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.
Right after the usual route of SAR and lba requesting money back, Barclays said no. A little surprising as had been a success with First Direct and Morgan Stanley.
Have just filed a MCOL. It took time and concentration but following the advice on the CAG pages was quite frankly nothing like as scarey as you might think.
So time to sit and back and see what happens. While I wait I will look through some other posts and get an idea of the time scales involved with the courts.
Keep going, you will get your money back. Barclays keep you waiting until you've got a court date so wait until a couple of weeks before the hearing and give them a call on 020 7116 5634, ask who's dealing with your claim and if they want to settle. They will! Good luck!
Today I printed and read all 14 pages of welshmans thread. It is excellent and tells you exactly what is coming with Barclays. Recommend anyone up against then gives it a read. Covers all the court stuff and eventual settlement by Barclays.
Well things are moving onwards. In the post today "Notice that Acknowledgement of Service has been filed". Barclays have confirmed they intend to defend my claim as at 27FEB07. This gives them 28 days (27MAR07) to file a defence.
Guess I will be re-reading welshmans thread this weekend, lol.
Today have received in the post a Notice of transfer of proceedings to my local (Chichester) county court. Together with the Barclays defence (quickly scanned) seems to be same as all the others, yawn, no surprise there! lol
So this weekend will be filling in AQ. Am already subscribed to two good threads on AQ's so if I get stuck plenty of help to hand.
Right Barclays defence document is below. I copy and pasted this from Welshmans thread, post #105 as link below. The bits in red are new on mine compared to his. The bits underlined are missing in my document.
1. The Particulars of Claim do not provide details or particulars of the account in question and/or the precise charges alleged to have been unlawful, or the date thereof. To the extent it is alleged that the Claimant incurred bank charges on his/her account for unauthorised borrowings (whether unpaid fees for returned cheques, "Paid Re~erral fees" or any other such fees), the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of each charge and the date thereof.
2. Accordingly this defence is summary in nature and the Defendant reserves the right to amend this Statement of Case in due course.
3. 2. The Defendant's standard terms and conditions give the Claimant a fair and transparent view of those terms and the charges applicable is entitled to charge the Claimant for unauthorised borrowings by reason of its standard terms and conditions. (including where the account is overdrawn without an overdraft limit or where the Claimant exceeds his/her authorised overdraft limit). The Claimant accepted the same when the account was opened, including (in particular but without limitation) the following terms and conditions (which are summaried) :
a. The Defendants 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).
b. The Defendant's right to charge an administration fee if any cheque, standing order or direct debit cannot be paid because of insufficient cleared funds in the account - £35 per item (previously £30).
c. The Defendants entitlement, if the Claimant becomes overdrawn without an overdraft limit, to charge interst at the unauthorised borrowing rate on the excess balance.
4. The Defendant's standard terms and conditions give the Claimant a fair and transparent view of those terms and 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. 3. If and to the extent it is the Claimant's case that the failure to make necessary payments and I or failure to remain within authorised overdraft limits 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 a.."1d conditions or hisiher account and Were consideration for the Defendant advancing creditto 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. 4. 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 l(e) of Schedule 2), or are in breach of the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 (or any other provision), or are unreasonable within the meaning of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (or indeed any other provision). It is further denied that any such charges unduly enrich the Defendant
7. 5. Therefore, it is denied that the charges were unlawfully debited from the account.
8. 6. If and to the extent the Claimant incurred charges on hislher 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 I or hislher failure to make payments to bring the balance of the account back into credit.
9. 7. 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. Accordingly, the Claimant is not entitled to a declaration by the Court as to the enforceability of the said charges.
10. 8. The Defendant denies that it is liable to the Claimant for the sums claimed and interest as pleaded by the Claimant 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 the Claimant to have been applied to the account prior to O8th September 2000 would not be recoverable for reason of exhaustion of time in bringing contractual claims from the date of accrual, pursuant to the limitation act 1980.
11.9. In the alternative, and without prejudice to paragraph 6 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, the Defendant has nonetheless suffered loss and damage as a consequence of the Claimant's 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 2 to 3 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 any liability owed hereunder to the Claimant.
That's remarkably similar to the defence they entered (at 11th hour) in my case. Clearly they're doing a cut n paste job. They also said that some of my claims were time barred but did not give specific dates. As it happens they are incorrect as NONE of my claim is time barred. A friend of mine who is a Magistrate said judges hate this kine of generic defence particulalry when it is wrong
Right I have a court date. Received a "Notice of Allocation to Small Claims Track (Hearing)". It says the Court has made an Order of its own initiative without a hearing. ........ allocated the claim to the small claims track.
So off to Chichester on 13th June 2007.
I have the threads below printed off to read this weekend
Alex gave me the direct line of the person dealing with my case. I spoke to them and she confirmed they will settle the case with me but she is so busy she cannot do it till nearer the time. So we agreed I would call her last week of May and they would settle it over the phone!
Alex gave me the direct line of the person dealing with my case. I spoke to them and she confirmed they will settle the case with me but she is so busy she cannot do it till nearer the time. So we agreed I would call her last week of May and they would settle it over the phone!
Wouldnt it be more benificial to B's to settle sooner rather than later as the delay only means they are paying out more in interest ??? Not got this far yet myself im still waiting the arrival of my statements
At 7 pence a day not that much of an issue. I think the only reason she wouldn't agree it there and then was the fact she had too many others in court so much sooner that had to be cleared.
Did you deal with her dar3n? The only concern I had was should I prepare court bundle that has to be submitted minimum 14 days prior when I expect case to be settled before. Though only 21 dyas before!
I think I might prepare one copy ready to produce two more if required. Then it is all ready and if the cheque hasn't cleared I can just mail it all off. Besides will be useful experience for my MCOL against Intelligent Finance and Lloyds TSB that are following behind.
MCOL against Barclays **WON**
and lba
pages was quite frankly nothing like as scarey as you might think.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by srmjmm10
