county court claim,

Originally Posted by old_andrew2007

sorry can you confirm that you issued a county court claim,

No - I wrote to Barcalys on Jan 3rd 2008 enclosing an itemised list of charges and interest for the period stated in my first post.
Barclays replied immediately acknowledging the complaint, but stating that they were pursuing a test case blah blah blah. They said:
"We can assure you we have registered and stored your complaint"

The current account on which these charges were incurred is now closed and is the subject of a repayment plan, but assuming these charges are found to be illegal, I am minded to use Barclays' own tactic and "set-off" this amount against that debt (since it forms a large part of it).

The backgound to my attitude is that apart from this current a/c debt, I have a loan which has PPI attached to it (for which I got no benefit) - that is with the fos (for all the good they are), and two Barclaycard debts. Both cards were obtained in the 70's and 80's and I am not aware of signing anything other than an application form for each. Both of these are almost at the litigation stage with me using CPR 31.16 for disclosure (all other routes having failed).

LSP

Originally Posted by luckysandpiper

No - I wrote to Barcalys on Jan 3rd 2008 enclosing an itemised list of charges and interest for the period stated in my first post.
Barclays replied immediately acknowledging the complaint, but stating that they were pursuing a test case blah blah blah. They said:
"We can assure you we have registered and stored your complaint"

The current account on which these charges were incurred is now closed and is the subject of a repayment plan, but assuming these charges are found to be illegal, I am minded to use Barclays' own tactic and "set-off" this amount against that debt (since it forms a large part of it).

The backgound to my attitude is that apart from this current a/c debt, I have a loan which has PPI attached to it (for which I got no benefit) - that is with the fos (for all the good they are), and two Barclaycard debts. Both cards were obtained in the 70's and 80's and I am not aware of signing anything other than an application form for each. Both of these are almost at the litigation stage with me using CPR 31.16 for disclosure (all other routes having failed).

LSP

12.15 hrs - It all seems rather academic now

In for a penny, in for a pound. I've amended my claim from'punitive' to 'unfair' under section 5(1) UTCCR. We'll see.

Yes --- I'm in a similar with Barclays - are we just to give up (as their letter to me (yesterday) suggests!) ? what about the fact that they changed £30/35 charges to £8 overnight two years ago - does this not admit that the previous charges were unfair? Is there a thread going on 'what next with bank charges' ? I can't find one at the moment...

Originally Posted by captain crunk

Yes --- I'm in a similar with Barclays - are we just to give up (as their letter to me (yesterday) suggests!) ? what about the fact that they changed £30/35 charges to £8 overnight two years ago - does this not admit that the previous charges were unfair? Is there a thread going on 'what next with bank charges' ? I can't find one at the moment...

Neither can I and the site team seem to have gone quiet on the issue. The news today that the OFT are NOT going to make another challenge does not help anybody either - we shall see what happens after Christmas.

LSP

I'm going to write to Barclays again to ask why they reduced their usual charge for most things to £8. I did find something- an 'alanfromderby' thread- I think its in litigation or general (Bank Action G). Looking at the below I'm still tempted to claim against them but it would be good to know what's happening with cases that must be going on right now - guess we'll have to wait till the new year for things to get going again - Happy Christmas!
Banks must prove charges are fair - Ray Cox QC delivers new hope to bank reclaimers. NEWS RELEASE
Monday 14 December 2009

In light of the recent Supreme Court test case ruling we have obtained advice from leading banking barrister Raymond Cox QC. MoneySavingExpert.com believes the doors are still open for reclaimers...

* Strong further argument that means banks must prove their charges are fair. The original regulation had a very narrow scope, and only fell on a technicality at the last stage. As well as the new argument based on a broader interpretation of that rule, the blockbuster new approach is to challenge charges' fairness under the Consumer Credit Act.

This was never raised in the test case and importantly means the burden of proof is on the banks to prove charges are fair rather than customers having to prove they're unfair.

Further detailed explanation of legal points at www.moneysavingexpert.com/bankcharges
* MoneySavingExpert calls upon the OFT to take this on. The Office of Fair Trading is still deliberating whether it will take further action on bank charges, we have informed it of the new legal arguments and believe it's in the public interest that it takes up the cudgel and restarts action against the banks.
* Political support is strong. This action has a wide range of support; Nick Clegg MP is calling for the OFT to follow MoneySavingExpert's legal option, the Conservative Shadow Treasury Secretary believes the OFT should investigate what powers are available to them and launch a competition investigation (full quotes below).
* Could we have a regulator solution too? Currently there's a perverse scenario that bank accounts must be fair when they are in credit because they're then regulated by the FSA; but not when they're overdrawn, due to the court ruling.

Yet the banks' main case, and the technicality they won on, was that bank charges are part of the 'price' of an account. As it is the FSA's responsibility to regulate bank accounts, separate to the legal case, we believe the Supreme Court ruling may mean it can now investigate the fairness of charges directly and without need for the court. We know this is being looked at in Whitehall and at the FSA.

Martin Lewis, creator of consumer revenge website MoneySavingExpert.com, says:

“Seconds out, round two. The host of new legal routes to challenge the fairness should give renewed hope to the millions of people waiting to get the money back that was unfairly taken from their accounts.

