Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About maranatha

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Looking at the text of some of the judgement: Quote 34. In my judgement ... in considering for the purposes of section 15 [supply of Goods and Services Act 1982] what is a reasonable charge for the service provided by the bank, an assessment would have to be made of the whole package of charges made by the bank for the whole service it provides. Potentially this would be a very difficult and expensive exercise. It is certainly not one which can be conducted within the confines of this case and on the evidence before me Endquote The Judge at Birmingham has decided that in his view, the charges are for "services provided" and not charges. Now this argument that they are 'services provided' started to be seen from the banks about 6 months ago or more, as a way of diverting attention. The "services provided" argument seems to me to be the kernel of the judges ruling ... Therefore,, We need to focus on this argument. And take it apart. I'd love to see Kev's Statement of Claim and the Banks Defence. But we need to focus. I'm helping someone with her Lloyds TSB Claim so I'm a little worried. Blessings maranatha
  2. Well Well well A+L acknowledged the claim which gave them 28 days from service. The acknowledgement said that they would defend the case totally. two weeks later ie yesterday a BIG FAT CHQUE for £1600 landed on the mat. This included 17.08% compound interest and also charges going back OVER 6 years, (6-1/2 actually). I think A+L are caving in totally. It's just getting too much for them holday time cometh maranatha
  3. I have just received a cheque from A+L which included 17.08% CCI Out of interest I also claimed over 6 years --- 6-1/2 years I believe that A+L are caving in. maranatha
  4. No It's not correct. Issuing a DPA item should not be done through MCOL but your local country court. It will cost £150. Maranatha
  5. I had a letter from A+L today telling me formally that they do not hold old data on microfiche or any othe system. So what they have is about 6 years and 5 months Regards maranatha
  6. OK - The judge passed it and it has been issued. I suspect the A+L will take it to the wire but lets see. Maranatha
  7. Has anyone made an application to strike out a defence? I know that kazzaw received a surprise strike-out from a judge in Lincoln on his own initiative but I wondered if anyone else has gone on their own as an ex-parté application Maranatha
  8. Took my N1 and POC to the local county court who at first refused to accept it because I was claiming Unauthorised Compound or Authorised Compound or S69 in alternates. she said, "You can only claim s69" Eventually she said "I'll run it past the judge tomorrow and see whether he will agree to issue "!! WHAT? Has anyone else had this problem? What do I do if they refuse to issue? My main thread containing my POC is HERE Any Advice? Maranatha
  9. Well I didn't get any joy from the LBA except another 'get lost' letter. So Today, I took my paperwork to my local county court. Firstly, they don't take credit cards so I had to go to an ATM to get £120 out. Then, the lady behind the desk says, "You can't claim 17% interest. You can only claim S69. She really didn't want to issue it until I pointed out that it was for the court to decide. She finally took it, (I don't think she had seen one with Compound, but she said she would have to pass it by the judge tomorrow to see whether he would 'allow' it to be issued !!!!! Hmm Here's my POC Particulars of Claim 1. The Claimant opened an Girobank current Bank Account No. XX XXX XXXX on xx march 1995 (Girobank now wholly owned by Alliance and Leicester plc) 2. During the period in which the account had been operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant. 3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these Particulars of Claim as Appendix 1 4. The Claimant contends that: a) The charges debited to the account, as outlined in the attached schedule (Appendix 1) are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and are not intended to represent or relate to any alleged actual loss but, instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit. In the event that the charges are not a penalty, they are unreasonable under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 section 15. The Defendant has declined to justify the charges. b) The contractual provision which permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) paragraph 8 and schedule 2(1)(e), The Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 section 4 and the common law. 5. Accordingly, the Claimant claims: 5.1 ) The return of the amounts debited in the respect of charges in the sum of £632.50 5.2 ) Court Costs 5.3 ) Interest 5.3.1) The claimant claims compound interest on the charges applied thereon to the claimant’s account (“the principal claim”), at the annual rate of 17.08 %. This is the rate currently applied by the defendant to customer’s unauthorised use or borrowing of the defendant’s monies, as provided for in contract. The claimant’s case for claiming this rate is based in equity, and a legal requirement for fairness and balance. The claimant deems the defendant’s principal indebtedness to the claimant to be unauthorised, since it is comprised of charges that are unconscionable, remain unsubstantiated, and amount to unenforceable penalties at law. If the defendant avers that its charges are fair, reasonable and therefore enforceable, its remedy will be to defend the claim by providing evidence of its actual losses or pre-estimate of costs in relation to the claimant’s account breaches. Since the defendant has been invited to do so prior to the issue of court proceedings, and has refused, and since the claimant is aware that the defendant has failed to defend any other similar claim, choosing to settle before the trial dates, the claimant deems the defendant’s charges to the claimant’s account to be indefensible, unenforceable at law, and unauthorised, since it was clearly not in the claimant’s contemplation when entering into the contract, that the claimant would authorise the defendant to apply unlawful penalty charges and interest thereon to the claimant’s account, or to profit in an unlawful manner from the claimant’s account breaches. For the contract to confer advantageous terms (i.e. entitlement to compensation) on one party (the defendant) where there is no comparable term in favour of the other party (the claimant) is to create an imbalance in the parties’ rights and is contrary to the requirements of Regulation 5 (1) of the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“UTCCR”). Regulation 5 (1) of the UTCCR states as follows: Unfair Terms 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.” Therefore, to satisfy the requirement of fairness, within the definition given by the UTCCR, the contract would have to provide a mutual or reciprocal term permitting the customer to apply the same rate of interest on any unauthorised withdrawals from the customer’s account by the bank (the defendant). The interest claimed is therefore deemed to provide an equitable remedy. 