@barclaycard FCC's BC charges ***WON*** with compound int't

[FCC]

Working through POC's - what happened to item 12?

[ims21]

[FCC]

like it

[slick132]

If there are 2 BC a/c's, you can claim charges back for both in one claim. This will save on court fees and, if you have to print out court bundles, you'll save a few trees and a lake of ink !!

 

The only change from the normal procedure is that the POC will list the charges and interest for each a/c separately. And I assume you have already done to separate SOC's.

 

Before you decide, can you confirm very roughly how much your SOC shows as a total for charges and interest, for each a/c.

 

[ims21]

Hi Slick

 

You've got me curious now....I was sure I read here somewhere on the site that judges frown upon claims on different accounts being put through in one action (or is that out of date now?)

 

I appreciate of course that BC don't seem to let it get that far though.

 

Also the quantum of the combined claim may be an issue for small claims which I guess is why you posed the question above.

 

Regards

 

ims

[FCC]

DUR! can someone run me through scanning and posting via photobucket. regards

[dx100uk]

use this method:

 

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets

as a picture file

remove all pers info inc barcodes etc using paint

but leave all figures and dates.

goto one of the many free online pdf converter websites

convert the image to pdf format.

or if you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

or use word and save as pdf

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

NB:you can set where it goes in the post by hitting insert inline.

the hit reply button

dx

[FCC]

IN THE [xxxxx]

county court

 

 

 

BETWEEN:

 

Claimant

 

and

 

Barclays Bank PLC t/a Barclaycard

Defendant

 

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

 

1. The Claimant entered into an agreement (“The Agreement”) with the Defendant on or around June 1997 whereby the Defendant was to advance credit facilities to the Claimant under a running credit account:

Account no xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ("The Account").

 

2. The Agreement essentially consisted of the Defendant providing the Claimant with a credit card (“The Card”) which would allow the Claimant to make purchases and receive cash advances on credit. In return the Defendant was entitled to charge interest at the published rate.

 

3. The Agreement was a Regulated Agreement for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

4. At all material times the contract was subject to the Defendant’s standard terms and conditions which could be varied from time to time.

 

Summary

5. Throughout the course of the Agreement, the Defendant has added default charges to the Account for the Claimant’s failure to make the minimum payment on the due date. (Full particulars are set out in schedule 2).

 

6. The default charges were applied in accordance with the standard terms of The Agreement which were:

a) A penalty payable on breach of contract and thus unenforceable: and

 

b An unfair term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“The Regulations”) and therefore not binding on the Claimant.

. The Claimant is accordingly entitled to repayment of the sums wrongly added to the Account.

 

The Charges

 

8. The standard Terms of the Agreement in substance provided as follows:

(a) The Defendant would provide the Claimant with the Card. The Claimant was entitled to use the Card to make purchases and receive cash advances up to a credit limit (“the Limit”) set by the Defendant. The Defendant could unilaterally change the Limit by giving the Claimant notice in writing.

(b) The Defendant was entitled to charge interest on the purchases and cash advances at the published rate.

© The Claimant was to pay the minimum payment of 2.25% of the amount owed or £5 (whichever was the greatest) by the due date as notified in the monthly statements.

(d) In addition the Defendant was entitled to charge default fees (“the Charges”) where the Claimant did not pay on the due date . The Charges are currently £12 for this transgression. Prior to 2006 the Charge was, seemingly, applied ad hoc.

 

(e) The default charges were described as “ Out of Order “ and were applied at a rate of £30.00 on 22nd August 2000 and £40.00 on 26th September 2000.

Penalty

9.The amount of the Charges exceeded any genuine pre-estimate of the damage which would have been suffered by the Bank in relation to the Claimant’s transgressions.

 

10. In the premises the Charges were punitive and a penalty and thus unenforceable at common law.

 

The Regulations

11.At all material times the Claimant was a consumer within the Regulations.

 

13. At all material times the terms of the Agreement providing for the Charges were unfair within regulation 5 of the Regulations in that contrary to the requirement of good faith they caused a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the Claimant.

 

14. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will refer to the following matters in support of the contention that the terms are to be assessed as unfair as at the time of the conclusion of the Agreement, and of each revision to the Standard Terms:

(a) The terms relating to Charges were standard terms; they would not be individually negotiated.

