Abbey and other questions ** WON **

[Robhughes]

the total difference in claim is 65p!!!

[Robhughes]

Hi, Sorry to start a new thread but can someone please advise me on my last two posts on my thread "Abbey and Other Questions". I've made a tiny error that I've only just noticed at a v late stage that may have dire consequences

 

Thanks

[ANNALH]

Rob,

 

I wouldn't worry about this. If you wanted to get the amount amended you would have to submit an amendment form to the court which will cost you £35.

I would include the correct date and amount on your disclosure list (they probably won't even notice anyway), and include a note explaining to the court why it is different (just put a note on the the bottom of the list of charges so it is clear). The judge will pick this up when he reads through before the hearing and will confirm with you at the hearing the amount you are claiming. Thats what I did anyway.

 

Hope I've helped.

 

Anna

 

If I have been helpful please click on my scales.

[liverbird9]

hi all,

 

i sent a schedule of charges to the Abbey without interest i have now applied to the small claims court and am awaiting a date. do i now have to send a further statement of charges with the added 8% interest to the Abbey? and if so what letter do i enclose with it?

[Robhughes]

Anna, at the very least you've stopped my heart from going about a million beats per minute! - Thank you Did the same thing happen to you? I feel so stupid.

 

Can anyone else confirm that I can do this?

[ANNALH]

Rob,

 

my amendment was because i originally had to sumit an estimated claim because the bank didnt send me any statements etc. In your case the judge will understand it was an inputting error and won't go mad over 65p!

In my case the amount changed by £2k and he didnt mind or make me revise my claim...so dont worry, you are doing fine!

[Robhughes]

Thanks Annalh, should I just include a sentence in my statement of evidence to that fact or include it as a separate document? Abbey and I have to submit standard disclosure by list and a statement of evidence/witness statement. The amounts are right, just the month out. I'm claiming contractual interest so it's 65p at that, about 30p at 8%. I was worried in case they defended with a "he's claiming for charges that were not applied on that date, therefore the whole claim is suspect" style. However, I've checked their defence and it doesn't mention this anywhere

[ANNALH]

I bet they havent even noticed.

Yes just a sentence in the s of e will do, no need to make a big deal about it by including a seperate document. The judge will not check your calculations anyway.

[Robhughes]

OK So next question is this. For my witness statement, I'm unsure as to whether I should be using karnevil's template in the Sticky or the statement of evidence from the New strategy for AQ thread. They seem pretty different. Advice welcome

Thanks

[Robhughes]

Anyone?

[Mad Nick]

Rob, I haven't spotted a Statement of Evidence on that AQ thread. I'm going with Karne's (still in draft). FWIW there's a thread asking what is the difference, and GaryH's answer seems to be "not much".

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/63285-statement-evidence-witness-statements.html

Regards Mad Nick

[Robhughes]

Hi mad Nick

 

here's the statement form the new AQ strategy thread:

 

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE

 

 

- The claimant submits that the charges levied to his bank account, as set out in the enclosed schedule, are, notwithstanding the defence of the defendant, default penalty charges imposed because of and relating directly to breaches of contract, both explicit and implied, on the part of the claimant. As a contractual penalty, the charges are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Unfair Contracts (Terms) Act 1977, and the common law.

 

- 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 and extravagantly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

 

- The breaches of contract in this case relate to exceeding overdraft limits, and having insufficient funds available to pay a direct debit or a standing order. Add an example of a charge incurred due to going over by a small amount, for example -On one occasion in June 2006, a direct debit payment was returned due to insufficient funds in my account. The shortfall was only one pound and nineteen pence.I was then penalised for this breach by way of a charge of £**. The claimant holds this charge and indeed every other charge in question, to be punitive in nature, and wholly disproportionate.

 

- The law states that a contractual party cannot profit from a breach and the charge for a loss suffered from a breach of contract should be the amount necessary to put both parties in the same position before the breach occurred. This means that Liquidated damages should be charged. This is backed up by case law – Robinson Vs Harman 1848.

 

- It is settled law that the charge for loss or damage arising from a breach of contract must be proportionate to the loss incurred.

 

- Lord Dunedin stated in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co 1915 -

“the sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could have been suffered from the breach” and;

“The essence of a penalty is a payment of money stipulated as in terrorem of the offending part; the essence of liquidated damages is a genuine covenanted pre-estimate of damage”

 

- Further, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, 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;

 

- It is not disputed that the Defendant is entitled to recover its damages following the claimant’s breach of contract, and it is entitled to include a liquidated damages clause. A penalty however, is unenforceable.

