Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I have just issued my first claim today at MCOL and it feels pretty good!!!
Bit of history in case anyone else can learn anything from it.....
29/8/06 1st letter (lba) and spreadsheet of penalty charges & interest on penalties sent to P O Box 5592, Northampton, NN4 1ZY asking for refund of £355.53 by 12/9/06. Made up of penalty charges of £212 and interest on penalty charges of £143.53.
1/9/06 letter back from Katrina Downs, P O Box 599, Manchester M60 3NF
saying they aim to deal with matter by 27/9/06.
6/9/06 letter from Debbie Woodcock, Customer Relationship Manager at Manchester address saying they believe the charges are fair and transparent etc., they disagree with my legal analysis, but putting that to one side, as a goodwill gesture and without any admission of liability they will credit my account with £80, being the difference between the £20 charges I incurred and the "£12 fee recommended by the OFT" x 10. I checked my statement online and the money was indeed credited to my account that day.
7/9/06 I wrote back declining their offer of settlement and again requesting the full amount. I said that I would accept the £80 only as part settlement and would pursue recovery of remainder through court. No extension to timescale etc.
9/9/06 Letter from Carol Jones at Manchester address saying their position remains the same and she is "not prepared to consider my request for any further refund". Also saying that I suggested in my letter that the charges are penalty clauses and thus unenforceable and that I outlined case law etc. etc. (none of which came from my letter - wonder where she got it from?;-)!!! couldn't be mixing herself up could she?) and that they do not believe the charges levied under the contract equate to penalty clauses, or that the contract is unenforceable or that terms are unfair.
12/9/06 Spreadsheet updated to reflect the £80 refund applied on 6/9/06, plus updated payments since LBA. MCOL issued against Barclays Bank PLC trading as Barclaycard, 1 Churchill Place, London E14 5HP.
Claim
Penalty charges £132
Interest on penalty charges £110.33
8% on penalties £22.35
8% on interest on penalties £6.47
Court fee £30
Total £301.15
8% interest accruing at 5p per day.
not heard a dicky bird. wonder what they're playing at - they haven't even acknowledged the claim online! Monday's their 14th day. Hope I haven't spoken too soon!
Well the 28 days for lodging a defence are up today. MCOL still states acknowledged. Does anyone know what time they have to do it by? I suppose as it's online they don't operate under the normal court hours.
Well I'm not too pleased with the MCOL system. I stayed up till midnight yesterday to enter my request for judgement by default, as it was still showing as acknowledged but not defended. This morning I had an email from MCOL to say they have entered a defence and case is being transferred to my local county court. I'm wondering if MCOL are not getting the case claim details updated in time for it to show, but as an online service I would expect it to show up to the minute information. I have replied to their email asking them what time they accepted the defence.
Just had an email back from MCOL - would you believe this? -
"The defence was processed today, although the deadline was yesterday, as no further action had been taken we would process the defence".!!!
But further action had been taken, just after midnight I went online and requested judgement by default. Although my application would not have been viewed by court staff until they opened for business this morning it was there for them to see on their computers when they processed the defence! Does anyone know if I have a right to complain? Or is this standard procedure?
It would have made no difference even if they had filed a week late. All they would need to do is come up with some pathetic little excuse, like the dog ate it, and have the judgement set aside. By all means complain but you'll be wasting your breathe
Victory over Lloyds PPI claim £2606 click! Barclaycard lazygoing - £580 + £398 contractual int at 17.7 % click! (Received partial payment £110 21/11/06) The GF's battle against RBS click! stayed awaiting the end of the world
Suppose you're right about that. But atleast I would have put them to further work for getting it in late and abusing the court process. Looking on the bright side I guess that would have delayed me getting this sorted out even further.
Victory over Lloyds PPI claim £2606 click! Barclaycard lazygoing - £580 + £398 contractual int at 17.7 % click! (Received partial payment £110 21/11/06) The GF's battle against RBS click! stayed awaiting the end of the world
Stuff through from court today. Barclaycard's defence & notice of transfer from MCOL to my local court. allocation questionnaire to be returned by 5 November.
Defence looks like this:
They are disputing the full amount.
Defence
1. Barclaycard is a trading division of Barclays Bank PLC and not a legal entity in its own right.
(My claim stated defendant as Barclays Bank PLC trading as Barlcaycard - so have I made an error which they are disputing?)
2. The POC are summary and do not provide details of the precise charges alleged to have been unlawful, or the date thereof. Accordingly this defence is summary in nature and [Barclays] reserves the right to amend this Statement of Case in due course.