(b) The Charges were a penalty for breach of contract

.

©The Charges exceeded the costs which the Bank could have expected to incur in dealing with the missed payments

 

(d) Accordingly the Charges were a disproportionate charge incurred by the Claimant for their failure to meet their contractual obligation and thus within the ambit of Schedule 2 (1) (e) of the Regulations and indicative of an unfair term

(e) As the Bank knew, the Charges were of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of the Agreement as a whole and would not influence the making of the Agreement.

(f) As the Defendant knew, the Claimant had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges.

(g) In the premises, the effect of the Charges would be prejudicial to the customer who incurred them, and cause an imbalance in the relations of the parties to the Agreement by subordinating the customer’s interests to those of the Defendant in a way which was inequitable.

15. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will contend that the terms’ imposing the Charges are not core terms under regulation 6 of the Regulations and relies on the following matters:

(a) The assessment of fairness does not relate to terms which define the main or core subject matter of the Agreement.

 

(b) The assessment of fairness does not relate to the adequacy of the price or remuneration as against the goods or services supplied in exchange (in other words, whether or not the relevant services were value for money).

 

© The Charges are correctly described as default charges by the Defendant in the key information provided to new customers.

16. By reason of the said matters the terms were not binding under regulation 8 of the Regulations.

 

17. The Defendant wrongly applied Charges to the Account totalling some £70.00 between 22nd August 2000 and 26th September 2000. Particulars appear within Schedule 2.

 

18. On 6th August 2011 the Claimant demanded repayment of the sums wrongly applied.

 

19. The Defendant has not repaid them or any of them.

 

And the Claimant claims;

 

(a) A declaration that the sums totalling £70.00 have wrongly been applied to the Account.

(b) The Claimant rebutts the Defendants assertion that the.claim is excluded by default of a time limit and declares that the claim is made under s32 (1) The Limitations Act 1980 as per Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council.

© Payment of the said sums of £30.00 and interest in restitution of £525.74 plus £40.00 and interest in restitution of £682.84, as calculated at 17th October 2011, and as per Sempra Metals v Inland Revenue Commissioners.

(d) Interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 29.9% per annum on the amount claimed (daily rate of £1.14) until judgment or sooner payment.

 

(e) Court costs of £

 

 

I believe that the facts stated in these particulars, comprising of 4 pages, are true.

 

Dated

 

 

 

Signed

 

 

 

 

Schedule 1

From Barclaycard Conditions in force (as of September 2007).

 

3. Credit limit

From time to time we will work out your credit limit and tell you what it is.

 

5. Repayments

each month you must make a minimum payment. This will be;

(a)3% of the statement balance for Initial Visa, First Classic and Classic and 2% of the statement balance for Gold Barclaycard and Barclaycard Platinum or £5 whichever is more; or if the statement balance is less, the statement balance; or

(b)If a special promotion allows you to put off making repayments for a period, the amount worked out under (a) but with the relevant promotional balance taken away from the statement balance.

The minimum payment must be received by us and paid into your account on or before the payment date.

 

Schedule 2

Out of Order Charge: £30.00 added to account 22nd August 2000

Out of Order Charge £40,00 added to account 26th September 2000

 

Does this look right. I have changed some of the wording in places to suit but need confirmation that it doesn't spoil the claim. regards

 

 

[slick132]

Hi Ims,

 

As the total claim for the 2 a/c's is less than £5K, I see no reason why they cannot be dealt with by one claim.

 

Hi FCC,

 

Are you using 29.9% as your nominal rate on the spreadsheet ?

 

I have just pointed out to another user that BC have been paying out claims that use a nominal rate of 24.9%. I'm not saying necessarily that 29.9% is wrong or too high. It's your prerogative.

 

Obviously the numbering of the paragraphs needs sorting.

 

Also, after the REGULATIONS heading, there should be a suitable heading for the final section after section 19.

 

In section 14 (e) As the Bank knew, the Charges should read As the Defendant knew, the Charges

 

Check through to see that all references to either you or the bank refer to the Claimant or the Defendant respectively.

 

[FCC]

Thanks again for your invaluable comments. I did use 19.9% in my original claim to BC and someone suggested thst I ( could/should ) increase it to 29.9%. I would be quite happy to go along with the latter as it should, if successful pay off both accounts. OK on with the housekeeping be back later. cheers

[FCC]

Questions: (1) I am unsure of the age of the cards because I do not have the original agreement. Is this a problem?

