Court in 14 Days

[daniel17]

hi,
the woolwich have now acknowleged my small claims form that has been served on them by, putting an "x" in the box saying they are going to defend the all of the claim and giving some trainee solicitor name. Is the the norm and does it look like they will see it through to the end ? What do i do ? Please help !!!

[Michael Browne]

Don't worry, this is par for the course. They're just testing your nerve. Sit tight and they will blink first!

[daniel17]

Thanx Michael, will do

[kfiggitt]

Hi daniel147,

What you have written is exactly what has happened in my case today.
I am so releaved to hear i am not alone. I will keep you updated.

Stay strong. We will beat them!

K x

[daniel17]

hi peeps,
so i've still had no word from the woolwich they've got about 10 days left to reply, any one know how long they normally leave it ? it was on the 17th of last month that they were served the claim.

[miss muppet]

Hi, Daniel, don't panic, if my experience is anything to go by, they will leave it to the last minute, in my case with Shabby, they entered a defence which I got a copy of after they had telephoned me refunding the charges I had claimed into my account! They will not go to court, they can't afford to because they would lose!!!

[Barry031261]

Hi Daniel17,

The Woolwich will leave it right till the last minute before their next move.
Stay strong!

Barry

[daniel17]

Hi all
the woolwich have now put forward a defence ( of which i've yet to get a copy.) Does this mean i'll have to go to court ? Any tip's anyone?

[alanfromderby]

This is standard - have a good read through the other threads. The defence will arrive in due course, along with an Allocation Questionnaire which you will need to complete and return with the correct fee (should the level of your claim require one).

Usually, after that the bank will start making offers. However, you must always be aware that your case could end up in court - however remote the possibility.

BTW - PLEASE KEPP TO ONE THREAD

[daniel17]

hi people

i think i've made a massive error in my claim to the small courts, as i have now received a copy of the defence this morning and in it it states that i have not entered all the details of what charges and when. My statement basicly said that i would like to claim the charges for returned direct debts and cheques that my bank had made over the last 6 years as i believe them to be profit making and therefore illegal. Have i blown it ? i can see that it is my own stupid fault. but i'm really quite poor with anything in an admin way and realise i shouldn't of cut corners. guess i just got over exited when i got the offer of half the money back. Assumed that it proved their guilt and that they would crumble once they recieved the small claims form. Careless i know. Can i still turn it around ?

[Bookworm]

BREATHE!!!!!

That's better.

Now, can you copy here exactly what it says? I suspect that it's their newest pathetic attempt at derailing their customers (doing a reasonably good job on you, it seems!), but can't be sure until I read it properly.

Do it, then we'll talk.

[Mervalous]

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

[Don Quioxte]

This is the standard defence that is entered by Barclays/Woolwich.

I received the same notification - verbtim before settling with Mr Jeremiah over the phone (see my thread in Barclays).

Do not worry.

The rubbish about not telling them the account details/charges/dates etc is, exactly what I said, RUBBISH. It is not a requirement of the particulars of claim to submit such details if the information is accessible to bth parties and the calculation of your charges and thus claim amount has been based on said records. they just sound pompous and ridiculous to the judgd. What a pointlesssfirst line of defence - we don't accept the claim because it was not particularised to our satisfaction, but ye judge we do acknowledge that the claimant holds an account with us. Whoopee, well done Barclays.

There are various holes that can be picked in the defence just upon initial viewing.

It ends abruptly because there is clearly not enough room on the online form that they use to submit for the last word which is probably "defendant".

You may want to consider calling Mr Jeremiah to offer him the opportunity "without prejudice" t discuss settlement... have a look at my thread in the Barclays section for encouragement

[Mervalous]

I did read your thread so might call him, do you have his number or should I drop him an email first or something?

[Don Quioxte]

His number will be on the original acknowledgement of claim notification or the defence submission form. It is the Litigation and Disputes department and it is his direct line. His email is there also.

Only ring if you are confident in your knowledge and telephone manner. Otherwise email and ask him to contact you quoting the claim number and stating that you would like to discuss settlement of the matter without having to consume the Courts time or cause Barclays to incur the additional costs of proceeding with litigation.

Ensure that you precede any conversation once you have introduced yourself (and any email for that matter) with the phrase "may I speak without prejudice" - this tells the other party that anything you are saying is not admissable in court, or can be used by the other party as evidential disclosure. It covers you basically.

[daniel17]

sorry people
i was waiting for my other half to type that in for me. Thanks for that. Should i look to make contact straight away or is there a reason to wait a while?

[Bookworm]

Daniel, see DQ's answer just above. I agree with him, you should not attempt to call unless you are confident and reasonably certain to come out on top.

Reading your posts, no offence, but I think you might not be the ideal candidate to speak to a lawyer face to face. I would therefore strongly advise for you NOT to attempt this, and keep going on the regular path. It takes a wee bit longer, but it's safer.

.

[Don Quioxte]

would echo Bookworm's statement...

apologies Daniel I got crossed with Mervalous who was posting in a similar thread about telephone calls to Barclays..