"Yet what is crucial is that the Office of Fair Trading takes up the cudgel. Can
Gill from Glasgow, Pete from Peterborough or Nikkie from Notting Hill really be
expected to match up to the big bucks top end barristers in the courts? This is complex law and we need the big institutions of state to champion financial justice.

"The OFT has already provisionally said it thinks charges aren't fair, and having had legal advice, we believe there are substantial legal avenues available for it to challenge fairness. Therefore, it seems quite simple; the OFT cannot give up.

"Yet if the OFT refuses to live up to its name and fight for fairness then we and other consumer groups are looking to publish a fresh round of template letters - and possibly organising a group action. Yet that could need reclaimers to fund it as the cost could run into millions - and can those already struggling due to these nasty charges really be expected to pay? The last thing we need is some of societies' poorest priced out of justice."

What the politicians say

Martin Lewis has spoken to the political parties to discuss the new arguments and asked that they support continued action from the OFT. The following are agreed public quotes after discussion...

Nick Clegg MP, leader of the Liberal Democrats, says:

"Banks must not be allowed off the hook after the astonishing court judgment last month - the fight must go on. The excessive fees imposed by banks are simply wrong and must be changed. There is a simple principle of fairness at stake that bank charges must be transparent and proportionate.

"While the Liberal Democrats will keep up the fight in Parliament, I hope the OFT will act upon Moneysavingexpert's legal advice to continue pressing the case through the courts."

Mark Hoban MP, Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, says:

"November's Supreme Court judgment was a blow for consumers. The OFT has said it will explore the use of other powers to investigate and we support that. We have already called for a competition review of banks - it must include consumer banking charges. November's judgment has perpetuated the uncertainty over bank charges which is damaging for the entire industry."

Sarah McCarthy-Fry MP, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, says:

"The Supreme Court decision is obviously very disappointing for the many consumers who feel they haven't been getting a fair deal on bank charges. The OFT is considering the judgment in detail and will report back in the next few months."

"In the meantime we are focusing on ensuring we have a fairer system of charges for the future. We hope to do this through a voluntary agreement with the banks, but we don't rule out further options if a voluntary agreement doesn't deliver the changes we need - greater transparency and more proportionate charges.

"Through the Financial Services Bill we are also legislating to give consumers the ability to take a group action through the courts, where in the future there is misselling or abuse on the parts of banks.

MoneySavingExpert.com is also in regular dialogue with other consumer groups, the Consumer Action Group, Legal B eagles, and Penalty Charges all of whom are collectively focused on ensuring justice for reclaimers.

The template letters and legal advice should be available within the next two weeks via www.MoneySavingExpert.com alongside the other free campaigning sites including the Consumer Action Group, Penalty Charges and Legal B eagles - who will be feeding into this process too.











..

Since Barclays refused to acknowledge my letters, I told them I would suspend repayments against my old overdraft, where these charges were incurred - they responded in 4 days .

However, they claimed that the OFT were defeated on regulation 5 of the UTCCR's and I had great pleasure in writing back to correct them, and to re-affirm that I am claiming under Regulation 5 together with CCA 1974 ss.140A-140B, pointing out that ss.140B (9) places the onus on the Creditor to prove the charges were fair to the Debtor. I also pointed out that since I could not negotiate the charges, and could not 'shop around' because the Big Banks were opperating a sort of 'cartel' and all charging the same (2007), their charges breeched UTCCR. regulation 5.
I wait to see.

LSP

I wrote nearly two weeks ago saying that I didn't think the ruling meant there was no case for these charges being unfair - same reasons - haven't had a response...will consider what to do at the weekend..CC

Originally Posted by captain crunk

I wrote nearly two weeks ago saying that I didn't think the ruling meant there was no case for these charges being unfair - same reasons - haven't had a response...will consider what to do at the weekend..CC

Take a look at this thread and plan your case accordingly:

Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

LSP

Hi All

Predictably, Barclays Bank, liars that they are, continue to assert that the OFT was defeated on regulation 5(1) of the UTCCR's on the 'value for money' arguement, this despite me quoting to them the statement made by Lord Phillips at para. 57 of the Supreme Court judgement which suggested that the OFT might have won under that regulation. Instead, they repeatedly refer to Andrew Smith J (Court of Appeal) whose judgements were rejected by Lord Phillips at para 74. They also reject CCA 1974 (as amended) ss.140A/140B as having no bearing on the 'discrepancy between the level of the charge to the cost of applying it by the bank' not surprising really, since I never tried to say that it did, merely that it puts the onus on the creditor to prove that the imposition of these charges was fair to the debtor in terms of business practices. Was he able to negotiate on these charges? - could he get a better deal elsewhere? -
no because the banks were operating a 'cartel' of sorts and all setting the same charges which were then 'imposed' on the consumer.
Barclays' response is a complete tissue of lies and mis-information purporting to be a definitive response to the points of law quoted backed by their 'victory' in the Supreme Court, but then, what did I really expect ? And yet again, they point me to the fos

I will keep you updated

LSP