Lack of research doesn't pay - gwynsmummy v. Barclays

**gwynsmummy** · 20th November 2006 20:49

Firstly Mummy, if you want us to help you, it would help us greatly iof you'd post your question in your own thread. In answer to your question though,

Are you sure that you are in Court on the 22nd of December? There are a large number of cases being heard on the 21st at Cardiff (including mine) for a Directions Hearing.

As for them submitting a defence, there is a time limit in which they have to defend as you know so they are doing the proper thing. Can you explain on what grounds they are requesting your claim to be struck out?

Can you tell me what your Particulars of Claim was please?

Reply in your thread, Thanks.

You are quite right, Welshman. It is in fact the 21st at 10.30am. I might be being thick but what is a directions hearing? I know not.

They are requesting the claim be struck out on the grounds that............."The particulars of claim do not provide details or particulars of the account in questionand / or the precise charges alleged to have been unlawful, or the date thereof. Furthermore, they give no recognisable cause of action nor is there sufficient material for Barclays icon

to serve more than a bare denial of liability as a defence. The statement of case would appear to be an abuse of process and / or will obstruct the just disposal of proceedings and it does not appear to comply with CPR r16.2.
2) The defendant respectfully requests an order that the claim be struck out pursuant to CPR r3.4 as it does not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim and is an abuse of the courts process It also does not appear to comply with CPR r16.2.

They then go on to add 9 further points of defence "if an order to strike out is not considered".

I'm rather appauled with my lack of research as I have been so accurate up to now. My particulars of claim simply said .......... (I Know, I know)"Barclays have repeatedly charged me penalties on my account that I believe to be illegal. Penalty clauses in English(and Scottish) law for breach of contract aren't legal if the penalty exceeds the actual cost of the breach of either party."

Similar Threads:

**Welshman** · 20th November 2006 23:05

OK. When you sent your allocation questionnaire icon

to the Court, I assume that you sent along with it the schedule of your charges which included the 8% interest icon

.

My particulars of claim was as follows:
"The Claimant had a contract with the Defendant Your account number here from Approximate date account opened which was conducted on their standard terms and conditions icon

. The Claimant claims the return of £ amount before adding % age levied by the defendant in the way of charges. The charges are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law. Further, as a disproportionate penalty they are invalid under the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977s.4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs 1999, Para 8 and sch.2(1)(e). In the event that the charges are not a penalty, they are unreasonable within the meaning of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15. The defendant has been asked to justify the charges but they have declined to do so. The Claimant claims interest under s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from Date of the first of their charges against you to Date of the last charge of £ place the 8% figure here and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of multiply your amount before interest by 0.0002 and put here (Mine is £0.45)".

You need to go to your local Court as soon as possible and get a form N244 icon

to totally amend your claim icon

. Take along your Case Number and the copy of their defence and ask there what you need to do. When you submit the N244, once again, attach an up to date schedule.

Thread: Lack of research doesn't pay - gwynsmummy v. Barclays

Thread Tools

Lack of research doesn't pay - gwynsmummy v. Barclays

Re: Lack of research doesn't pay - gwynsmummy v. Barclays