(8d) I am unsure what their default rates were for the above reason. Is my comment ok?

[FCC]

Claimant

 

and

 

Barclays Bank PLC t/a Barclaycard

Defendant

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

 

1. The Claimant entered into an agreement (“The Agreement”) with the Defendant on or around June 1997 whereby the Defendant was to advance credit facilities to the Claimant under a running credit account:

Account no xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ("The Account").

 

2. The Agreement essentially consisted of the Defendant providing the Claimant with a credit card (“The Card”) which would allow the Claimant to make purchases and receive cash advances on credit. In return the Defendant was entitled to charge interest at the published rate.

 

3. The Agreement was a Regulated Agreement for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

4. At all material times the contract was subject to the Defendant’s standard terms and conditions which could be varied from time to time.

 

Summary

5. Throughout the course of the Agreement, the Defendant has added default charges to the Account for the Claimant’s failure to make the minimum payment on the due date. (Full particulars are set out in schedule 2).

 

6. The default charges were applied in accordance with the standard terms of The Agreement which were:

 

 

a) A penalty payable on breach of contract and thus unenforceable: and

 

 

b) An unfair term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“The Regulations”) and therefore not binding on the Claimant.

7. The Claimant is accordingly entitled to repayment of the sums wrongly added to the Account.

 

The Charges

 

8. The standard Terms of the Agreement in substance provided as follows:

 

 

(a) The Defendant would provide the Claimant with the Card. The Claimant was entitled to use the Card to make purchases and receive cash advances up to a credit limit (“the Limit”) set by the Defendant. The Defendant could unilaterally change the Limit by giving the Claimant notice in writing.

 

 

(b) The Defendant was entitled to charge interest on the purchases and cash advances at the published rate.

 

 

© The Claimant was to pay the minimum payment of 2.25% of the amount owed or £5 (whichever was the greatest) by the due date as notified in the monthly statements.

(d) In addition the Defendant was entitled to charge default fees (“the Charges”) where the Claimant did not pay on the due date . The Charges are currently £12 for this transgression. Prior to 2006 the Charge was, seemingly, applied ad hoc.

 

(e) The default charges were described as “ Out of Order “ and were applied at a rate of £30.00 on 22nd August 2000 and £40.00 on 26th September 2000.

Penalty

9.The amount of the Charges exceeded any genuine pre-estimate of the damage which would have been suffered by the Defendant in relation to the Claimant’s transgressions.

 

10. In the premises the Charges were punitive and a penalty and thus unenforceable at common law.

 

The Regulations

11.At all material times the Claimant was a consumer within the Regulations.

 

12. At all material times the terms of the Agreement providing for the Charges were unfair within regulation 5 of the Regulations in that contrary to the requirement of good faith they caused a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the Claimant.

 

13. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will refer to the following matters in support of the contention that the terms are to be assessed as unfair as at the time of the conclusion of the Agreement, and of each revision to the Standard Terms:

(a) The terms relating to Charges were standard terms; they would not be individually negotiated.

 

 

(b) The Charges were a penalty for breach of contract

.

 

 

©The Charges exceeded the costs which the Bank could have expected to incur in dealing with the missed payments

 

 

(d) Accordingly the Charges were a disproportionate charge incurred by the Claimant for their failure to meet their contractual obligation and thus within the ambit of Schedule 2 (1) (e) of the Regulations and indicative of an unfair term

.

 

(e) As the Defendant knew, the Charges were of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of the Agreement as a whole and would not influence the making of the Agreement.

 

 

(f) As the Defendant knew, the Claimant had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges.

 

 

(g) In the premises, the effect of the Charges would be prejudicial to the customer who incurred them, and cause an imbalance in the relations of the parties to the Agreement by subordinating the customer’s interests to those of the Defendant in a way which was inequitable.

14. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will contend that the terms’ imposing the Charges are not core terms under regulation 6 of the Regulations and relies on the following matters:

 

 

(a) The assessment of fairness does not relate to terms which define the main or core subject matter of the Agreement.

 

 

(b) The assessment of fairness does not relate to the adequacy of the price or remuneration as against the goods or services supplied in exchange (in other words, whether or not the relevant services were value for money).

