Thread: Banksworstnightmare Vs BARCLAYS ***WON***

My Story

I have been ripped off by Barclays for long enough now - thanks to this website I can now begin reclaiming money I thought was long gone.

Over the past six years Barclays have charged me £1025.00 in paid referral fees.

Since looking back through my statements I have noticed the charge has steadily increased from £20.00 to £30.00 - how can they justify this?

One more thing - if these charges are justifiable, why is it that when I telephoned Barclays and complained about a £30.00 charge for going £6.50 over my limit they happily refunded the money there and then??

Similar Threads:

• Barclays vs Harry - Barclays counter claim

cos they know you are gonna stuff with alovely big claim

Good luck with your claim

Milly XXX

Thanks Milly!

Action Taken So far.........

09/02/07 - Preliminary Approach for Repayment Letter
I keep all my statements so didn't have to request them from the bank. Sent the letter & schedule of charges by Courier so they couldn't deny receiving it! Address: Freepost RLTA-CSUE-TCHC, Head Office Customer Relations, London, E14 5HP. It was delivered on 12/02/07.

17/02/07 - Response from Barclays
A Mr Neil A Henderson responded with an obvious standard letter and leaflet advising they would get back to me within 8 WEEKS!

The following letter before action is due to be sent by Courier on Monday 26/02/07 - I won't be using the standard LBA template, I found another one on someone else's thread (sorry forgot your name!) and adapted it. Let me know what you all think, cos it's not been sent yet!

LETTER BEFORE ACTION


Dear Mr Henderson,

Further to your correspondence dated 17th February 2007 in which you advised me that you may take up to eight weeks to answer my request for a refund of charges, I am now writing to inform you of my intent to pursue action against Barclays Bank Plc in the Small Claims Court commencing 14 days from the date of this letter.

May I draw your attention to the fact that I stated in my correspondence to you dated 9th February 2007 that I expected Barclays to enter into a sincere dialogue with me regarding this matter, rather than to simply respond by way of generic letters and leaflets. Clearly you have either failed to understand my previous correspondence or else have chosen to ignore its content. I can only assume therefore that Barclays do not intend to respond positively to my request within the time-frame or manner that I outlined in my earlier communication.

I maintain that the regime of fees which Barclays applied to this account in relation to exceeding the overdraft limit, are unlawful at Common Law, Statute and with regards recent consumer regulations. I remain confident that such charges fail the test of fairness with regards Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, and they do not reflect a reasonable nor true estimation of the limited additional administrative costs incurred by the bank.

I have calculated that Barclays Bank have recovered a total of £1025.00 through such charges since 23rd November 2001. I am enclosing a copy of the schedule of the charges which I am claiming. I have already sent you a copy of this in my original letter of the 9th February 2007.

Action to settle this dispute

I now require that Barclays Bank Plc refund to my account the sum of £1025.00 immediately in respect of the unfair charges applied to this account.

Should Barclays Bank fail to respond positively to this request within 14 days I hereby give notice that I shall petition the Small Claims Court for the sum of £1025.00, plus interest, plus additional costs. I will file this claim after 14 days without further notification.

I trust that you will now act promptly to resolve this matter.

Again, this will go to the Head Office address FAO Neil with a copy of my schedule.

Anyway, I have done my research on this site for about a month now, so I feel pretty confident in taking the big boys on!

Whats been going on.....pretty standard stuff so far

26/02/07 - Sent lba
01/03/07 - Received a Full and final settlement offer of £500.00 from Genette Evans. This is less than half of what they've taken off me so....
05/03/07 - Sent Rejection of Settlement offer
12/03/07 - Received a letter from Pat Thomas advising the £500.00 was a gesture of goodwill and after careful consideration(!) will not be increasing it.
12/03/07 - LBA 14 day deadline up...couldn't file claim just yet as have been robbing Peter to pay Paul all month.
23/03/07 - PAY DAY - Claim filed using MCOL. Better late than never and at least the interests adding up. Hope they thought I'd given up!

I'm going to start the ball rolling claiming back mis-sold PPI shortly, another £1300 and then onto Barclaycard, they owe me a couple of hundred - I love this, it's like I've a had a savings account for the past five years and now I'm cashing it in!

After reading through a few threads I've now opened another account with the Halifax - as a back up, cos I won't be surprised if Barclays close my account the amount of letters I send complaining to them!

If I can though, I'll stay with Barclays cos no matter how much I despise them for being the rip off merchants they are, their unauthorised overdraft charges are tame compared to other Banks. Barclays only charge you £30 each time you go over your limit, one per day up to a maximum of 3 charges per month = £90, Halifax however charge you £30 each time you go over your limt, up to 3 times per day and it doesn't say how many times a month they'll do this! Another good thing about Barclays is that they do give you chance to bring your account back in order to avoid charges, as long as your account is within the agreed limit by close of business (18:30 I think) they don't charge you if you've gone over during that day.

A trick I do is, the day before I know money is going into my account, I'll wait till after 18:30 and withdraw money - this takes me over my agreed limit but as money is going in the next day I don't get charged. This also works if I know I can get cash deposited to my bank the next day as well!

