Da£en's been a star throughout! Just out of curiosity Barclayschargedme, when is your trial date. Mine is August but bundles had to be in ten days ago. Barclays didn't comply. Just wondered when they might get to mine. Thanks, John.

Hi Makalu, You are correct in that the banks might use different words. On my statement they were referral fees, but they are still charges on my claim. There has been some discussion about banks trying to pass off these charges as fees for a service but that's a duff defence as well. You could have alook at this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/23993-legal-arguments-support-claim.html Regards, John.

You are right. It is a stalling tactic. I wouldn't split hairs over whether they use the word charges or fee. Just send them your schedule (spreadsheet) again. Regards, John.

Cheers Saintly! I'm OK then. I was a bit worried for a moment. Thanks, John.

Just a quickie about the updated SOC? Is that referring to the latest uptodate spreadsheet of charges and interest or another copy of what went on my N1? Thanks, John.

Hi Guys/Girls/Ladies, I need a couple of pointers if you could help please. The court dispensed with AQs and directed both parties to submit documents on which they intend to rely to court and the other party by 18 May 2007. My Bundle was submitted to court and bank on 18 May, but have received nothing from the bank. The trial isn't until August. I didn't put the witness statement in with the bank's stuff but the court office said it's OK as long as I send them a copy now. I've drafted a big nudge letter asking for all my charges plus interest to date and have printed a new schedule. I just don't know if it's the right time to ask or whether, because the bank don't seem to have complied, I should wait to hear from the court . Thanks and regards, John.

Bundle sumitted to Court and Barclays 18 May. 28 May and nothing back from Barclays or Court. What's next? I figure I could write to Barclays and encourage them to settle or I could ask them for their Court Bundle. I guess I could wait to hear from Court or could I go for non-compliance. Is anyone else in a similar position or had a similar experience? I've read about claiming for waste of time but as the Judge decided to dispense with AQs the bank didn't have a choice in making me prepare my bundle, or am I being too charitable. Regards, John.

Hi Jamie, I wondered if you had contacted the bank about a settlement. I'm not sure when or even if I should do that. I was directed to provide my bundle by last Friday as was the bank but the court date isn't until August. Any advice please. Regards, John.

Manxlass, don't go chasing your tail! If you have all your statements just take out the ones with charges on and list them on the spreadsheet at the following page: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/182-6-interest-calculation-spreadsheets.html You should find the link to Martin Orton's letter here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/82148-got-court-date-important.html The SAR includes the follwing paragraph: "Additionally, where there has been any event in my account history over this period which has required manual intervention by any member of your staff, or any other person, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention, or other evidence of that manual intervention in relation to my banking business with you." It may or may not be important depending on the how the bank tries to justify its charges. I guess you could just write and ask them the question and you won't have to pay ten punds, but you're unlikely to get a straight answer whichever way you do it. Regards, John (Manxlover)

Hi Iskanda, I'd love a copy of T&Cs covering 2000 - 2001 please. Maybe you could PM me with PDFs attached. I hope you can do that in CAG mail, some things work, others don't! Thanks, John.

SVENG, I guess the crux of our argument is that the charges represent a penalty because they don't reflect the true cost to the bank of what is pretty much an automated process. If it got to court and the bank tried to claim they incurred these costs because they had to manually intervene would you be able to dispute that? If you have time to send the SAR it will be proof that you requested details of such interventions (which the bank can't or won't tell you about). As you already have the statements you require I guess you could just write to the bank's HQ asking for specific instances of manual interventions. I just feel that the bank won't tell you anything unless you force them. I have reconsidered my opinion about the SAR going in the bundle. It will only be relevant if the bank introduces manual interevention as justification for their charges so I'd just keep it in case. SAR is as follows or you could just pinch the bit about manaul intererventions. Don't forget the £10 if you do the SAR. The chances rae you will get the £10 returned with the info - don't ask me why! Data Protection Act 1998 Subject Access Request Dear Sir/Madam ACCOUNT NUMBER: Please supply me with a complete list of transactions and charges relating to my banking history with your organisation. Alternatively, a complete set of statements for that period will be acceptable. Additionally, where there has been any event in my account history over this period which has required manual intervention by any member of your staff, or any other person, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention, or other evidence of that manual intervention in relation to my banking business with you. If you are unable to supply this data because there has been no such manual intervention, then please be so kind as to confirm this in your response. I enclose the statutory maximum fee of £10. You have 40 days in which to comply. Furthermore, if I discover that you have levied disproportionate penalties against me, then I shall be reclaiming them, and also reclaiming the enclosed £10 Data Protection Act subject access request fee. If there is specific information which you require in order to satisfy yourself as to my identity, please let me know by return. However, please note that the above address is the one which you normally use to communicate my private business to me and which you have hitherto found to be acceptable. I would be happy to collect the Data from my local branch. Yours faithfully, Regards, John.