 

 

© The Charges are correctly described as default charges by the Defendant in the key information provided to new customers.

15. By reason of the said matters the terms were not binding under regulation 8 of the Regulations.

16. The Defendant wrongly applied Charges to the Account totalling some £70.00 between 22nd August 2000 and 26th September 2000. Particulars appear within Schedule 2.

 

17. On 6th August 2011 the Claimant demanded repayment of the sums wrongly applied.

 

18. The Defendant has not repaid them or any of them.

 

Remedy

 

The Claimant claims;

 

(a) A declaration that the sums totalling £70.00 have wrongly been applied to the Account.

 

(b) The Claimant rebutts the Defendants assertion that the claim is excluded by default of a time limit and declares that the claim is made under s32 (1) The Limitations Act 1980 as per Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council.

© Repayment of the said sums of £30.00, plus interest at a rate of 24.9%, in restitution of £328.63 and £40.00, plus interest, at a rate of 24.9% in restitution of £428.38, as calculated at 17th October 2011, and as per Sempra Metals v Inland Revenue Commissioners.

(d) Interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 29.9% per annum on the amount claimed (daily rate of £1.14) until judgment or sooner payment.

 

(e) Court costs of £

 

 

I believe that the facts stated in these particulars, comprising of 4 pages, are true.

 

Dated

 

 

 

Signed

 

 

Schedule 1

From Barclaycard Conditions in force (as of September 2007).

 

3. Credit limit

From time to time we will work out your credit limit and tell you what it is.

 

5. Repayments

 

 

each month you must make a minimum payment. This will be;

 

 

(a) 3% of the statement balance for Initial Visa, First Classic and Classic and 2% of the statement balance for Gold Barclaycard and Barclaycard Platinum or £5 whichever is more; or if the statement balance is less, the statement balance; or

 

 

(b) If a special promotion allows you to put off making repayments for a period, the amount worked out under (a) but with the relevant promotional balance taken away from the statement balance

.

© The minimum payment must be received by us and paid into your account on or before the payment date.

 

Schedule 2

 

Out of Order Charge: £30.00 added to account 22nd August 2000

Out of Order Charge £40,00 added to account 26th September 2000

 

 

How is this bearing in mind I have to inckude the other account?

 

[slick132]

Hi FCC,

 

Re the rate for restitutionary interest, you refer in your latest POC to the rate of 24.9% at 19© but 29.9% at 19(d). Choose whatever rate you are comfortable with, use it on the spreadsheet(s), and use the same rate to calculate the daily rate of s.69 Stat'y Int't.

 

I think that, for the 2 items you are reclaiming, there would actually have been 2 default charges for each - ie the £30 charge would have been perhaps one overlimit fee of £15 and one late payment fee, making the total of £30.

 

Similarly, there would have been 2 charges on the same day of £20 each making the £40 pound amount.

 

Where have you got the default charge data from ?

 

Referring to the numbered points above:-

 

1. Were there not 2 a/c's - in point 1, you refer to only one a/c no. Throughout the POC, you must refer to the charges on each a/c separately. For your SOC, you should either use 2 spreadsheets, or one which identifies the charges for each a/c. I see you've done this in section 19 already.

 

8(d) In addition the Defendant was entitled to charge default fees (“the Charges”) where the Claimant did not pay on the due date. The Default Charge is currently £12 and prior to 2006 the Charges were £15 and £20 at different times.

 

Remedy

 

19. And the Claimant claims;

 

(a) A declaration that the sums totalling £30.00 and £40.00 have wrongly been applied to the Accounts.

 

(b) That the amounts claimed are allowed by virtue of s.32 (1)© Limitation Act 1980 as per the case of Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council.

 

© Repayment of the said sums of £30.00 plus interest at a rate of 24.9% in restitution of £328.63; and £40.00 plus interest at a rate of 24.9% in restitution of £428.38, as calculated at 17th October 2011, as per the case of Sempra Metals v Inland Revenue Commissioners.

 

(d) Statutory Interest under s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 29.9% per annum on the amount claimed (daily rate of £1.14) from date of issue until judgment or settlement.