5.3.2 ) In the alternative to 5.3.1 should the court deem that the claim does not merit the application of the defendant’s unauthorised lending rate, the claimant claims compound interest at the defendant’s authorised borrowing rate of 15% per annum, based in the premise that the court finds that the defendant’s withdrawals from the claimant’s account were authorised. 5.3.3 ) In the alternative to 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 above, if the court is unable to agree that the claimant is entitled to either of the two contractual rates of interest, on the grounds stated, the claimant avers that the defendant would be unjustly enriched if the claimant’s entitlement was limited to the statutory rate of interest in that the defendant has had use of the sums and would have used these sums to re-lend at commercially compounded rates. On these grounds the claimant seeks restitution of the compounded contractual interest at the defendant’s authorised borrowing rate of 15 % per annum. 5.3.4 ) In the alternative 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 above, if the court finds that the claimant is not entitled to contractual interest, the claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984. 5.3.5) Schedules showing interest calculated at the rates quoted 5.3.1, 5.3.2&5.3.3 together, and 5.3.4 are attached to these particulars of claim, as Appendices 1, 2 and 3 respectively. 6 ) Further contractual interest at 17.08 % compounded daily from 21st February 2007 up to the date of judgement or earlier payment. As the interest is compounding and the claimant is unable to predict when the claim will be heard or settled, the claimant is unable to specify a static daily interest figure, but will provide an updated settlement figure in respect of the interest at any hearing, or if and when the defendant requests an earlier settlement. An approximate amount, for guidance purposes only, is currently £0.92 per day, however as noted herein, this figure is liable to increase over time. End of Particulars of Claim Can they do this? Can they refuse to accept a claim? Oh well - we wait now I'll keep you posetd Maranatha
  10. I believe this to be a service charge and not a penalty. I left them all off my claim. However if anyone has information to the contrary let us all know Maranatha
  11. 4.2.1 IS utter nonse. The UK tax is applied on the date of travel not the date of reservation otherwise why are Ryanair asking for more tax AFTER reservation because the government put it up? Maranatha
  12. I hope someone can explain to me a couple of things. I'm not heavy into debt. I have two credit cards £500 each both maxed out and minimum payments each month by DD Overdraft on current account runs at £500 If push came to shove I could pay it all back within 30 days. NOW I tried to get more credit and/or cards but have been turned down by he major lenders. Today I got my Experian Report which showed a national score of 926 on a scale of 0-1000 which they explained as higher than 70% of people applying for credit. There were two anomalies on the report. One showed a default from an old account which was paid off a few years ago but which still shows a big red 8 on it. (Default). I'm currently suing A+L for the return of fees charged on this account. Do you think it is worthwhile to ask them to take it off? The second anomalie from a catalogue company shows the account settled on 4/11/2003 but still shows " In last 36 months, number of status 1-2 is: 2 number of status 3+ is: 1" - which is nonsense Any ideas either (a) how I can get these two fixed and (b) how I can improve my credit rating and set some !! Cheers Maranatha
  13. A+L responded pretty sharply to my LBA with a standard letter telling me to ..d off I'll wait for the 14 days and then get to the local court. I need to revise the amount due as some of the items (monthly od charge) appear lawful ? - Do I need to start all over again? I'm inclined to go for it Anyone? Maranatha
  14. I need to clear my head and want some advice regarding the 6 year rule after reading through this thread. I am currently at LBA stage with the A+L. Just had a formal reponse saying buzz off). I'llw ait until the 14 days are clear then proceed to action. Now questions: 1. I got about 6-1/2 years of statements. I've requested further details regarding possible microfiche holdings and will consider a further action under the Data Protection Act. Is this wise or should I just take what i can get? 2. Regarding the six year rule. There have been a number of points raised. 2.1 Fiduciary Duty - Nelson -v- Rye (1995) - Nice one Cyril. Are the banks claiming that they are NOT fiduciaries? It seems plain as a pikestaff to me that they are!. Has this been tested recently? 2.2 Withholding. The fact that the banks will not disclose their actual costs in dealing with these things, means, (to some) that they are withholding (or some other word) -and therefore not time limited. Is this s32? - Has it been tested? 2.3 When does the six years start? The Banks are saying - six years back from now -- but some here are arguing that the six years starts from the date of discovery - which in my case was when the BBC did their programme. There was an assumption in the Nelson -v- Rye (1995) judgement that the six years referred back to the actual incident. Again, what law are we relying upon here. 3. I do have another question regarding Compound Interest and whether in the statement of claim, I can give the judge options ?? Ok - sorry there was a lot there, but I need to get my Initial court documents together. Need the cash. DW (Dear Wife) and LD (lovely daughter) need a holiday this year. Blessings -maranatha-
  15. I just had an email from Ryanair to say they were going to automatically take more money from my card to pay for new taxes. I didn't know they kep my card details. I booked before the Chancellor made his announcement and I'm still getting hit. Do they have any right to take more money without my approval? As it happens, I now want to cancel the flight but I can't find anywhere online to do it !! And I'm going to claim for the Taxes, Fees & Charges back as well. I'll keep you posetd Maranatha
  • Create New...