I'd be interested in seeing the Barclays T&Cs for '96. I know the costs will have changed over the years but I bet the terms won't have until the claims started going in. It would be useful to compare the wording with current terms. Thanks, John.

FOR PARTICULAR ATTENTION OF SVENG Witness Statement should be included in court bundle, just addto list. I'd put it as first item. The court were very helpful. I'd put my Witness Statement in a clear sleeve at the front of my bundle, but separate. The court said it would be fine like that and all I needed to do was to send a copy to the bank and make sure I kept one for myself. Hope that clears up any doubts. I think it might be important to include a copy of the SAR letter as it specifically asks the bank to detail any manual interventions. Automated process - cheap. Manual interventions - expensive. No manual interventions - how come you charged me £30? I only thought of it after I put in my bundle. I know the bank said in reply that the fact that they did not identify any manual intereventions didn't mean there weren't any - but I can't find the letter. If any Barclays customers read this and have a response letter saying something similar I'd appreciate a copy of the wording. Regards, John.

I put this on the front of my bundle: IN THE [Whatever] COUNTY COURT Claim No: ****** (CLAIMANT’S NAME) Claimant -V- ANY BANK PLC Defendant [DATE] [TIME] [JUDGE'S NAME] I'll PM you the INDEX OF DOCUMENTS because it's in a table and won't work in the forum. As I've said in other postings my Witness Statement is a steal from Lloyds Forum (GaryH) amended to suit Barclay's defence. You can find the original here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/ You may or may not be asked to provide one. It depends on what the court directs. You would also need to look at your banks defence and see which paragraphs are appropriate. My directions from the court only said I had to provide copies of all documents on which I intended to rely in court. If I had been able to submit an AQ or had been given sufficient notice by the court I would have done a draft order for directions. It would be useful to read about the new strategy for AQs. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/#libraries-bank-charges-materials I only had thirteen days to comply with the the Judges directions and a Witness Statement allowed me to clearly present a strong argument related to my bundle and to ask for Standard Disclosure by the Bank. If you want to read my Witness Statement you can search for my thread in the Barclay's forum. It's on there. A last word about the Witness Statement. I went to the court and gave in my bundle. The witness statement was in front of everything else and I said I wasn't sure whether it should be part of the bundle but I'd left it separate in a sleeve because I wanted the Judge to see my request for Standard Disclosure. Also I hadn't listed it on my Bundle documents. They said it would be fine but I will need to send a copy to the bank and keep one with my bundle. So I guess you might need to add that to my list. At least I can relax this weekend. I still have to consider mediation that the court is pressing for, but that can wait until Monday. Regards, John.

I just can't get out of the door. Still hanging on for inspiration see! Here's the place for OFT, all 36 pages. http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/rep...cts/oft842.pdf That's it. I'm off. Will check in later. John.

Who knows? The Lloyds judge wanted to see T&Cs so I figured I'd include the latest T&Cs in my Barclays bundle because at least it shows there are charges applicable. I figure it might also allow me to introduce older ones if I can find them and they were in force during the time of my claim. I've countered the argument of services in my Witness Statement in case they go down that road. I reckon we could all ponder our bundles ad infinitum and there'll always be something. I just hope for a fair hearing. I can't sweat it any longer. I've run out of time. I have to take mine to court now! This afternoon! What I've got, I've got. What I've done, I've done my best. Regards, John.

Hi YV01, I sympathise with you because I was in the same position. I'm taking my bundle to court this PM. I used the basic CAG bundle and then added what I felt would best help my case. I can PM you the front page if you like. As for the OFT thing. You can use the CAG OFT Summary but you need to find the full report on the OFT website. You could, if you wanted, submit the whole thing but you NEED to have para 4.21 so make sure if you use the summary you put para 4.21 0n the end. I am submitting a Witness Statement to the court as well, but separately from the bundle. If they tell me it should be included I reckon I can send Barclays a copy in the post. I don't know who your claiming against but my Witness Statement is a steal from the Lloyds Bank forum which I have changed/shortened so it only addresses the points Barclays have raised in their defence. Even though Barclays haven't tried it yet, I have tried to circumvent any attempt to justify the charges as being for services. I have no idea if my Witness Statement is any good against Barclays defence. I didn't get any feedback so I'll have to use it. I hope it is, I feel I could argue it in court and it's the best I could do in a short time. Check out my thread if you want to see it. The Lloyds case pointed to a possible problem if you don't have any T&Cs. I only have current T&Cs from Barclays website but at least they show the contractual charges. Regards, John.