 

(e) Court costs of £enter figure based on value of claim

 

[FCC]

The default charges were taken from the statements for that month which I still retain. Both charges entered as £30 and £40 and described as " Out of Order " charge. Well spotted on the interest rate in 19(d) I had missed that. Please help me understand the County Courts interest. When does it run from, is it from the start of proceedings or from 2000?. I did say that I had to include the second account and will do so on the next test document. 8(d) I did query here that as I do not have a copy of the original agreement I cannot swear to the default charges in force then. Do I assume that the charge they made was the published default charge at that time?. What about my uncertainty as to the start of the first account which could have been years before the second which was in 1997?.

[FCC]

IN THE [xxxxx]

County Court

 

BETWEEN:

 

Claimant

 

and

 

Barclays Bank PLC t/a Barclaycard

Defendant

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

 

1. The Claimant entered into agreements (“The Agreements”) with the Defendant on and before June 1997 whereby the Defendant was to advance credit facilities to the Claimant under running credit accounts:

Account No. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (" Account No. 1 ").

 

Account No. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (“ Account No. 2 ”)

 

2. The Agreements essentially consisted of the Defendant providing the Claimant with Credit Cards (“The Cards”) which would allow the Claimant to make purchases and receive cash advances on credit. In return the Defendant was entitled to charge interest at the published rate.

 

3. The Agreements were Regulated Agreements for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

4. At all material times the contracts were subject to the Defendant’s standard terms and conditions which could be varied from time to time.

 

Summary

5. Throughout the course of the Agreements, the Defendant has added default charges to the Accounts for the Claimant’s failure to make the minimum payment on the due date. (Full particulars are set out in schedule 2).

 

6. The default charges were applied in accordance with the standard terms of The Agreements which were:

 

 

a) A penalty payable on breach of contract and thus unenforceable: and

 

 

b) An unfair term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“The Regulations”) and therefore not binding on the Claimant.

7. The Claimant is accordingly entitled to repayment of the sums wrongly added to the Accounts.

 

The Charges

 

8. The standard Terms of the Agreements in substance provided as follows:

 

 

(a) The Defendant would provide the Claimant with the Cards. The Claimant was entitled to use the Cards to make purchases and receive cash advances up to a credit limit (“the Limit”) set by the Defendant. The Defendant could unilaterally change the Limit by giving the Claimant notice in writing.

 

 

(b) The Defendant was entitled to charge interest on the purchases and cash advances at the published rate.

 

 

© The Claimant was to pay the minimum payment of 2.25% of the amount owed or £5 (whichever was the greatest) by the due date as notified in the monthly statements.

(d) In addition the Defendant was entitled to charge default fees (“the Charges”) where the Claimant did not pay on the due date . The Charges are currently £12 for this transgression. Prior to 2006 the Charge were £30.00 and £40.00 at different times..

 

(e) The default charges were described as “ Out of Order “ and were applied at a rate of £30.00 on 22nd August 2000 and £40.00 on 26th September 2000 to both accounts.

Penalty

9.The amount of the Charges exceeded any genuine pre-estimate of the damage which would have been suffered by the Defendant in relation to the Claimant’s transgressions.

 

10. In the premises the Charges were punitive and a penalty and thus unenforceable at common law.

 

The Regulations

11.At all material times the Claimant was a consumer within the Regulations.

 

12. At all material times the terms of the Agreements providing for the Charges were unfair within regulation 5 of the Regulations in that contrary to the requirement of good faith they caused a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the Claimant.

 

13. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will refer to the following matters in support of the contention that the terms are to be assessed as unfair as at the time of the conclusion of the Agreements, and of each revision to the Standard Terms:

(a) The terms relating to Charges were standard terms; they would not be individually negotiated.

 

 

(b) The Charges were a penalty for breach of contract

.

 

 

©The Charges exceeded the costs which the Bank could have expected to incur in dealing with the missed payments

 

 

(d) Accordingly the Charges were a disproportionate charge incurred by the Claimant for their failure to meet their contractual obligation and thus within the ambit of Schedule 2 (1) (e) of the Regulations and indicative of an unfair term

.

 

(e) As the Defendant knew, the Charges were of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of the Agreements as a whole and would not influence the making of the Agreement.

 

 

(f) As the Defendant knew, the Claimant had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges.

 

 

(g) In the premises, the effect of the Charges would be prejudicial to the customer who incurred them, and cause an imbalance in the relations of the parties to the Agreements by subordinating the customer’s interests to those of the Defendant in a way which was inequitable.

14. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will contend that the terms’ imposing the Charges are not core terms under regulation 6 of the Regulations and relies on the following matters:

 

 

(a) The assessment of fairness does not relate to terms which define the main or core subject matter of the Agreements.

 

 

(b) The assessment of fairness does not relate to the adequacy of the price or remuneration as against the goods or services supplied in exchange (in other words, whether or not the relevant services were value for money).

 

 

© The Charges are correctly described as default charges by the Defendant in the key information provided to new customers.

15. By reason of the said matters the terms were not binding under regulation 8 of the Regulations.

16. The Defendant wrongly applied Charges totalling some £70.00 between 22nd August 2000 and 26th September 2000 to each Account. Particulars appear within Schedule 2.

 

17. On 6th August 2011 the Claimant demanded repayment of the sums wrongly applied.

 

18. The Defendant has not repaid them or any part of them.

 

Remedy

 

The Claimant claims;

 

(a) A declaration that the sums totalling £70.00 have wrongly been applied to the each of the Accounts.

 

(b) That the amounts claimed are allowed by virtue s32 ( 1 ) ( c ) The Limitations Act 1980 as per the case of Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council.

© Repayment of the said sums of £30.00, plus interest at a rate of 24.9%, in restitution of £328.63 and £40.00, plus interest, at a rate of 24.9% in restitution of £428.38 for each Account, as calculated at 17th October 2011, as per Sempra Metals v Inland Revenue Commissioners.

(d) Statutory Interest under s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 24.9% per annum on the amount claimed (daily rate of £1.14) until judgment or settlement.

 

(e) Court costs of £

 

 

I believe that the facts stated in these particulars, comprising of 5 pages, are true.

 

Dated

 

 

 

Signed

 

 

Schedule 1

From Barclaycard Conditions in force (as of September 2007).

 

3. Credit limit

From time to time we will work out your credit limit and tell you what it is.

 

5. Repayments

 

 

each month you must make a minimum payment. This will be;

 

 

(a) 3% of the statement balance for Initial Visa, First Classic and Classic and 2% of the statement balance for Gold Barclaycard and Barclaycard Platinum or £5 whichever is more; or if the statement balance is less, the statement balance; or

 

 

(b) If a special promotion allows you to put off making repayments for a period, the amount worked out under (a) but with the relevant promotional balance taken away from the statement balance

.

© The minimum payment must be received by us and paid into your account on or before the payment date.

 

Schedule 2

 

Out of Order Charge: £30.00 added to Account No. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx on the 22nd August 2000

 

Out of Order Charge £40.00 added to Account No. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx on the 26th September 2000

 

Out of Order Charge added to Account No. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx on the 22nd August 2000

 

Out of Order Charge added to Account No. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx on the 26th September 2000

 

 

 

 

[FCC]

I have added and corrected where advised and pluralised(?) where applicable. regards

[slick132]

Hi FCC,

 

Thanks for clarifying about the charge amounts, which I'll note for future reference.

 

*****************

 

Remedy

 

19. And the Claimant claims;

 

(a) A declaration that the sums of £30 and £40 have wrongly been applied to the each of the Accounts respectively.

 

(b) That the amounts claimed are allowed by virtue s32(1)©, Limitation Act 1980 as per the case of Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council.

 

© Repayment of the said sums of £30.00 plus interest at a rate of 24.9% in restitution of £328.63; and £40.00 plus interest at a rate of 24.9% in restitution of £428.38 for each Account respectively as at 17th October 2011, as per the case of Sempra Metals v Inland Revenue Commissioners.

 

(d) Statutory Interest under s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 24.9% per annum on the amount claimed (daily rate of £0.56) until judgment or settlement.

 

(e) Court costs of £65.00.

 

****************

 

Stat'y Int't runs from the date you file the claim up to the date of settlement. In your case, I calculate the daily rate figure to be :-

 

827.01 x .249 = 205.92 pa / 365 = £0.56 pence per day.

 

[FCC]

IN THE [xxxxx]

County Court

 

BETWEEN:

 

Claimant

 

and

 

Barclays Bank PLC t/a Barclaycard

Defendant

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

 

1. The Claimant entered into agreements (“The Agreements”) with the Defendant on and before June 1997 whereby the Defendant was to advance credit facilities to the Claimant under running credit accounts:

Account No. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (" Account No. 1 ").

