wayne v Abbey

[wayne.hunt]

dont know if you have noticed by reading this thread, but most of my claim is estimated as they havent sent all of my statements (microfiche), i have sent them a spreadsheet with both the prelim and lba useing the statements in my possesion showing how i have calculated the estimation useing the 16months worth of statements, i also stated to them i would ammend this figure when i receive the rest of my statements, so i dont know how or where they would of calculated this refund,

ive checked the statements in my possesion and the £575 refund doesnt make sense.

in a way, im happy they have done this, because if the charges were lawful they wouldnt make any goodwill payments, it makes me more confident for when i take them to court.

their is one thing about this that makes me angry, the fact that they didnt give me the option to decline the refund.

[MARTIN3030]

If they did give you an option to decline-then that would in itself be seen as offer from them.

The reason they do this is twofold.

 

1. They are hoping the claimant will assume a court would deem there to be no case to answer now.

 

2. They are trying to get the upper hand by confusion.

 

 

Of course,given that we know what they are up to.......shows them that nomatter what stunts they try to pull,recovery continues until the FULL amount is paid !!

 

[philread1]

Hello Wayne

 

This is only my personal opinion, but as shABBEY have not given you a breakdown of what this £575 is related to, and they have told you it is just a gesture of goodwill, I would be more inclined to see it as compensation for having hit you with all these unlawful charges over the last 6 years!!!!

 

Until the time comes when they decide they want to give you the information you have been requesting through the Data Protection Act and also what the £575 relates to, I would carry on regardless for the full amount of charges as per your schedule!

 

The contempt and ignorance of which the shABBEY are treating you and everyone else on this forum, I think its time they had a taste of their own medicine!!!!

 

My sister-in-law received her 6 years worth of statements within 3 weeks of sending her S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to Lloyd-TSB!!!!

 

Keep your spirits up!

Phil:)

[wayne.hunt]

thanks phil, i agree 100%, but ive already accepted partial refund.

 

thanks martin, i think you are spot on with what abbey are trying to do, it doesnt bother me, i will just keep plodding on. although i do wonder what they will do next, and i dont think they realise that this partial refund will pay for my court case.

[wayne.hunt]

does this sound ok?

 

Dear Mr Smith

 

 

Thank you for your letter dated 15th August 2006,

Thank you for crediting £575 to my account on 15th August 2006,

As you did not give me the option to decline your offer I have accepted the £575 as a partial refund and will adjust my original claim of £4959.54 to £4384.54.

As you will be aware I will be submitting my claim in the courts for a refund of charges debited from my account in the last 6 years now totalling £4384.54 at this point additional interest will be added to my claim pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act, and court costs will also be added.

 

 

In order to avoid this course of action I ask that you settle my claim in full, a total of £4384.54 to be credited to my account prior to 4pm on 31st August 2006.

 

 

Alternatively I will pursue my claim in the courts for the full amount.

[MARTIN3030]

does this sound ok?

 

Dear Mr Smith

 

 

Thank you for your letter dated 15th August 2006,

Your credit of £575 to my account on 15th August 2006 has been noted.

As you did not give me the option to decline your offer I have accepted the £575 as a partial refund and will adjust my original claim of £4959.54 to £4384.54,and the discrepancy to my claim remains outstanding.

As you will be aware I will be submitting my claim in the courts for a refund of charges debited from my account in the last 6 years now totalling £4384.54 at this point additional interest will be added to my claim pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act, and court costs will also be added.

 

 

In order to avoid this course of action I ask that you settle my claim in full, a total of £4384.54 to be credited to my account prior to 4pm on 31st August 2006.

 

 

As thereafter, and without further notice I will pursue my claim in the courts for the full amount.

 

 

 

I trust this clarifies my position.

[wayne.hunt]

thats better, thanks martin.

[wayne.hunt]

just been refunded another £110, so the letter i wrote to abbey last night accepting last weeks refund as partial and adjusting my claim is now incorrect.

[wayne.hunt]

thanks karne, i think that must be the only way forward, they are just trying to confuse matters.

[wayne.hunt]

yes, its going to help pay the court fees.

[wayne.hunt]

joanne has had refunds left right and centre,its hard to keep up with them.

[wayne.hunt]

just received same (error) letter as joanne

 

dear mr hunt

 

i write with reference to my letter dated 15 august 2006 regarding your bank charges (£575 refunded)

unfortunately, the aforementioned letter was issued with an ERROR. i have actually refunded £685, directly to your account. i have also cancelled charges of £145 that would have been applied to your account on 16 august 2006.