I've written a new more in depth Witness Statement this evening. I didn't have an AQ and thought the simple version of the Witness Statement wasn't strong enough. Some of it is derived from the Lloyds Bank forum but I'm sending it to Barclays so have cut or amended it. If anyone has time to read it and tell me if I've made any fatal errors, I'll be much obliged. Especially Paras 13, 14 and 16. 1st Witness Statement of [you] Exhibit [initials then 1] [date] In the ****** County Court Claim Number: ******* Between: [you] (Claimant) And (WHATEVER) BANK PLC (Defendant) _________________________ 1st WITNESS STATEMENT OF [YOU] _________________________ I, (Your Name) of (Your Address) will say as follows:- 1. I, the Claimant, am a litigant in person in this case. 2. I make this Witness Statement in support of my claim against the Defendant for the refund of penalty charges levied to my bank account by the Defendant bank. 3. I make this Witness Statement from information and facts within my own knowledge and which I believe to be true. 4. On [date] I wrote to the Defendant, setting out the nature of my complaint and requesting that the Defendant either justify the legitimacy and legal status of its charges or alternatively refund them. 5. Upon unsatisfactory response from the Defendant, on [date] I again wrote to the Defendant requesting a refund of said charges and advising I would file a claim should I not receive a satisfactory response. 6. On [date] I wrote again to the Defendant requesting a refund of charges and advising I would file a claim should I not receive a satisfactory response. 7. On [date] I filed a claim at Luton County Court for the return of excessive penalty charges levied by the Defendant, as detailed in my Particulars of Claim. 8. a)The Defendant acknowledged service of the claim on [date] b)The Defendant filed its defence on [date] 9. I submit that the charges levied to my bank account, as set out in the enclosed schedule, are, notwithstanding the defence of the defendant, default penalty charges arising directly from my breaches of the contract, both explicit and implied, between myself and the Defendant. As a contractual penalty, it is submitted that the charges are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 ("UTCCR"), the Unfair Contracts (Terms) Act 1977 ("UCTA"), and the common law. 10. It is admitted that the Defendants charges were levied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the account in question. However, it is submitted that the Defendants charges are not related to, or intended to represent, any actual loss arising from a breach of contract, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant, which by virtue of the legislation cited in paragraph 9 above, exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit. 11. In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co [1915] AC 79, Lord Dunedin stated that; "The essence of a penalty is a payment of money stipulated as in-terrorem of the offending part” i.e. if it is designed to scare or coerce or is used as a threat. It is submitted that the charges applied were not representative of any service provided by the Defendant, but instead are punitive and applied "in-terrorem". 12. I refer to the statement from the Office of Fair Trading (April 2006), who conducted a thorough investigation into default charges levied by the British financial industry. While the report primarily focused on Credit card issuers, the OFT stated that the principle of their findings would also apply to Bank account charges. They ruled that default charges at the current level were unfair within their interpretation of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.With regard to the 'cloaking' or disguising of penalties, the OFT said this; "4.21. The analysis in this statement is in terms of explicit, transparent default fees. Attempts to restructure accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made should be viewed as disguised penalties and equally open to challenge where grounds of unfairness exist. (For example, a charge for 'agreeing' or 'allowing’ a customer to exceed a credit limit is no different from a customers default in exceeding a credit limit.) The UTCCR's are concerned with the intentions and effects of terms, not just their mechanism". 13. As submitted above, I believe the charges levied to my account to be disproportionate contractual penalties, arising from clear and demonstrable express and/or implied breaches of terms of the account contract between myself and the Defendant. I vehemently refute any contention that they are legitimate contractual service charges. 