 

Account No. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (“ Account No. 2 ”)

 

2. The Agreements essentially consisted of the Defendant providing the Claimant with Credit Cards (“The Cards”) which would allow the Claimant to make purchases and receive cash advances on credit. In return the Defendant was entitled to charge interest at the published rate.

 

3. The Agreements were Regulated Agreements for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

4. At all material times the contracts were subject to the Defendant’s standard terms and conditions which could be varied from time to time.

 

Summary

5. Throughout the course of the Agreements, the Defendant has added default charges to the Accounts for the Claimant’s failure to make the minimum payment on the due date. (Full particulars are set out in schedule 2).

 

6. The default charges were applied in accordance with the standard terms of The Agreements which were:

 

 

a) A penalty payable on breach of contract and thus unenforceable: and

 

 

b) An unfair term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“The Regulations”) and therefore not binding on the Claimant.

7. The Claimant is accordingly entitled to repayment of the sums wrongly added to the Accounts.

 

The Charges

 

8. The standard Terms of the Agreements in substance provided as follows:

 

 

(a) The Defendant would provide the Claimant with the Cards. The Claimant was entitled to use the Cards to make purchases and receive cash advances up to a credit limit (“the Limit”) set by the Defendant. The Defendant could unilaterally change the Limit by giving the Claimant notice in writing.

 

 

(b) The Defendant was entitled to charge interest on the purchases and cash advances at the published rate.

 

 

© The Claimant was to pay the minimum payment of 2.25% of the amount owed or £5 (whichever was the greatest) by the due date as notified in the monthly statements.

(d) In addition the Defendant was entitled to charge default fees (“the Charges”) where the Claimant did not pay on the due date . The Charges are currently £12 for this transgression. Prior to 2006 the Charge were £30.00 and £40.00 at different times..

 

(e) The default charges were described as “ Out of Order “ and were applied at a rate of £30.00 on 22nd August 2000 and £40.00 on 26th September 2000 to both accounts.

Penalty

9.The amount of the Charges exceeded any genuine pre-estimate of the damage which would have been suffered by the Defendant in relation to the Claimant’s transgressions.

 

10. In the premises the Charges were punitive and a penalty and thus unenforceable at common law.

 

The Regulations

11.At all material times the Claimant was a consumer within the Regulations.

 

12. At all material times the terms of the Agreements providing for the Charges were unfair within regulation 5 of the Regulations in that contrary to the requirement of good faith they caused a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the Claimant.

 

13. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will refer to the following matters in support of the contention that the terms are to be assessed as unfair as at the time of the conclusion of the Agreements, and of each revision to the Standard Terms:

(a) The terms relating to Charges were standard terms; they would not be individually negotiated.

 

 

(b) The Charges were a penalty for breach of contract

.

 

 

©The Charges exceeded the costs which the Bank could have expected to incur in dealing with the missed payments

 

 

(d) Accordingly the Charges were a disproportionate charge incurred by the Claimant for their failure to meet their contractual obligation and thus within the ambit of Schedule 2 (1) (e) of the Regulations and indicative of an unfair term

.

 

(e) As the Defendant knew, the Charges were of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of the Agreements as a whole and would not influence the making of the Agreement.

 

 

(f) As the Defendant knew, the Claimant had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges.

 

 

(g) In the premises, the effect of the Charges would be prejudicial to the customer who incurred them, and cause an imbalance in the relations of the parties to the Agreements by subordinating the customer’s interests to those of the Defendant in a way which was inequitable.

14. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will contend that the terms’ imposing the Charges are not core terms under regulation 6 of the Regulations and relies on the following matters:

 

 

(a) The assessment of fairness does not relate to terms which define the main or core subject matter of the Agreements.

 

 

(b) The assessment of fairness does not relate to the adequacy of the price or remuneration as against the goods or services supplied in exchange (in other words, whether or not the relevant services were value for money).

 

 

© The Charges are correctly described as default charges by the Defendant in the key information provided to new customers.

15. By reason of the said matters the terms were not binding under regulation 8 of the Regulations.

16. The Defendant wrongly applied Charges totalling some £70.00 between 22nd August 2000 and 26th September 2000 to each Account. Particulars appear within Schedule 2.

