Thread: Defence from YB

Hi,
I'm helping a workmate with YB ( I'm the only one with a spare PC - lots of lovely drinky poos coming my way me thinks )

Anyway had defence from YB todayand I'm puzzled about a few things

7 It is denied that the charges were a disproportionate penalty and unenforceable.The charges were for a fee for the service provided by the bank. Further and in any event the charges (thought they were fees?)were a genuine pre-estimate of cost resulting from the customer blah blah blah

8 It is further denied that the charges were levied pursuant to a contract term requiring the customers to indemnify the bank within the meaning of section 4 of the UCTA1977. ( What? That was never mentioned in the POC) In the premises section4 of that act has no application in these preceedings. ( Well I never said it did!)
Further, reference is made to section 6 of the UCTA 1977 which provides the assessmnet of fairness of a term shall not relate to the adequacy of the price as against the service supplied in exchange. ( What??)

9 It is further denied that the terms and conditions requiring the claimant to pay the charges were unfair terms within the meaning of the Unfair terms in consumer contract regulations S.I. 1999. S.I. 1999 No 2083 Paragraph 1 (e) of the schedule 2 of the regulations provides that a term requiring any consumer who fails to fulfill his obligations to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation may be regarded as unfair. The charges ( There it is again) are not compensation but a fee for the service provided by the bank. ( Again this was never mentioned in the POC)

The POC is as follows:
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM



1. The Claimant has an account ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened in 2001

2. During the period in which the Account has been operating, the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.

4. The Claimant contends that:

a) 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.

b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.

5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:


a) The return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £ 1106.00 and overdraft interest thereon of £



b) Court costs;





c) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act as set out on the attached list of charges or at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just.

6. Alternatively, if the charges are a fee for a service, then they must be reasonable under S.15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act (1982).

Any comments or advice anyone please?
Is this just standard cr**?
Thanks








Similar Threads:

• Help with AQ & defence please
• Egg - A new defence?
• their defence
• their defence
• defence

It's their standard defence, i got exactly the same at the beginning of Jan. We all know that penalty charges are unlawful, so they try to frighten you with the service fee defence, they also know that this won't wash in court either.

Thanks Moss