14. However, and without prejudice to paragraph 13 above, in the event that the charges were accepted by this honourable court as being a fee for a contractual service, I will contend that that they are unreasonable under section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 15. Further, under the UTCCR: “5(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term. (3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract. (4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.” Schedule 2 also includes such clauses (to define examples of unfair clauses) as: “(i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract; (j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract; (m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract." The defendant is a multi-national corporation. The term regarding charges was inserted unilaterally in contract. The contract was pre and mass produced and I had no opportunity to negotiate the clause, or indeed any part of the contract. The cost of Barclay’s charges have increased during the period in which my account has been held, with no opportunity to negotiate, or notification of this increase. This means the bank has unilaterally altered the terms of my account contract to my detriment, and to their advantage. 16. It is not disputed that the Defendant is entitled to recover its damages following my breaches of contract, and it is entitled to include a liquidated damages clause. I accept without reservation the banks right to recover its actual losses or a genuine pre-estimate thereof. A penalty however, is unenforceable. 17. Lord Dunedin in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co [1915] AC 79 set down a number of principles in definition of a penalty clause and how such clause may be ascertained from a liquidated damages clause. One of these principles being - "The sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could have been suffered from the breach" 18. Further, under the UTCCR, schedule 2 (1) includes to define an example of an unfair clause as - "(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation" 19. I have requested that the Defendant justify its charges by providing details of the costs incurred as a result of my contractual breaches but each time those requests were rebutted or ignored. 20. The Defendant, or indeed any of the UK banks, has never published any information to support how their charges are calculated, or what their actual costs associated with such breaches are, or what revenue they derive from such charges. 21. 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. 22. It is submitted that the Defendants charges are applied by an automated and computer driven process. This process consists of a computer system 'bouncing' the direct debit, and sending out a computer generated letter. The letter received notifying the customer of a charge is identical in every instance. It is therefore impossible to envisage how the Defendant can incur costs of £30 - £35 by carrying out this completely automated process. 23. Additionally, 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 such information was forthcoming. 24. On 22nd May 2006, the House of Commons passed an early day motion which welcomed the OFT's statement that default charges should be proportionate to the actual loss incurred. The house described such default charges as "exorbitant" and "excessive". 25. I will also cite a BBC radio interview in 2004 with Lloyds TSB's former head of personal banking, Peter McNamara, in which he states that bank charges are used to fund free banking for all personal customers as a whole. 26. Accordingly, I will seek judgement in respect of; a) Charges in the sum of £1130.00 (as particularised in the Particulars of claim), b) Interest at the rate of 8% per annum under County Courts Act 1984 s.69 in the sum of £271.54 as at 16/05/2007, and further at the daily rate of £0.25 thereafter (as particularised in the Particulars of Claim); 27. I would respectfully ask that the Court, in this case, notwithstanding allocation to the small claims track, order standard disclosure. i. The Defendant to file at the Court office and serve me with a list setting out how charges have been calculated. ii. I understand that it is in the Courts discretion to do so. Statement of Truth I believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true, and submit it as Exhibit [initials then 1] comprising of ** pages. Signed: [your name] Dated: [date] That's it, Thanks, John.

