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.
At the end of May the Bank have to report back to the OFT with regards to the OFT guidance that such penalty charges are excessive.
The law maybe reason without passion as Aristotle said, but hey, he said nothing about having fun when getting even!
Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal expereince. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.
You're quite right in telling him to keep going. Even if the banks drop charges to £12 (and they won't, only the c/c companies will), previous charges will still be there to be reclaimed. There's nothing to be gained by delaying, not for us anyway!
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
You're quite right in telling him to keep going. Even if the banks drop charges to £12 (and they won't, only the c/c companies will), previous charges will still be there to be reclaimed. There's nothing to be gained by delaying, not for us anyway!
Agreed. Also, £12 is the limit after which the OFT will definitely get involved. It is an absolute maximum and the banks will either -
1) Agree, therefore admiting all previous charges to have been unlawful
2) Disagree, in which case the argument will drag for many more months.
However, it seems a bit too stupid of Barclays to assume it will all be sorted in May, so I'm wondering if there is something we don't know.
The case law is still relevent and that is the argument that we are fighting with.
[COLOR=olive][SIZE=1]If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.
Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.
Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.
------------
Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get
I remember similar accounts when it was announced that the OFT would make an announcement in 8 weeks time (this was the last announcement).
Before it was made, all the banks were said to have issued memos round stating that we'll pay charges back for now, "but wait until after the OFT announcement; then we'll fight back."
Yeah, ok - so where are you then?
I, for one, want to see it.
The banks will drag this out for a long while yet - the OFT DIDN'T investigate charges for current accounts (they just said that the same priciple applies to the bank charges as to the credit card charges) - and the banks will argue that these charges are substancially different to the charges made by credit card companies and demand that an investigation takes place before any recommendations are made - which, if you think about it, is quite a reasonable request (if it were true that the charges actually were different).
And I believe a judge would uphold that argument - as far as the OFT has gone regarding bank accounts, they have really just said "oh, and by the way, we expect the current account providers to do the same as the credit card companies." without an investigation. I believe that an investigation will be ordered by a judge once the banks fight the OFT in court.
The last investigation into the credit card charges took 2 years - I imagine the same will be true of the bank charges.
They are going to counter every angle, so it will be as drawn out as possible - that way, if they can drag it out for 2 years with a few lawyers on about 200+k per year, then they can potentially make an extra 8 billion quid.
From their point of view, it's well worth doing, I would say.
Even without the OFT ruling OR the Unfair Terms in Consumer Credit Act, we still have the case law that is set in stone - I fought all my cases using those principles and each and every time the bank has backed down and returned my cash.
Nothing has changed - I got my money back before the sh*t hit the fan - now it has (thanks in no small part to this site), the law is still the same - whatever laws come after cannot affect the case law.
[COLOR=olive][SIZE=1]If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.
Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.
Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.
------------
Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get
if they can drag it out for 2 years with a few lawyers on about 200+k per year, then they can potentially make an extra 8 billion quid.
From their point of view, it's well worth doing, I would say.
yeah absolutely, bit of a no-brainer really when you put it like that...
"BA Group. The World's favourite CA Group"
HSBC 2 claims amalgamated. £1195. settled in full prior to filing claim.
BARCLAYS settled in full 2 days prior to submission of defence by Barclays
CAP ONE settled in full on day 14 of LBA (£210)
Even without the OFT ruling OR the Unfair Terms in Consumer Credit Act, we still have the case law that is set in stone - I fought all my cases using those principles and each and every time the bank has backed down and returned my cash.
In that case, dave, do you think that the lba and Particulars of Claim templates ought to include references to the case law? If not, how will the bank know that you intend (if the case ever gets to court) using those principles?
The particulars of the claim do include a paragraph that states :
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; and 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.
The cases that back this up will be available to you to back up the claim - although it's reasonable to expect the judge to know the law ;-)
The 1999 regs really just re-enforce the case, although they have never been tested in court - the punitive v liquidated damages argument has been tested in court - A LOT!!
[COLOR=olive][SIZE=1]If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.
Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.
Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.
------------
Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get
Thanks dave. I was really thinking about the bank, rather than the judge, at this stage. I thought that if I didn't mention the case law in the claim, the bank might not realise that I was aware of it, so they might not be so inclined to back down as you suggest.
But I assume from what you say that, if I use the "punitive" paragraph in the claim, it will be obvious to the bank (or at least to their solicitors) that I know about the case law. Is that right?
I had always thought that when preparing the case after the claim is registered with the Court, any legislation and previous cases you are to rely on will be in the summary you will provide to the Courts in advance of the hearing. That should go to the other side as well.
There should be no surprises in Court so it should all be in the open before then but that does not mean it has to be said in the letter before action. Still sometimes it can be very satisfying to throw the odd case in just to make the bank a bit concerned and realise you actually know what you are doing.
As long as you have read around the forum it is possible to add some reference to the letter if you want. I have, but I'm still battling away so it is not a magic wand.
Thanks for your thoughts Jones's. In my own case the LBAs had already been sent, so I was mostly concerned with the Particulars of Claim on the court claim.
I knew that I would need to be open about the case law in the lead up to a court hearing, but I wondered if it would be a good thing to mention it in the Particulars - as you say, just to make them realise (now) that I know about the cases. Most of us hope for a settlement without it getting to a hearing, so I figured anything that might help to persuade the bank to pay up sooner was worth considering.
In the end I didn't mention the case law in the Particulars. Dave's words of wisdom (and limited space on the form!), helped me to decide not to bother. I still think it would be worth referring to the cases in the preliminary letter template though.
I know what you mean about magic wands! That's why it's worth thinking about all these little wrinkles - anything that might help grind the bank down!
I thought that if I didn't mention the case law in the claim, the bank might not realise that I was aware of it, so they might not be so inclined to back down as you suggest.
I think in all honesty, every bank that receives a preliminary letter for request (or indeed a DPA request...) will know exactly why they are getting it, and where from. There really is no need to mention the case law for now...they KNOW it will form part of your claim...
As Jones said - it is good to hold back a while, and let THEM find out that you know what you are talking about...
Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.
All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.
Barclays appear to know something we don't
to
The Consumer Forums
Reply With Quote
Re: Barclays appear to know something we don't
Originally Posted by Bookworm
Re: Barclays appear to know something we don't