 

- In order to ascertain whether the Defendant’s charges are an unenforceable penalty or are liquidated damages, the true costs incurred by the Defendant need to be thoroughly examined to establish whether or not the banks charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of its likely loss incurred by my contractual breaches.

 

- On numerous occasions, the Claimant has requested that the Defendant justify its charges by providing details of the costs incurred as a result of my contractual breaches. Each time those requests were rebutted or ignored.

 

- In a recent study undertaken in Australia, (Nicole Rich, “Unfair fees: a report into penalty fees charged by Australian Banks”) it was estimated that the cost to an Australian Bank of a customers direct debit refusal was estimated to be in the region of 54 cents. By reviewing the banks’ charges against the above figure, the study estimated that banks could be charging between 64 to 92 times what it costs them to process a direct debit refusal. The study’s key findings stated that in its opinion the Australian Bank’s cheque and direct debit return charges were likely to be penalties at law.

 

- Further, in an American study (Consumer Federation of America “Bounced Cheques: Billion Dollar profits II”) it was estimated that the American banks’ cost to process a returned direct debit payment was between US$0.48 and US$0.65.

 

- 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.

 

- For their 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.

 

- It is submitted that the Defendants charges are applied by an automated and computer driven process. It is therefore impossible to envisage how the Defendant can incur costs of £** by carrying out a completely automated and computer driven process. This process consists of a computer system ‘bouncing’ the direct debit, and sending out a computer generated letter. Note that the letter received notifying of a charge is identical in every instance, and if multiple breaches occurred on the same day, a separate letter will be sent in each instance.

 

- In a telephone conversation with the personal banking department of Lloyds TSB on May 24th 2006, a member of staff actually told me directly that the charges were imposed automatically. A transcript of this conversation is provided. I made a Data Protection Act 1998 right of subject access request to the Defendant for a recording of this conversation. Unfortunately it “could not be located”.

 

- Additionally, I asked the Defendant to provide me 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.

 

- The claimant also cites a radio interview in 2004 with Lloyds TSB’s former head of personal banking, Peter McNamara, in which he states the charges are used to fund free banking for all personal customers as a whole.

 

- The claimant cites 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 UTCCR’s.

 

- 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 discribed such default charges as "exorbitant" and "excessive".

 

- 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 of the contract.

 

- The cost of Lloyds charges have increased twice during the period in which my account was held, neither time was I given the opportunity to negotiate, or even notified of this increase. This means the bank has unilaterally altered the terms of my account contract to my detriment, and to their advantage.

- As set out above, the Defendant’s charges cannot be considered to be liquidated damages. They are not a pre-estimate of, or in any way related to, the Defendant’s loss incurred as a result of the breach of contract. The charges are punitive, and unduly, substantially and extravagantly enrich the Defendant. As such, they are disproportionate contractual penalties and unenforceable at law.

 

I, the Claimant, believe all facts stated to be true.

 

Signed, dated.

 

Documents attached in support of this statement

• Office of Fair Trading report, April 2006
  
• House of commons early day motion, May 2006
  
• Automated charge notification letter/s. Include a couple of examples. Preferably use ones where charges have been incurred over ridiculously small shortfalls and if possible, include 2 letters notifying of charges incurred on the same day
  
• BBC commission conclusion - BBC NEWS | Business | The Money Programme bank commission
  
• Australian Default charges report, Nicole Rich - http://www.clcv.net.au/downloads/Med...20Report .pdf
  
• Transcript of telephone communication with Lloyds TSB 'personal banking' department.
  
• Data Protection Act Subject Access Request for evidence of manual intervention
  
• Transcript of radio interview with Peter McNamara, former head of personal banking, Lloyds TSB.
  
• All pre-litigation correspondance between the parties

As you can see it's very different to Karnevil's....

[anney63]

Hi Mad Nick

There is a statement of evidence by GaryH in 55# on the AQ thread I have this all ready for when I get my directions just revamped it to suit my case. Nutty Tart used this as well and she has just won her case.

Anney:)

[anney63]

Beat me to it Robb

[Robhughes]

I guess my gut reaction is to use this one as it's more detailed. the only thing i was curious about was its suitability given the judge did not follw the draft directions I submitted with my AQ. Not entirely sure of the relevance of that, but obvisously keen to use the most effective statement

[Robhughes]

I've been looking at some WON threads - partic Teebum and Nuttytart. It seems entirely reasonable, given the amount of prep time we all put into geting our claims right, that we should be able to claim prep costs as well. How is th figure of £9.25 p.h. calculated? can we take Teebum's 49 hours as a precedent?