Hello,

Filed claim with MCOL and this was deemed served on 31.03.07. They had until 14.04.07 to acknowldege the claim, and after reading many threads in this forum I assumed they would acknowledge it at the last minute on 14.04.07, however I have checked MCOL today and they have acknowledged today - is this normal for Barclays to acknowledge the claim so early? Has anyone else's claim been acknowledged 4 days after being served??

It makes me feel a bit nervous and I'm praying (as I'm sure everyone else does) that I won't be used as a test case for court!

Any feedback on other's acknowledgements would be very welcome

LOL
TEST CASE!

I was sure I would be the guinea pig, the first to stand trial etc.

Nah nowt to worry about, all your hard work is done now just sit back n wait for your court date

Cheers Dar3n!

I'm just hoping now that cos they've acknowledged early they might be planning to just settle in full instead of defending the claim by 28.04.07.

Oh well, I'll be counting down the 24 days now to see what happens!

Just found this on the HMRC website - Might be useful?!

Does anyone know what it means to "contest the courts jurisdiction to deal with the matter"?

REC4202 - county court: Defendant files an Acknowledgment of Service

The court rules allow defendants to file an Acknowledgment of Service if they need more than 14 days to prepare a defence. Filing such an acknowledgment extends the time limit for filing a defence to 28 days from the deemed date of service of the claim form.

This rule is intended to be used primarily where matters are complex but the provision can sometimes be used by defendants simply as a stalling tactic to delay matters, even where there may be no intention of defending the claim. You should therefore be particularly alert in these cases and ensure that a strict B/F is applied.

The court rules also allow defendants to file an Acknowledgment of Service if they wish to contest the court's jurisdiction to deal with the matter though in practice this is rarely used.

Defence not filed

If the defendant files an Acknowledgment of Service but does not subsequently file a defence within 28 days from the deemed date of service of the claim form, you should

• request judgment in default immediately the time has expired (REC4203).

Jurisdiction dispute not filed

If the defendant does not file an application to dispute the jurisdiction of the court within 14 days of the date of filing the Acknowledgment of Service, you should

• request judgment in default immediately the time has expired (REC4203).

Thanks Michael

Another Question!

I've just been reading a thread by Helenm1984 amd it mentions that she should have sent a copy of her schedule of charges to MCOL and once the claim had been acknowledged a copy to the banks solicitors.

I haven't sent a copy to MCOL or the banks solicitors - is this necessary??

Thanks

Oh cr*p - can't believe I missed this post - I thought I'd read up on everything!

I'll get the schedules sent out pronto..

Thanks again Michael

My claim was served 8th march and acknowledged 13th march with a weekend in between.

Glad too know I'm not the only one Madhouse

Originally Posted by banksworstnightmare

Hello,

Filed claim with MCOL and this was deemed served on 31.03.07. They had until 14.04.07 to acknowldege the claim, and after reading many threads in this forum I assumed they would acknowledge it at the last minute on 14.04.07, however I have checked MCOL today and they have acknowledged today - is this normal for Barclays to acknowledge the claim so early? Has anyone else's claim been acknowledged 4 days after being served??

It makes me feel a bit nervous and I'm praying (as I'm sure everyone else does) that I won't be used as a test case for court!

Any feedback on other's acknowledgements would be very welcome

Barclays have until today to Acknowledge my claim which they dont appear to have done !!

Barclays defended my claim on 26.03.07, and I have today received from the Court:

• A Notice of Transfer of Proceedings.
• An order stating that the filing of an allocation questionnaire be dispensed with in this case unless the District Judge at the court of transfer orders otherwise.
• Barclays defence. (I have copied this out below.) It seems pretty standard to me.

1. The particulars of Claim do not provide details or particulars of 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 the Claimant's account for unauthorised borrowings (whether unpaid fees for returned charges, "Paid Referral fees" or any other such fees), the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of each charge and the date thereof.
2. The Particulars of Claim are summary in nature. Accordingly, 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 borrowings 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): a. 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). b. The Defendant's right to charge an administrative fee if any cheque, standing order or direct debit cannot be paid because of insufficient clared funds in the account - £35 pre item (previously £30). c. The Defendant's 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 a 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 the 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 for 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 the 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 Terns in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, or are in breach of the the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 (or any other provision), or are unreasonable wihtin the meaning of s.15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (or indeed any other provision).
7. Therefore, it is denied that the charges were unlawfully debited from the account.
8. If and to the extent the Claimant incurred charges on the 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 the failure to make payments to bring the balance of the account back into credit.
9. 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.
10. The Defendant denies that it is liable to the Claimant for the sums claimed and interest as pleaded or at all.
11. 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 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.

As I said above, it seems standard stuff. Why can't they write these things in plain Engish! If anyone out there has any comments regarding the defence (especially anything I should be worried about!) please let me know

I shall now be reading up on what happens next - especially now the aq has been dispensed with.

Thanks

Got the exact same defence word for word !!