Ill post mine as I got it today and it sounds a lot like ours will be the same:
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. Not withstanding the claiment?s failiure to correctly identify and particularise an account held with the defendant, it is admitted that the claiment has an account , number XXXXXX, sort code XXXXX. However , to the extent it is alleged that the claiment incurred
bank charges on his account for unauthorised borrowings (whether unpaid fess for returned cheques, ?paid Referal fees? or any other such fees), the defendant puts the Claiment to strict proof of each charge and the date therof.
2. The defendant is entitled to charge the claiment for unauthorised borrowings by reasons of its standard terms and conditions. The claiment 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 cleared funds in the account - £35 per item (previously £25).
c. The defendant entitlement, if the Claimant becomes overdrawn without an
overdraft limit, to charge
interest at the unauthorised borrowing rate on the excess balance.
3. The defendant?s standard terms and condtions give the claimant a fair and transparant 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).
4. If and to the extent it is the claimants case that the failiure to make necessary payments and / or failure remain within authorised overdraft limits constituted a breach of the terms applying to the account and that contractual entitlement to debit charges from the claimants 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 his account and where 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.
5. 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 1(e) of schedule 2), or are in breach of s.4 of the unfair (contracts) terms act 1977 (or any other provision), or are unreasonable within the meaning of s.15 of the supply of goods and services act 1982 (or indeed any other provision).
6. Therefore, it is denied that the charges were unlwfully devited from the account.
7. if and to the extent the claimant incurred charges on his account, this was caused by the claimant having gone into overdraft without having agreed with the
It ends there which is strange. Anyway i just typed all that up in this heat
So can anyone help as it sounds a bit like the above persons problems at the begining
Mines baclays and not woolwich but its the usual keith guy
Now they've entered a defence ! 
Re: Pitt vs Woolwich (They're Fighting Back!!) 