3. To the extent it is alleged that [bong] incurred charges on his/her account for unauthorised borrowings (whether late payment fees, exceeding authorised credit limit fees, or any other such fees (the "charges"), [Barclays] puts [bong]to strict proof of each charge and the date thereof.
4. [Barclays'] standard terms and conditions ("terms"), which [bong] accepted upon opening the account, entitle [Barclays] to debit the charges from customer accounts upon certain events (including blah blah blah)
5. It is the responsibility of the account holder to properly monitor his account so as to ensure compliance, for example, with the obligation to make payments by the required date.
6. The terms gave [bong] a fair and transparent view of the obligations and entitlements set out in para 4 above, including the basis on which [Barclays] would be entitled to debit the charges from [bong's] account.
7. If, and to the extent it is [bong's] case that the failure to make monthly payments and/or his/her failure to remain within the agreed credit limit, constituted a breach of the terms, and that the contractual entitlement to debit the charges from [bong's] account constitutes a liquidated damages clause, the same is denied. The charges applied to [bong's] account were payments that [bong] agreed to make upon the events described at para 4 above by reason of the terms. Accordingly, it is denied that the charges or any such charges constitute unfair and/or unreasonable charges, and it is denied that the legal principles governing the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses applies or is relevant to the charges, as alleged by [bong] or at all, and/or that the charges are otherwise unenforceable.
8. Further or alternatively it is denied that any such charges constitute unlawful penalty charges or are in breach of the UTCCR 1999, (particularly but without limitation to para 1e sch 2) or are in breach of s.4 UCTA 1977 (or any other provision) or are unreasonable within the meaning of s.15 of the SGSA 1982 or indeed any other provision.
9. Further or alternatively, without prejudice to the matters pleaded at para 4 above, if [bong's] failure to make sufficient account payments by the required date and/or to remain within pre-agreed credit limits constituted a breach of the terms, [Barclays] avers that the charges were nonetheless valid and enforceable.
10. It is further denied that the charges were unlawfully debited from [bong's] account.
11. Accordingly, it is averred that the charges are legally enforceable and [Barclays] was entitled to debit the charge from [bong's] account.
12. [Barclays] denies that it is liable to [bong] for the sum claimed and interest as pleaded, or at all. In the alternative, which is denied, if the said charges amount to sums payable on breach of contract, it is averred that the charges asserted by [bong] to have been applied to the account prior to 13/9/2000 would not be recoverable (my account was opened in June 2004) for reason of exhaustion of time in bringing contractual claims from the date of accrual, pursuant to the limitation act 1980.
13. In the alternative, and without prejudice to para 10 above, if (which is denied) the said charges and interest or any part thereof are unlawful or unenforceable as alleged by [bong] or at all, [Barclays] has nonetheless suffered loss and damage as a consequence of [bong's] breach of contract in allowing the account to exceed its agreed credit limit. Accordingly, in the event that [Barclays] is unable to rely on its express entitlement to enforce the charges as set out at paras 4 and 11 above, it will seek to recover to the extent necessary such loss and damage as it actually suffered, which will not necessarily be limited to the value of the said charges, and [Barclays] seeks to set off such sums against any liability owed hereunder to [bong].
I realise I now have to get my schedule off to them sharpish- had been waiting for a request but it looks like they are not going to bother.
Letter typed up ready to go on Monday (23/10) with schedule of charges.
Litigation and Disputes
Level 29
One Churchill Place
London E14 5HP
Dear Mr [solicitor]
I refer to the defence entered on 16/10/06.
Please find attached an itemised schedule of the charges and interest debited to my account, together with a spreadsheet calculation of the county court interest on those amounts, in support of my claim.
I should be grateful if you would let me know if this does not satisfy the requirement of 'strict proof' requested at clause 3 of the defence.
Please note that this schedule was provided to Barclaycard prior to my claim being filed with the court.
Y/S
[Bong]
BC issued the same defence to me I replied advising them
The defendant is fully familiar with the details of the claim as I
supplied the enclosed schedule of charges to them in my initial
correspondence and I am proceeding to supply further copy now.
This just shows the courts how obstructive BC are.
) and spreadsheet of penalty charges & interest
and without any admission of liability they will credit my account with £80, being the difference between the £20 charges I incurred and the "£12 fee recommended by the OFT" x 10. I checked my statement online and the money was indeed credited to my account that day.
Reply With Quote
Re: Bong v Barclaycard
If I have helped then please click on the scales 
Just had an email back from MCOL - would you believe this? - 