 

17. On 6th August 2011 the Claimant demanded repayment of the sums wrongly applied.

 

18. The Defendant has not repaid them or any part of them.

 

Remedy

 

And the Claimant claims;

 

(a) A declaration that the sums totalling £30.00 and £40.00 have wrongly been applied to the each of the Accounts respectively.

 

(b) That the amounts claimed are allowed by virtue of s32 ( 1 ) ( c ) The Limitations Act 1980 as per the case of Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council.

© Repayment of the said sums of £30.00, plus interest, at a rate of 24.9%, in restitution of £328.63; and £40.00, plus interest, at a rate of 24.9%,, in restitution of £428.38 for each Account respectively, as at 17th October 2011, as per the case of Sempra Metals v Inland Revenue Commissioners.

(d) Statutory Interest under s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 24.9% per annum on the amount claimed (daily rate of £0.56) until judgment or settlement.

 

(e) Court costs of £65.00

 

 

I believe that the facts stated in these particulars, comprising of 5 pages, are true.

 

Dated

 

 

 

Signed

 

 

Schedule 1

From Barclaycard Conditions in force (as of September 2007).

 

3. Credit limit

From time to time we will work out your credit limit and tell you what it is.

 

5. Repayments

 

 

each month you must make a minimum payment. This will be;

 

 

(a) 3% of the statement balance for Initial Visa, First Classic and Classic and 2% of the statement balance for Gold Barclaycard and Barclaycard Platinum or £5 whichever is more; or if the statement balance is less, the statement balance; or

 

 

(b) If a special promotion allows you to put off making repayments for a period, the amount worked out under (a) but with the relevant promotional balance taken away from the statement balance

.

© The minimum payment must be received by us and paid into your account on or before the payment date.

 

Schedule 2

 

Out of Order Charge: £30.00 added to Account No. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx on the 22nd August 2000

 

Out of Order Charge £40.00 added to Account No. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx on the 26th September 2000

 

Out of Order Charge added to Account No. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx on the 22nd August 2000

 

Out of Order Charge added to Account No. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx on the 26th September 2000

 

 

 

 

Many thanks for your invaluable and excellent advice. Hope the dog enjoyed his walk. Can you, or others, have a think about my other questions re: uncertainty about the start date of the cards and I read that I will need the terms and conditions that I don't have. Do I need to SAR BC?

[slick132]

Hi FCC,

 

Looks ok except for 19c which I've just PM'd you about. Did you get the main POC from the BC POC link and then adapt it for your own case.

 

However, it's up to you to make a final check to see the POC is right and ready to go into court with the correct date and SOC figures.

 

I assume you'll take this to court on the 17th October going by the date you use on the POC. Just make sure your SOC has been adjusted to reflect the same date.

 

[FCC]

Yes, I took the POC from the BC sector and with your help have now produced what, I feel, is the final document complete with page numbers. The date is a speculative one as I feel that I have to issue an SAR to BC to attempt to gain access to terms and cons and dates of agreements etc. Who knows there may be more charges. Anyway thanks for your help in getting me thus far. Any idea where I can get a flowchart for the court bundle, I have tried the CB for dummies but none of the links appear to work so I am dredging the internet for help.

[FCC]

I have gone back to post 32 to reprint the SS and it don't work. I put in the new days 4073 and it don't compute. Can you take a look at it for me?

[ims21]

You should be using the one from post #72....the one I did for you in OpenOffice.

 

You should already have saved the sheet you did at that time onto your PC and continue to use that one....there is no need to download another one.

 

ims

[FCC]

Thanks ims I lost it there for a while. Put it down to the oldtimers disease. However, I have changed the % rate to 24.9 from 29.9 and have lost the daily rate and totals to be replaced with " value ". Can you help?

[ims21]

The sheet you are using should have an .ods extension and be opened in OpenOffice.

 

You're not trying to use it in MS Works are you?

 

ims

[slick132]

Hi FCC,

 

In post #120, you say you're going to send off a SAR and, "Who knows there may be more charges."

 

1. If you think there may be more, do not file your claim at court yet. Hold off until you get all the data you can, so you can check for other charges.

 

2. BC will only send you SAR data for the last 6 years from now, so you'll get data back to late 2005. If you want info older than this, you will have to take separate court action to force disclosure. Unless you are reasonably certain there are charges between 2000 and 2005, this may not be worth doing.