[Robhughes]

this is the witness statement I'm hoping to submit. Please can a moderator have a look through it, paying particular attention to points 19, 21 and 22 as I've altered or added these from the templates provided.

 

1.The claimant submits that the charges levied to his bank account, as set out in the enclosed schedule, are, notwithstanding the defence of the defendant, default penalty charges imposed because of and relating directly to breaches of contract, both explicit and implied, on the part of the claimant. As a contractual penalty, the charges are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Unfair Contracts (Terms) Act 1977, and the common law.

 

2. 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 and extravagantly enrich the Defendant, which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

 

3.The breaches of contract in this case relate to exceeding overdraft limits, and having insufficient funds available to pay a direct debit or a standing order. Charges taken had a knock on effect of taking me over my overdraft limit every month thus incurring more charges. In 1 month alone (October 2004) charges of £728 were taken .It is also the case that a total of £1319.50 of the said charges were taken on Sundays a non working day. The claimant holds these charges and indeed every other charge in question, to be punitive in nature, and wholly disproportionate.

 

4. The law states that a contractual party cannot profit from a breach and the charge for a loss suffered from a breach of contract should be the amount necessary to put both parties in the same position before the breach occurred. This means that Liquidated damages should be charged. This is backed up by case law – Robinson Vs Harman 1848.

 

5. It is settled law that the charge for loss or damage arising from a breach of contract must be proportionate to the loss incurred.

 

- Lord Dunedin stated in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co 1915 -

“the sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could have been suffered from the breach” and;

“The essence of a penalty is a payment of money stipulated as in terrorem of the offending part; the essence of liquidated damages is a genuine covenanted pre-estimate of damage”

 

6. Further, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, 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;

 

7. It is not disputed that the Defendant is entitled to recover its damages following the claimant’s breach of contract, and it is entitled to include a liquidated damages clause. A penalty however, is unenforceable.

 

8. In order to ascertain whether the Defendant’s charges are an unenforceable penalty or are liquidated damages, the true costs incurred by the Defendant need to be thoroughly examined to establish whether or not the banks charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of its likely loss incurred by my contractual breaches.

 

9. The Claimant has requested that the Defendant justify its charges by providing details of the costs incurred as a result of my contractual breaches. Each time those requests were rebutted or ignored.

 

10. In a recent study undertaken in Australia, (Nicole Rich, “Unfair fees: a report into penalty fees charged by Australian Banks”) it was estimated that the cost to an Australian Bank of a customers direct debit refusal was estimated to be in the region of 54 cents. By reviewing the banks’ charges against the above figure, the study estimated that banks could be charging between 64 to 92 times what it costs them to process a direct debit refusal. The study’s key findings stated that in its opinion the Australian Bank’s cheque and direct debit return charges were likely to be penalties at law.

 

11. Further, in an American study (Consumer Federation of America “Bounced Cheques: Billion Dollar profits II”) it was estimated that the American banks’ cost to process a returned direct debit payment was between US$0.48 and US$0.65.

 

12. 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.

 

13. For their 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.

 

14. It is submitted that the Defendants charges are applied by an automated and computer driven process. It is therefore impossible to envisage how the Defendant can incur costs of £32 by carrying out a completely automated and computer driven process. This process consists of a computer system ‘bouncing’ the direct debit, and sending out a computer generated letter.

 

 

15.The claimant cites 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 UTCCR’s.

 

 

 

16. 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".

 

17. 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.

 

18. 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 of the contract.

 

19. The cost of each of Abbey’s charges has increased during the period in which my account was held, and at no time was I given the opportunity to negotiate, or even notified of this increase. This means the bank has unilaterally altered the terms of my account contract to my detriment, and to their advantage. Indeed, the November 2002 version of their Ts&Cs as published on their website (Abbey National: Personal Banking : Personal Banking conditions) the defendant states that:

 

4.4 We may change our interest rates or our charges at any time, for one or more of the following reasons:

(a) to maintain the competitiveness of our business as a whole, taking into account actual or expected changes in market conditions;

(b) to reflect actual or expected changes in money market interest rates;

© to ensure that our business is run prudently;

(d) to reflect a change in general banking practice;

(e) to reflect any regulatory requirements or guidance, or any change in the law or a decision or recommendation by the Court or an Ombudsman;

(f) to enable us to harmonise our banking or charging arrangements;

(g) to reflect changes in technology or in the direct costs we are required to pay to others, or to take account of inflation;

(h) for any reason which is valid. If we do so we will give you notice and you are free to close

your Account immediately without loss of credit interest but you must repay any overdraft, interest or charges outstanding on your Account. We will give you at least 7 days' notice of any change in our interest rates and at least 30 days' notice of any change in our charges. We may introduce charges for different types of transaction by giving you at least 30 days' notice.

