Thread: Bank *CAN'T* justify charges prior to hearing**WON**

Interesting.
Could you let us all know some more detail ?
Like the bank in question would be good for starters.

Interesting.

Coincidentally, I'm working on something now that may help you - you'll need to post the full wording of the order though please, ASAP.

Thanks.

I'll also move the thread to the Barclays forum.

No problem - this evening is fine.

Hi PKea

As a matter of fact I e-mailed them this afternoon (couldn't get through on phone) and I had a reply saying that a settlement letter had been sent out yesterday. I haven't had any confirmation from them as to what the settlement offered will be but fingers crossed!
I am assuming that it will be the difference between the total claimed and the amount I suggested as an alternative charge.

Just goes to show that the banks really don't want to disclose their charges!

Just subscribing

Hang on a minute though - the 31st May has GONE!!!

Have you only just received the order? If so you need to get hold of the court and tell them you haven't received it untill after the date for compliance. In the documents you submit make sure you make a note of what has happened.

Comply with it ASAP!!!!

Here's some stuff to base your calculation on -

Claim Number: *******

In the ****** county court


Between:

XXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

-And-

Abbey PLC

Defendant

_________________________ ________

STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO ORDER OF

DISTRICT JUDGE XXXXXX DATED [DATE]
_________________________ ________

a) the dates and amounts of all charges levied by the defendant;

See schedule of charges attached to this statement as exhibit **1

b) the reason for the charges (eg unauthorised overdraft);

See schedule of charges attached to this statement as exhibit **1

c) what the defendant's losses are alleged to be;

I estimate the loss incurred by the defendant in respect of each of my contractual breaches to be in the region of £0.50 to £1.50 per each single event of default.

I am unable to provide a more accurate figure at this time, due to the fact that the Defendant, and indeed all of the UK banks, remains highly secretive regarding the mechanisms of their systems and the costs associated in the charging process and of the events of default leading to a charge being made.

d) how the figure for c) above is calculated;


My estimate for the figure of £0.50 - £1.50 stated in compliance to clause c) above is based on the following;

My assessment of the costs of the charging process

As stated in the response to clause c), I am seeking clarification from the defendant as to the exact nature of the “administrative expenses” it states in its defence, and information as to what processes constitute such expenses.

However, prior to the commencement of these proceedings I asked the Defendant to provide evidence of any manual intervention that may have occurred in relation to my account, under a Data Protection Act 1998 right of Subject access request. No records of any manual intervention or involvement whatsoever could be provided.

Therefore, It is submitted that the Defendants charges are applied by a completely automated and computer driven process. This process consists of a computer system;

a) sending a computer generated letter if a customer exceeds authorised overdraft limit (even by a minor amount) to advise the customer of the breach and resultant charges, or
b)returning a dishonoured cheque plus notice to the customer, or
c) ‘bouncing’ a direct debit or standing order.


The costs of Data processing are nominal. Please find attached a list of prices obtained from The Data Processing Company UK (www.dataprocessing.co.uk), which confirm that such costs can be reasonably measured in pence rather than pounds.

It is therefore impossible to envisage how the Defendant can incur costs of £35 by carrying out a completely automated process. Note that the letter received notifying of a charge is identical in every instance, and if multiple breaches occurred on the same day, a separate letter will be sent in each instance, in separate envelopes.

CYNthesys evidence

Disclosures were recently made to the BBC and subsequently to Andrew George MP and journalists at a meeting at the House Commons revealing that the Clydesdale, Yorkshire and Northern Banks operated a structured, detailed and auditable system for costing, tracking and refining their costs of conducting various operations within the bank including the processing of default events of delinquent accounts. The system, which was apparently introduced in 2002 was called CYNthesys - Clydesdale Yorkshire Northern the system.

The estimate of the cost to the bank of each event of default is as low as £1.50.

It is submitted that it is inconceivable that such a system with the same or similar mechanisms, characteristics and costs is not also employed by Abbey Plc, the Defendant in the present case. Basic business principles and marketplace competition dictate that if such a system is in existence, available and operated by an organisation, that its rivals in the marketplace will also seek to employ a system which is equally efficient and cost effective or perhaps even more so.

Further, note the end charge to the customer of the CYNthesys banks (for example Yorkshire Bank) is almost identical to those of Abbey Plc.

Barclays charges tariff

• Unauthorised overdraft fee - £30

• Bounced direct debit/cheque/standing order - £35

Taken from “Tariff of charges” at Personal Banking - Barclays Personal Banking

Yorkshire Bank charges tariff

• Debit card abuse fee - £35

• Bounced direct debit/cheque/standing order - £35

Taken from “Table of charges” at Welcome to Yorkshire Bank

Australian Default Fees report

In a study undertaken in Australia, (Nicole Rich, “Unfair fees: a report into penalty fees charged by Australian Banks”) it was estimated that the cost to an Australian Bank of a customers direct debit refusal was estimated to be in the region of 54 cents. By reviewing the charges to the customer against the actual cost to the bank, the study estimated that banks could be charging between 64 to 92 times what it costs them to process a direct debit refusal. The study’s key findings stated that the Australian Bank’s cheque and direct debit refusal fees were likely to be penalties at law.

The penalty charging regimes of the Australian banks as well as the automated systems employed to process default events are similar to those of the UK banks, and the laws relating to penalty clauses are also similar to those in the UK.

BBC Commission Report

For the recent BBC2 documentary "The Money Programme", the BBC appointed a commission of former senior banking industry figures and business academics to attempt to ascertain the actual costs to the UK banks of processing a customer's breach of contract. They concluded that the absolute maximum conceivable cost that could be incurred by a direct debit refusal or overdraft excess is £2.50, and of a returned cheque £4.50. They did state however, that the actual cost is likely to be much less than this. The commission also estimated that the UK banks collectively derive as much as £4.5billion in profit a year from their charging regimes.

You'll have to amend to suit - change Abbey to Barclays for a start.

Adynichs, to reinforce the above, DO NOT accept anything less than 100% of your charges back + interest + fee (if applicable). Also do not accept a condition of confidentiality. It is YOUR claim, YOUR terms. If they don't want to go to court (and they don't!), then they pay in full, no strings attached, end of story. Be firm, be resolute, and you'll get all of your money, don't let them bluff you or intimidate you in a smaller offer.

The only people who ever got less than 100% off Barclays are those who let Barclays walk all over them, and that's a fact. Don't waver, and you'll be fine. ;-) Check my Barclays own claim in my sig below if you don't believe me.

Originally Posted by adynichs

Thanks GaryH, I had already sent something similar to the courts before the 31st may deadline, the reason for the post was to see if anybody else had experienced anything similar or whether this was a new attack by the courts. I am happy to say that I have been offered a settlement (don't know the amount as I haven't had the post yet) so the banks still don't want to play ball it seems.

Phew! Thats alright then, good.

Sorry, from your first few posts I got the impression you were asking for help in complying with it.