Thread: Gazzard41 v Barclays Bank

This is the standard load of old cobblers they come up with. Stick to the step by step guide and your timetable.

Spotty

Recieved this letter 15 January 2007, any comments.



Dear xxxxxx

Thank you for your letter received at this office xx January 2007.

I am sorry you are unhappy with the charges you have incurred. Your comments are receiving attention and one of my team will contact you as soon as possible.

May I take this opportunity to explain that whilst we will endeavour to respond to you within timescale outlined in your letter, we cannot guarantee that we will do so.
Sometimes it does take longer to fully investigate a complaint. However we do aim to find a solution within four weeks. If we are not able to do so, we will always write to you explaining what is happening. A full report or an update on our progress will be sent to you within eight weeks.

Please refer to the enclosed leaflet which provides you with a more detailed explanation on how we will deal with this matter.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact us on xxxxxxxxx

Yours sincerely

Mike Brophy

Its just a standard "we will investigate in our own time" response. Stick with YOUR timescale and send lba as planned.

Peter

Thanks Falcom.....

Hi , lba going on tuesday, does it read ok

gary...

[edited]

Hi all,

filed my N1 this morning, got home this evening to find an offer from head office, what to do any suggestions????

If it is in full then inform them they need to pay your costs and judicial interest or you wont accept due to being filed, if not for full settlement then simply send refusal letter, good luck.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ng-offers.html

Thanks george.

Recieved notice of issue (specified amount) should I be doing anything with it

Gary..

Can anyone help me, on the day I filed, recieved offer letter, when we returned from work that evening, value of offer is not the whole claim, shall I respond, or shall I let them know that i filed, any ideas for suitable text
Currently using jonni2bad letter 1

Gary..

Hi everyone,

Ineed some help with replying to this defence, is standard or not.

IN THE WATFORD county court

GAZZARD41

V

BARCLAYS BANK

DEFENCE

1. The Particulars of Claim do not provide details or particulars of all the precise charges alleged to have been unlawful, or the dates thereof. To the extent it is alleged that the Claimant incurred bank charges on his account for unauthorised borrowings (whether unpaid fees for returned cheques, “paid referral fees” or any other such fees), the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of each charge and the date thereof.
2. This defence is summary in nature and the Defendant reserves the right to amend this statement of case in due course.
3. The Defendant is entitled to charge the Claimant for unauthorised borrowing by reason of its standard terms and conditions. The Claimant accepted the same when the account was opened, including (in particular but without limitation) the following terms and conditions (which are summarised):
3a The Defendant’s right to charge a “paid referral fee” where the Defendant pays an amount (either by compulsion or election) which causes the account to become overdrawn - £30 per item (previously £25).
3b The Defendant right to charge an administrative fee if nay cheque, standing order or direct debit cannot be paid because of insufficient cleared funds in the account - £35 per item (previously £30).
3c The Defendant entitlement, if the Claimant becomes overdrawn without an overdraft limit, to charge interest at the unauthorised borrowing rate on the excess balance.

4 The Defendant’s standard terms and conditions give the Claimant fair and transparent view of those terms and the charges applicable for unauthorised borrowings (including where the account is overdrawn without an overdraft
Limit or where the claimant exceeds his authorised overdraft limit).
5 If and to the extent it is the Claimant’s case that the failure to make necessary payments and / or failure to remain within authorised overdraft limits and / or failure to arrange an authorised overdraft constituted a breach of the terms applying to the account and that the contractual entitlement to debit charges from the Claimant’s account constitutes 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 account 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.
6 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 Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 (or any other provision), or are unreasonable within the meaning of s.15 of Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (or indeed any other provision).
7 If and to the extent the Claimant incurred charges on his account, this was caused by the Claimant having gone into overdraft without having agreed with the Defendant an authorised overdraft facility or to increase the overdraft facility and / or his failure to make payments to bring balance to the account bank into credit.
8 It is averred that the said charges and interest are and remain lawful and enforceable and that the defendant was entitled to debit the same
9 The Defendant denies that it is liable to the Claimant for the sums claimed and interest, as pleaded or at all. In the alternative if (which is denied) the said charges are enforceable and constituted a breach of contract by the defendant, those charges which were applied to the account prior to 7 February 2001 are not recoverable because they are time-barred under the terms of the limitation act 1980 in that more than six years elapsed since the accrual of the cause of action.
10 In the alternative, and without prejudice to matters stated above, if ( which is denied) the said charges and interest or any part thereof are unlawful or unenforceable as alleged by the Claimant or at all, and the charges were a consequence of the breach of contract by the Claimant, the Defendant has nonetheless suffered loss and damage as a consequence of such breach of contract in allowing the account to go into unauthorised overdraft. Accordingly, in the event that the Defendant is unable to rely on its express entitlement to enforce the charges as set out at paragraphs 3 to 4 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 the Defendant seeks to set off such sums against liability owed hereunder to the Claimant.




Barclays Bank PLC

Is this a standard defence for Barclays.......

Gary

can anyone help with the above...

Gary

thanks sandbag, did you reply to there defence

gary..