 

please accept my apologies for this error.

 

yours sincerely

 

has anyone else had this letter, if so what are they upto, and how would this make them look in court.

[wayne.hunt]

yes, both signed by kevin smith (senior customer resolution manager)

 

funny how he has made mistakes for both accounts

[wayne.hunt]

Their deadline is this Thursday (31st).

[wayne.hunt]

Claim handed in to local court today...

[wayne.hunt]

Notice sent to Abbey on 15/9..

[wayne.hunt]

abbey have around a week left to send defence after this i will receive the aq

but if they have just changed solicitors will they still have to comply with the

courts deadlines?

[wayne.hunt]

It seems rugby county court is'nt mucking about,

just received AQ this morning,

From the papers being served on Abbey to receiving the AQ has taken less than four weeks,

Is it me or does this seem pretty quick,

But still no 50% letter.

[wayne.hunt]

received the defence on thursday, direct from DLA piper

Also a copy with AQ from court this morning.

[wayne.hunt]

I was wandering why Joanne and I didnt receive A 50% letter with the defence ,as it seems everyone else has?

[wayne.hunt]

Is there a copy of their defence on system so I can compare, think it is just standard b.s though.

[wayne.hunt]

This is a copy of the defence

 

1. Save as is specifically admitted in this defence, the defendant denies each allegation set out in the particulars of claim.

 

2. It is admitted that the claimant has a current bank account with the defendant ("ACCOUNT").

 

3. At all times the account has been subject to the applicable terms and conditions ("CONDITIONS"), Which form part of the contract between the claimant and the defendant and to which the claimant agreed when he opened the account. The defendant will refer at trial to the full conditions but for the purposes of this defence will refer to the following extracts:

 

(1) "You can apply for an overdraft on your account. If we give you an

overdraft we will tell you your limit and the interest rate applicable."

 

(2) "An unauthorised overdraft occurs if without our agreement you

overdraw your account or exceed the limit of an overdraft which we

have agreed."

 

(3) "If you have an unauthorised overdraft, you will be charged fees as set

out in our tariff of charges or specified to you and these may include

fees for transactions we are unable to process due to lack of available

funds in your account."

 

4. Throughout the period that he has had the account, the claimant received a number of copies of the conditions and of the said tariff of charges as they were amended and updated (though there has been no material amendment to the conditions extracted in paragraphs 3(1), (2) and (3) above).

 

5. Any overdraft facility on the account was (and is) subject to the conditions.

 

6. The claimant has overdrawn or exceeded authorised overdraft limits on the account on a number of seperate occasions, Full details of which will be provided on disclosure. Therefore by virtue of the conditions referred to in paragraph 3 above such overdrawing was unauthorised and in breach of contract and the claimant became liable to pay fees to the defendant in accordance with its tariff of charges applicable at the relivant time. In accordance with the conditions, such fees were debited to the account.

 

7. In the view of the facts and matters referred to in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 above, the defendant denies that the amount of £4274.54, or any amount, was unlawfully debited to the account and the claimants claim for the repayment of that amount is therefore denied.

 

8. The claimants contention that the said fees are unenforceable and/or are "penalty charges" is denied. The fees reflect and are proportionate to the defendants administrative expences incurred due to the claimants breach of contract and are a genuine pre-estimate of the damage suffered by the defendant.

 

9. further or in the alternative, even if the said fees are not proportionate to the defendants administrative expences incurred (which is denied), The claimant remains liable to pay such fees as may be found to be proportionate and the claimant is not entitled to claim repayment of the full amount of each charge made to the account.

 

10. No admissions are made as to the amounts claimed by the claimant.

 

11. The claimant is put to strict proof of all amounts claimed.

 

 

 

this was from charlotte thubron of DLA piper

does this sound like a standard defence:???:

[lesser1010]

when abbey state in their defence documents that the fees are a genuine pre-estimate of damage suffered by them,surely they are guilty of blatant lies to the court?

[wayne.hunt]

Agreed, But if the fees really were a geniune pre-estimate of damage suffered by them, why have they denied that they are penalty charges in the same paragraph, I dont understand what they are trying to say these fees actually are.

[lesser1010]

because if the fees were really a genuine pre-estimate of their costs then they would not be a penalty would they?however we all know that it doesn't cost £35 to reject a dd so how can they be a genuine pre-estimate and more to the point if they were and abbey produced all the detailed accounting they would win every case.they know they're screwing us and we know it.that's why they will never disclose the figures wayne