20. As set out above, the Defendant’s charges cannot be considered to be liquidated damages. They are not a pre-estimate of, or in any way related to, the Defendant’s loss incurred as a result of the breach of contract. The charges are punitive, and unduly, substantially and extravagantly enrich the Defendant. As such, they are disproportionate contractual penalties and unenforceable at law.

21. The schedule of charges included here has been amended from the original to correct an input error on the dates of the final two charges. They now correctly read 05/03/06. The amount of the charges remains unchanged. The interest claimed on those two charges is correspondingly reduced.

22. Contractual Interest:

a) The Claimant claims compound interest on the amounts claimed under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, using the rate and method specified in the said contract, and as is applied by the Defendant to monies it is owed.

 

b) The Claimant’s grounds for seeking restitution of the compounded contractual rate of interest is 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 commercial compounded rates.

c) Under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Claimant has calculated compound interest at the Defendant’s authorised borrowing rate, being 16.9%.

 

d) In the alternative to 9.c) and if the Court decides that the Claimant is not entitled to the contractual rate of interest under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, then the Claimant has calculated interest under section 69 County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% a year

 

e) Details of interest calculated & rates used are included on the schedule of charges included here

23. I am also claiming costs

I, the Claimant, believe all facts stated to be true.

 

 

With the contractual interest opint in particular, I'm unsure whether i should use the point above or this one:

 

The Defendant charges interest to the Claimant, via the Account, at its published “unauthorised overdraft rate” of 28.7%. The Defendant claims that it is entitled to charge this rate, by virtue of the Terms & Conditions.

 

The unauthorised overdraft rate is charged to the Claimant, via the Account, when the Claimant draws money from the Account whilst he has not obtained permission from the Defendant for exceeding any overdraft limit that he has. It is in effect, a rate that the Defendant charges the Claimant when he draws funds from the Defendant when he has no right for doing so.

 

Using, that reasoning and maintaining the principal of equity, mutuality and reciprocity between the parties, the Claimant contends that he would be entitled to an equal rate of interest in this case. The Claimant notes in particular that the Defendant erred in law, had no legal right to levy the charges to the Account and refused to refund the Charges when asked to do so by the Claimant. However, as a gesture of goodwill, the claimant is only claiming interest at the Defendant’s authorised overdraft rate of 16.9%

 

If the Terms and Conditions form part of contract between the parties hereto then there is an implied and/or imposed term of contract that the Defendant must pay the Claimant at the same rate of interest which it reserves for itself, in similar circumstances. If no express contract exists between the parties hereto then the Claimant contends that an implied and/or imposed contract exists between the parties hereto relating solely to the Claimant’s right to charge interest to the Defendant at the rate which it reserves for itself in relation to similar circumstances.

 

I'm also guessing that when I state I'm also claiming costs i don't need to say "including preparation costs of 49 hours at £9.25 p.h.", or do I?

 

Sorry for the marathon posting, and thanks in advance

[Robhughes]

obviously i've taken out the italics from point 3:o

[Robhughes]

And here's my standard disclosure list to go with it:

 

