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.
Hoping for a little help here - I issued two claims against Barclays late last year, one for my Barclays bank account and one for my Barclaycard. The bank claim is due to be heard in March but I received a letter today stating that the District Judge has ordered that the particulars of claim be struck out. I don't understand this as these were almost identical as for my other claim.
I have so far sent:
- Letter to Barclaycard 10/09/06 with list of individual charges
- Letter to Barclaycard 07/10/06 with list of individual charges
- Letter to Barclaycard 11/11/06 with list of individual charges plus contractual interest
- Letter to Court 11/11/06 with list of individual charges plus contractual interest
- Allocation questionnaire to Court in December
The particulars of claim I used (though MCOL) were:
"1. The Claimant had an account XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX with the Defendant, opened
November 2000 and closed May 2006. 2. Since
15/01/02 the Defendant debited charges and
interest in respect of purported breaches
of contract. 3. Defendant is aware of all
details as a list of charges has already
been supplied. Another copy will be sent.
4. Claimant contends: (a) The charges
exceed the Defendant's losses caused by the
breaches; (b) The Term permitting the
Defendant to levy such charges is
unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in
Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, Unfair
Contract Terms Act 1977 and at Common Law.
5. Claimant claims: (a) return of the
amounts debited of £295; (b) Interest per
S.69 County Courts Act 1984 of 8% - £61.43
continuing at 8% until judgment or
settlement at a daily rate of £0.06; 6.
Alternatively, if the charges are a fee for
a service, then they must be reasonable
under S.15 of Supplyof Goods and Services
Act 1982. 7. Costs allowed by the Court."
This is all that would fit on the form, hence the details sent separately. However the letter states:
"1) The particulars of claim be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.
2) The claimant has permission not later than 16.00 hours on the 2nd March 2007 to file at court and serve upon the defendant a replacement particulars of claim which shall set out withthe particularity required at trial to prove the claim the dat and amount of each chage made by the defendant which the claimant says was in breach of contract and/or unlawful together with, in eah case, the basis upon which the claimant says he is entitled to recover the same from the defendant and to the extent that interest is claimed upon each or any of the same showing the clculation of interest from the date of such payment.
3) Because this Order has been made by the Court without considering representations from the parties, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed. A party wishing to make an application must send or deliver the application to the court (together with any appropriate fee) to arrive within seven days of service of this Order."
Now that to me says the Judge hasn't looked at my letter and the details provided, as that seems to be what he's asking for in item 1). However if he has and I submit the same details will the case be thrown out? Is it just a matter of submitting a written POC with the details included in that instead of an additional letter? If so it seems the Judge is being exceedingly petty - how would I lodge a complaint about him? Finally, what would be the difference between serving a replacement PoC and applying to have the Order set aside (so returning to the original one)?
1. The Claimant has the following account with the Defendant:
a) Account no. xxxxxxx sort code xxxxxxx (“the Account”);
b) During the last 6 years the Defendant automatically debited charges to the Account in the sum of £xxxxxxx
2.Full details of each and every charge applied to the accounts are already in the possession of the Defendant, from whom the Claimant obtained such information prior to this claim. However details of all charges, the amounts, dates debited and a description of each is attached to this Particulars of Claim.
3. a) The charges are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed alleged actual loss to the Defendant; and instead unduly enrich the Defendant which applies charges with a view to profit.
b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of i) the The Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 particularly but not limited to Regulations 5, 6 and 8 and Schedule 2, 1 e) and ii); the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, particularly but not limited to sections 3 and 11 and Schedule 2 and iii) the common law relating to liquidated damages and penalties in contracts.
4. To the extent that it is found that the Defendant’s charges are for the provision of banking services the Claimant contends that the price thereof is unreasonable pursuant to section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
5.Accordingly the Claimant claims:
a) the return of the amounts debited to all the Claimant’s accounts in the sum of £xxxxxxx;
b) Court costs;
c) interest at 8% per annum pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 on the charges debited to the Account in the sum of £xxxxxxx and continuing at the daily rate of £xxp until judgment or sooner payment
I believe the facts stated in this Additional Particulars of Claim are true
Signed…………………………………….
Claimant
Dated this xxth day of xxx 2007
Attach your schedule of charges, with brief covering letter
Particulars of Claim Struck Out
late last year, one for my Barclays bank account and one for my Barclaycard. The bank claim is due to be heard in March but I received a letter today stating that the District Judge has ordered that the particulars of claim be struck out. I don't understand this as these were almost identical as for my other claim.
Reply With Quote
