Can I just ask, is this the first Bank charge reclaim that this Judge has had in front of him, and if not how did the other claims fair. Just wondered. Good question-needs an answer I think Why does kev have to appeal? why can he not just re-apply with a new claim ? (maybe with extra charges on since)

Does anyone think that, maybe, as the courts are getting fed up of this, this judge has done this deliberatley so Kev will have to appeal, set a precedent and lighten the workload for the courts? If so, what would happen if they just paid up before the hearing like before? Back to square one?

Is it a breach of contract then -or not?

That's how I understand it- which means we will all lose in court Does it not??

How can he win when the judge states it is not a breach of contract? Can someone explain this to me?

http://img.thisismoney.co.uk/docs/Summary.pdf Tell me I'm wrong, but..... The Mr berwick used a correct template and still got his case thrown out, because the judge says that these charges are not ' a breach of contract' they are a service.

Lloyds are using the 'service' aspect for their defence of unauth o/d fees. The G& S Act S15 state; 15 Implied term about consideration (1) Where, under a contract for the supply of a service, the consideration for the service is not determined by the contract, left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealing between the parties, there is an implied term that the party contracting with the supplier will pay a reasonable charge. (2) What is a reasonable charge is a question of fact. I imagine that the judge thinks that the banks do operate a reasonable charge. Seems like it is up to them, not law as to what is reasonable. Have I got this right?

Thanks fendy.

Thank you both for your quick replies. I was hoping it would be another scare tactic. I did not receive a CPR 18, so I did not need to reply to their defence did I not? I understood that I would reply only if the courts asked me to. Do I just wait now for the court?

Going through a small claim with Nasty West. Sent AQ in and Cobbetts have replied in section G of 149 AQ: The claimant has not shown they have reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and despite the Defendant requesting that the Claimant remedy the lack of particularity pleaded in the POC, the claimant has failed to do so. Case managment directions cannot be proposed until the claimant fully particularises their claim. In light of this, the defendant may amend its defence or apply to strike out. Cannot find any reference to this in the threads. My POC was as follows: destiny - CLAIMANT And Nasty West - DEFENDANT PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1. The Claimant has an account, number xxxxxxxx, sort code xxxxxxx, ("the Account") with the Defendant. 2. During the period in which the Account has been operating the Defendant has automatically 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 (“the Schedule”) applied is attached to these Particulars of Claim. 4. The Claimant contends that: a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not genuine pre-estimates of costs incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related 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. b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of i) the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 particularly but not limited to Regulations 5, 6 and 8 and Schedule 2, 1 e); and ii); the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, particularly but not limited to sections 3 and 11 and Schedule 2 and; iii) the common law and Case Law relating to liquidated damages and penalties in contracts. c) To the extent that it is found that the Defendant’s charges are for the provision of banking services the Claimant contends that the price thereof is unreasonable pursuant to section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. 6. Accordingly the Claimant claims: a) the return of the amounts debited to the Claimant’s account in respect of charges in the sum of £892.00 as per attached Schedule. b) Court costs; £80.00 c) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at 8% per annum of £238.02 d) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at 8% per annum from the date of the claim until the date of judgement/settlement at a daily rate of £0.19 STATEMENT OF TRUTH I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true I received the ususal Cobblers defence.asking me to particularise the and prove the clauses pursuant to which the charges were applied, identifying in each case the particualr breach of contract etc.. Should I have replied to this?

Mazamarie It just means that the courts are getting fed up with sending out hearings and allocating 1 hr and banks not turning up. Therefore they are now ( some are) sending out hearings for directions for only 10mins knowing the banks will settle before this date. However, if they don't settle, be prepared to attend court. But I think you will be receiving a cheque soon. Just sit back now and wait. Don't contact the Abbey, they will be paying you soon

subscribe

Hi Phantom, I understand that is the case, but then they should employ more staff to cope with the demand. Regulations, acts and rules are made to be adhered to. I bet if I was a small company and contravened the Data Protection Act, they would come down on me like a ton of bricks. This should be the same for large institutions per se. No excuse With regards the format they send. It does make a difference if you ask for TRANSACTIONS and charges, they cannot send you out a s/sheet made up off a PC. How do we know they are correct?

My point here is that the banks are in effect a cartel. I think they are now doing that with sending statements out . It seems they are leaving it a minimum of 2 months now.

Sheet of paper £0.05 Ink £0.01 Envelope £0.03 Frank £0.32 ( or thereabouts) Training for the pond life who only has to press a button. 3 days @£5.50/hr = £132.00 Total £132.41 I think £39.00 is a snip!!!

I would 1 Change my name by deed poll 2 Take the money out 3 Rent out your house and rent a property 4 Put it into a new account under your new name & address 5 keep schtuuum for 6yrs 6 Spend it!!!!!

You bet. £40 admin fee!!!! That looks way over the top :D That's what I thought but I thought then again it could be a fee like an account fee, non reclaimable.

Not here

I keep hearing from a lot of people that banks are now taking 2 - 3 months to send out statements. Some are taking that long and just sending out a spreadsheet with charges listed. Complaints, I hear to the Information Commissioner fall on deaf ears. What is the point of the above Act? Ok I understand that one could enforce through the SCC but this should not be necessary. I see firms that claim for you now have to be regulated by the DCA, and are scrutinised rigourously before they can be authorised. And the banks? Well they can just contravene any act they like. The DCA was in the paper last week for selling off names & addresses of people who got a CCJ, to a debt managment company, who in turn made appointments with them to discuss Debt mangement programme. Something that can be done themselves. This particular company contravened so many regs ( one by asking a client who could not afford their 'up front fees of £1,500 to put it on their credit card!!!!) The DCA ( the regulatory body) did what? A big Fat ZILCH The old boys network is alive and kicking

GE Money charged my freind £30 + £40 administration fee each month when her mortgage was in arrears. Is this reclaimable?

Overdraft interest forms part of the return of monies unlawfully taken from you - just because it includes the word "interest" does not mean that it thus falls within the meaning of CPR 16.4 mmm.... makes sense that Jonni. Would you say there should be a time limit on the banks reply? The judge has not put one on them, so they could take as long as they like

Have you tried asking the court if you are entitled to know the specific grounds of the application? Yes Bong, it was ex parte so I am not allowed to see it. I don't think the woman who told me should have either!

The way I see it is, 16.4 refers to 'interest' not any specific type of interest, just 'interest'. So I would have thought this refers to 'any' interest applied to the claim. If so, then an enactment is needed for o/d interest.

The POC templates do comply with CPR, by stating that the claim for interest is made pursuant to section 69 of the county courts act. The overdraft interest is not a claim for interest on the claim so that isn't caught within the definintion of interest in CPR 16.4 So, the interest referred to in CPR16.4 is S69 and not o/d interest you think? If that is the case, I wonder what other part of CPR16.4 they are reffering to. I used all the templates from the library.

Hi Jonni I was referring to the o/d interest on the charges as calculated automatically by vamps s/sheet. We do clarify the S69 interest, but what regs refer to the o/d interest?