File Ref . Date Description No. of pages

08/02/2007 Statement of Evidence 5

Correspondence

A 25/08/2006 Letter: SAR to Abbey from Robert Hughes encl £10 fee 1 B 31/08/2006 Letter: Abbey Response to A from Pam Speed 2 C 08/09/2006 Letter: Abbey covering letter with transaction details from Pam Speed to Robert Hughes 1 D 21/09/2006 Letter: Request for repayment of charges to Abbey from Robert Hughes to Pam Speed 2 E 28/09/2006 Letter: Abbey response to D from Marc Winder to Robert Hughes 1 F 04/10/2006 Letter: Abbey response to D from Nicola Jameson to Robert Hughes 2 G 06/10/2006 Letter: Letter Before Action to Abbey from Robert Hughes to Marc Winder 2 H 11/10/2006 Letter: Claimant's response to (F) from Robert Hughes to Nicola Jameson 1 I 17/10/2006 Letter: Abbey Response to (H) from Nicola Jameson to Robert Hughes 1 J 13/11/2006 Court Document:Copy of County Court Claim form issued by Claimant 2 K 15/11/2006 Court Document: Notification of claim issued (incl copy of claim form and charges schedules) 5 L 15/12/2006 Letter: Letter and copy of Abbey's filed Defence 5 M 15/12/2006 Court Document: Notice that a defence has been filed 1 N 02/01/2007 Draft order for directions included with claimant's AQ 2 O 19//01/2007 Court Document: Notice of Hearing and Court order 3

Schedule of Charges/Bank Statements

P

Schedule of Charges 2 Q 08/09/2006 Copies of transactions stored on Microfiche provided by the Defendant 18 R 11/09/2005 Copy of Bank Statement (from 11/08/05 - 12/03/06) showing charges 4

Legal Documents

S

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) 11 T

Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977) 9 U

The Supply of Goods and Services Act (1982) 13 V

Employment Watch newsletter Sept 2005 3

Case Studies

W

Case Law Reference: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v new Garage & Motor Co Ltd (1915) AC 79-2 2 X

Relevant Case law to Penalty Charges supplied by the Consumer Action Group inc: 3

Lord Elphinstone v Monkland iron and Coal Co (1886)

Wilson v Love (1896)

Castaneda and Others v Clydebank Engineering & Shipbuilding Co Ltd (1904)

Commissioner of Public Works v Hills (1906)

Campbell Discount Co Ltd v Bridge (1962)

Philips v The Attorney General of Hong Kong (1993)

Murray v Leisureplay (2004)

First Commercial Bank & others v The Owners of "Mandarin Container" et al (2004)

Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Ltd v Tilebox Limited (2005

Y

Further Case Examples inc: 4

Mark Isles v Alliance & Leicester (2004)

Laura Sanders v Yorkshire bank (2005)

Press Release on above case by Andrew George MP

Further information on cases referred to in X

Z

Discussion and Case Examples by Always Associates Ltd 3 AA

House of Lords paper regarding Castaneda & others v Clydebank Engineering & Shipbuilding Co (1904) 6

Press Releases / Official Publications

AB 23.10.04 Article by The Guardian on Bank Charges by Richard Colbey - Barrister 2 AC 30.03.06 Letter from Which? to the Financial Services Authority regarding unfair default charges 2 AD 30.03.06 Letter from Which? to the Banking Code Standards Board regarding unfair default charges 2 AE 08.04.06 Article by The Guardian on the Office of Fair Trading Ruling on Unfair Bank Charges 1 AF 09.09.06 Article by the Guardian on the Office of Fair Trading Plans to Slash Bank penalties 2 AG

Article by Paul Lewis – BBC Radio 4’s Money Box 2 AH 18.02.06 Radio Transcript by Paul Lewis – BBC Radio 4’s Money Box 4 AI 05.04.06 Office of Fair Trading Report April 2006 3

Additional Evidence & Research

AJ

Liquidated damages and Unenforceable penalties - from bankchargeshell.co.uk 1 AK

Information from parliament 2 AL 22.05.06 House of Commons Early Day Motion on Default Banking Charges 1 AM 21.01.06 Paper on ‘Are Bank Charges a Penalty at Law and Unenforceable?’ 6 AN

Explanation of Bank Charges by Wikipedia – the free encyclopaedia 2

Statement of Truth

I believe the facts stated within this xxxxxxxxxx to be true and comprises of xx pages.

Dated this day of 2007

Signed

[Robhughes]

Well that didn't format well but you get the idea i hope

[Robhughes]

My deadline for filing of docs/statement of evidence at court and serving disclosure by list/ SoE to Abbey is Wednesday so if anyone's got anything to add, i'd appreciate it.

 

Many thanks

[anney63]

Hi ROB

I note you have left some details in which show items which relate only to my case in item 3 namely charges on sunday etc. I can't help with anything else but thought you would need to take them out.

[Robhughes]

Hi Annie, I noticed that as soon as i posted the version. THey're now out. It was late, what can I say?

[Robhughes]

*BUMP* - sorry, don't want to have to number all teh pages if I've missed something

 

Thanks

[Robhughes]

That's very helpful Karnevil, thank you. Do you have an opnion on which of the two contratcula interest versions I should use?