Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral
  1. I have a couple of accounts I sent to the courts which were stayed. I did write in to explain that these claims used a completely different legal angle as per the templates, but to no avail. So, now that the Supreme Court have issued their decision do I need to write to the courts to get things moving again? I know there is a little indecision about what will happen next but I am grateful for some advice here.
  2. Watch this space I guess. Wishful thinking in the meantime.
  3. I read this this morning. Some hope perhaps for those who have come unstuck with stays at court stages. BBC NEWS | Business | Bank claims may resume in courts Bank claims may resume in courts By Ian Pollock Personal finance reporter, BBC News International Dispute Resolution Centre, where the case is underway Banks could be back on trial over the return of overdraft charges this week, the High Court has been told. Many county court judges had agreed to suspend cases last summer until a final judgement on whether the charges were fair was made in a test case. But Mr Iain Milligan QC, for Barclays bank, told the test case hearing that thousands of cases were scheduled to automatically resume this week. The hearing is likely to end soon but a final judgement could be a while yet. Mr Justice Andrew Smith said he will consider making a recommendation on the matter, but has said that a recommendation would have to be "even handed". Common problem District and county court judges were told they could temporarily halt any current or pending cases - and those still in the pipeline with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) - until the High Court made a final judgement. This was part and parcel of the deal in which the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and the UK's main banks agreed to stage the High Court test case which started last month. The aim is to clarify if the OFT has the power, under the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts regulations, to decide that bank overdraft charges are unfair. Mr Milligan told the High Court that the automatic lifting of the stays was a "common problem" for all the seven banks and the Nationwide building society involved in the test case. They face the prospect of having to respond if tens of thousands of customers write to county court judges trying to revive their claims and asking for summary judgement in their favour if their banks do not respond. Consumer litigants The past two years have seen hundreds of thousands of people use the county courts and the FOS to reclaim overdraft charges, claiming they are illegal under the regulations or that they are unfair penalties under common law. It would be very good news if the right to justice was returned to ordinary consumer litigants Marc Gander, CAG The banks have denied that there is anything wrong with their charges, pointing out that they are clearly stated in their contracts with their customers. But rather than risk losing a case in a county court the banks have settled without admitting any liability in almost all cases, an approach that saw them hand back more than half a billion pounds to customers in the first half of last year. Eventually the deluge of claims forced them to seek a legal resolution. Marc Gander, of the Consumer Action Group (CAG) which has been at the forefront of the campaign against bank charges, urged the Judge not to do anything to reinstate the stays. "We would be extremely pleased if the stays were lifted," he said. "It would be very good news if the right to justice was returned to ordinary consumer litigants," he added. Language Earlier, on the 12th day of the hearing, the court was told that bank contracts with their customers did not fall foul of the requirement that they should be in "plain and intelligible" language. Mr Justice Andrew Smith expects the case to end this week Mr Robin Dicker QC, for HBOS, said that bank contracts were obliged simply to avoid being obscure or ambiguous. "Terms [in contracts] have to be straightforward and clear," he said. Mr Dicker took the judge through the 1993 European directive which had led to the introduction of the current regulations. "There is no hint that suppliers have to give consumers all details or facts, or advise them how the contracts may operate in the future," he said. As part of its case the OFT has asked the judge to rule that bank contracts are not in plain English, so that it can investigate them.
  4. I have had luck! The Brighton County Court has seen it's error and have lifted the stay! In the meantime a letter of offer has found it's way to me! I used the template on this forum and it worked!
  5. Yeah, a court pack would be very handy! Bump!
  6. Great thank you! I'll be firing that off to the courts shortly! Fingers crossed.
  7. Ooh yes! I would like a copy of something like that too. I have just received a letter from the Brighton County Court. I called the court and was told that there has been an ORDER that all bank claims are stayed!! They didn't seem to realise that there are differences on Business and Credit Card claims. I have seen a template for lifting stay on Credit Card account but I was a little afraid to change the wording to suit less I stitched myself up!
  8. Okay! Thanks SSLady. So I just want to be sure. The defence we received is pretty standard and so therefore the standard court pack will do the trick? I haven't received an allocation questionnaire yet but I'll be sure to post if it comes through. If my mate is successful we're going to move onto my accounts! BTW I like your avatar much better than your last one. very snazzy
  9. Hi all, My mate has been struggling to get his charges back form Barclaycard. We have followed advice on forums and written letters etc. Recently, filled in an N1 and we now have a Barclaycard Defence doc sitting in front of us. The doc states: 1. Barclaycard is a trading division of Barclays Bank PLC and not a legal entity in its own right. 2. To the extent it is alleged that the Claimant incurred charges on the Claimant's account for unauthorised borrowings (whether late payment fees, exceeding authorised credit limit fees, or any other such fees (the "Charges"), the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of each charge and the date thereof. 3. The Defendant's standard terms and conditions (''Terms''), which the Claimant accepted upon opening the account, entitle the Defendant to debit the Charges from customer accounts upon certain events (including, but not limited to, exceeding account credit limits and / or unauthorised borrowing and I or failing to make sufficient monthly payments to reduce the account balance by the required date). 4. It is the responsibility of the account holder to properly monitor the account so as to ensure compliance, for example, with the obligation to make payments by the required date. 5. The Terms gave the Claimant a fair and transparent view of the obligations and entitlements set out above, including the basis on which the Defendant would be entitled to debit the Charges from the Claimant's account. 6. If. and to the extent it is the Claimant's case that the failure to make monthly payments and lor failure to remain within the agreed credit limit, constituted a breach of the Terms, and that the contractual entitlement to debit the Charges from the Claimant's account constitutes a liquidated damages clause, the same is denied. The Charges applied to the Claimant's account were payments that the Claimant agreed to make upon the events described above by reason of the Terms. Accordingly, it is denied that the Charges or any such charges constitute unfair and / or unreasonable charges, and it is denied that the legal principles governing the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses applies or is relevant to the Charges, as alleged by the Claimant. or at all, and I or that the charges are otherwise unenforceable. 7. Further or alternatively it is denied that any such charges constitute unlawful penalty charges or are in breach of the Unfair Terms in Conswner Contracts Regulations 1999, (particularlu but without limitation to, paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2), or are unreasonable within the meaning of s.15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. 8. Further or alternatively, without prejudice to the matters pleaded above, if the Claimant's failure to make sufficient account payments by the required date and / or to remain within pre-agreed credit limits constituted a breach of the Terms, the Defendant avers that the Charges were nonetheless valid and enforceable. 9. It is further denied that the Charges were unlawfully debited from me Claimant's account. 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. Accordingly, it is averred that the Charges are legally enforceable and the Defendant was entitled to debit the Charge from the Claimant's account. 11. The Defendant denies that it is liable to the Claimant for the surns claimed and interest, as pleaded or at all. 12. In the alternative, and without prejudice to matters stated above, if (which is denied) the said Charges 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 by failing to make monthly payments and I or failing to remain within the agreed credit limit. 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. STATEMENT OF TRUTH I believe that the facts stated above are true. I am duly authorised by Barclays Bank PLC to sign this statement on its behalf. yada yada What happens next? Our knees are knocking....
  • Create New...