Hi Gary, Thanks for coming back. It is PRETTY MUCH the one from your thread but I was worried that some of the arguments were specific to Lloyds and I'm claiming from Barclays. I compared it to Barclays defence and left out bits that were doubtful. I just needed reassurance. I have used the headings you provided. I didn't post them in here because it contained all the personal stuff. Thanks again, John.

Hi Pen, I'm like you. Submitted bundle to bank. Court one goes in tomorrow and I keep thinking maybe I should add something else. I included the current terms and conditions as they were all I had. Maybe someone will let us know if you can submit other things later on. I've written a new more in depth Witness Statement this evening. I didn't have an AQ and thought the simple version of the Witness Statement wasn't strong enough. Some of it is derived from the Lloyds Bank forum but I'm sending it to Barclays so have cut or amended it. If anyone has time to read it and tell me if I've made any fatal errors, I'll be much obliged. Especially Paras 13, 14 and 16. Thanks, John 9. I submit that the charges levied to my bank account, as set out in the enclosed schedule, are, notwithstanding the defence of the defendant, default penalty charges arising directly from my breaches of the contract, both explicit and implied, between myself and the Defendant. As a contractual penalty, it is submitted that the charges are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 ("UTCCR"), the Unfair Contracts (Terms) Act 1977 ("UCTA"), and the common law. 10. It is admitted that the Defendants charges were levied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the account in question. However, it is submitted that the Defendants charges are not related to or intended to represent any actual loss arising from a breach of contract, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant, which by virtue of the legislation cited in paragraph 9 above, exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit. 11. In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co [1915] AC 79, Lord Dunedin stated that; "The essence of a penalty is a payment of money stipulated as in-terrorem of the offending part” i.e. if it is designed to scare or coerce or is used as a threat. It is submitted that the charges applied were not representative of any service provided by the Defendant, but instead are punitive and applied "in-terrorem". 12. I refer to the statement from the Office of Fair Trading (April 2006), who conducted a thorough investigation into default charges levied by the British financial industry. While the report primarily focused on Credit card issuers, the OFT stated that the principle of their findings would also apply to Bank account charges. They ruled that default charges at the current level were unfair within their interpretation of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.With regard to the 'cloaking' or disguising of penalties, the OFT said this; "4.21. The analysis in this statement is in terms of explicit, transparent default fees. Attempts to restructure accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made should be viewed as disguised penalties and equally open to challenge where grounds of unfairness exist. (For example, a charge for 'agreeing' or 'allowing’ a customer to exceed a credit limit is no different from a customers default in exceeding a credit limit.) The UTCCR's are concerned with the intentions and effects of terms, not just their mechanism". 13. As submitted above, I believe the charges levied to my account to be disproportionate contractual penalties, arising from clear and demonstrable express and/or implied breaches of terms of the account contract between myself and the Defendant. I will vehemently refute any contention that they are legitimate contractual service charges. 14. However, and without prejudice to paragraph 17 above, in the event that the charges were accepted by this honourable court as being a fee for a contractual service, I will contend that that they are unreasonable under section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. 15. Further, under the UTCCR: (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term. (3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract. (4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.” Schedule 2 also includes such clauses (to define examples of unfair clauses) as: “(i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract; (j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract; (m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract." The defendant is a multi-national corporation. The term regarding charges was inserted unilaterally in contract. The contract was pre and mass produced and I had no opportunity to negotiate the clause, or indeed any part of the contract. The cost of Barclay’s charges have increased during the period in which my account has been held, with no opportunity to negotiate, or notification of this increase. This means the bank has unilaterally altered the terms of my account contract to my detriment, and to their advantage. 16. It is not disputed that the Defendant is entitled to recover its damages following my breaches of contract, and it is entitled to include a liquidated damages clause. I accept without reservation the banks right to recover its actual losses or a genuine pre-estimate thereof. A penalty however, is unenforceable. 17. Lord Dunedin in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co [1915] AC 79 set down a number of principles in definition of a penalty clause and how such clause may be ascertained from a liquidated damages clause. One of these principles being - "The sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could have been suffered from the breach" 18. Further, under the UTCCR, schedule 2 (1) includes to define an example of an unfair clause as - "(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation" 19. I have requested that the Defendant justify its charges by providing details of the costs incurred as a result of my contractual breaches but each time those requests were rebutted or ignored. 20. The Defendant, or indeed any of the UK banks, has never published any information to support how their charges are calculated, or what their actual costs associated with such breaches are, or what revenue they derive from such charges. 21. 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. 22. It is submitted that the Defendants charges are applied by an automated and computer driven process. This process consists of a computer system 'bouncing' the direct debit, and sending out a computer generated letter. The letter received notifying the customer of a charge is identical in every instance. It is therefore impossible to envisage how the Defendant can incur costs of £30 - £35 by carrying out this completely automated process. 23. Additionally, 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 such information was forthcoming. 24. On 22nd May 2006, the House of Commons passed an early day motion which welcomed the OFT's statement that default charges should be proportionate to the actual loss incurred. The house described such default charges as "exorbitant" and "excessive". 25. I will also cite a BBC radio interview in 2004 with Lloyds TSB's former head of personal banking, Peter McNamara, in which he states that bank charges are used to fund free banking for all personal customers as a whole.

Full OFT report here: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/rep...cts/oft842.pdf

Hi Sveng, Although the OFT report focused on Credit Card Issuers, the OFT stated that the principles of their findings would also apply to Bank Account charges. Not sure about the witness statement. I didn't put it in the bundle I sent to the bank today. You might think about taking your bundle into your local branch and sending it in their internal mail. That's what I did. They were so helpful! I'm taking the court bundle in tomorrow so I'll ask them. If they say the bank needs a copy I'll put it in the post. Will let you know. Regards, John.

Sorry, just assumed someone with so much knowledge would be a guy!!

Thanks for the suggestion Sally. I'll get the letter and do as you suggest. I found your letter a couple of weeks ago and it's been in my docs since then, typed and ready to go. As everyone says it's a great letter, very well reasoned. Regards, John.

Hi Steven, I'm pleased to say that Lats beat me to the reply. I agree with him that the new strategy of draft directions is preferable. I didn't get the option of submitting an AQ and only had 13 days notice to get my bundle to court so there was no time for draft directions. That's the only reason I added a Witness Statement and requested Standard Disclosure. I used the OFT summary that was in the CAG bundle and took para 4.21 from the OFT website below. http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/oft842.pdf You could submit the whole thing but it's about 36 pages. Regards, John.