Court Next week! **ANOTHER BARCLAYS WON**

[omollmeg]

I think you just have to wait and hear from the court. It will depend on your hearing date I suppose.

Good luck.

;-)

[andyroo]

Cheers. Does anybody know how long it usally takes for the court to reply?

 

I have entrusted my questionnaire into the hands of the Royal Mail a week ago! Hmmmm, the less said about them the better!

 

[omollmeg]

Going by Bookworms thread it looks at about 3 weeks but they are Very Busy NOW!!!!

;-)

[andyroo]

Cheers. Bet there loving all these bookings! Will look forward to recieving it in the post....

[MatMurray]

Is everyone sending their documents to the bank via this address:

 

Litigation and Disputes,

Level 29,

One Churchill Place,

London

 

?

 

With the Ref. no. as well?

[MatMurray]

*BUMP!*

 

Can anyone answer my question?

[Spotted Dog]

MatMurray

Shouldn't you be starting your own thread !

 

 

Addresses for Barclays:

General address:-

Barclays Bank PLC

Leicester

LE87 2BB

 

Legal Address and Registered Office:-

FAO Keith Jeremiah

Litigation and Disputes dept

Level 29

One Churchill Place

London

E14 5HP

 

 

Spotty

[MatMurray]

Thanks Spotted Dog, but i though as i'm [fairly] close to the end of mine (hopefully), i wouldn't bother.

 

Thanks for the advice though.

[Mervalous]

Havent been about for a while.... court date is looming.... when do they usually pay up? I mean how tight do they leave it?

[Mervalous]

I am supposed to be seeing Barclays in Court next Tuesday and I still havent had an offer..... getting a bit close isnt it?

 

How close do they usually leave it before paying up?

[Bookworm]

3 threads merged.

 

To the last minute, I would think.

 

Are you ready? Just in case they don't?

[Mervalous]

damn you merged them, I only started a new one as no body answered it when I updated my thread last time

 

Am i ready..... hmmm i think so.. I have all the docs and highlighted bits.... only time will tell I guess.

 

Do I need to dress really smart for this sort of court appearance?

[Bookworm]

Ok, first, if you don't get an answer, go to your thread, and write a new post saying "bump", or "anyone", it will bring your thread back when we check on new posts. Starting a new thread really does not help anyone, least of all you. Trust me on this.

 

Second, smart casual will do.

 

Thirs, do you have an argument prepared? This is from one of our users, whose name escapes me right now (apologies to her if she reads this!), it is so good that I have copied it for tweaking and using for my own hearings:

 

The Facts

 

I have a contract with [bank] that is governed by UK Contract Law. I have held two accounts with [bank] since xxxx and they have charged me £xxxx in penalty charges in that time.

 

The Case under UK Contract Law

 

These charges are NOT for a service as the Defence claim, but are penalties.

Under UK contract law, [bank] is indeed entitled to make a charge for losses incurred from a breach of contract. This is not in dispute. Examples of breach of contract in this case are going over a set agreed overdraft limit, not having sufficient funds to pay a direct debit etc. The are explicit or implied breaches.

 

The law clearly states that a company 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 are charged.

 

This is backed up by case law – Robinson Vs Harman 1848.

 

The law says that the charge for loss or damage must be proportionate to the loss incurred.

 

Charges are Penalties – “In-Terrorem”

 

These charges levied on my account by [bank] are penalties. The law states that a clause is a penalty if it provides for “a payment of money stipulated as in-terrorem of the offending party”. i.e. it designed to scare or coerce or it is used as a threat.

 

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”

 

It is also worth noting that [bank] is a multi-national corporation. This term regarding charges was inserted unilaterally in contract. i.e. I had no opportunity to negotiate the clause.

 

The Costs Incurred by the Bank

 

[bank] do not publish costs associated with going overdrawn, although they have been requested for this information. Neither do they outline how the cost of these charges is set.

 

The banks operate a highly computerised, automated process when dealing with charges. There is no evidence of any personal involvement by a member of [bank] staff. An account is flagged as being over the limit/non payment of a direct debit etc and the computers sends a mail-merged (by computer) letter which is fulfilled by an automated mailing house and posted.

 

Having been in marketing for 15 years I would estimate this cost to be £0.50-£1.00. There is no evidence of personal intervention. I received 9 individual letters from [bank] in 9 envelopes, detailing 9 separate charges on ONE day in March 2003. If a person was involved, there would be one letter detailing the charges in one envelope and one stamp. In this example, I was charged £270 (£30 per item) in March 2003.

 

This is no data for UK banks but studies in the USA and Australia on this subject have estimated the real cost of sending a letter following no payment of a direct debit to be AUS $0.54 and US$0.50-$1.50.

 

It is worth noting that [bank] charged unauthorised overdraft interest on an account in breach of its limit which is almost 0.30%. Perhaps a good pre-estimate of the loss they incur (i.e. liquidated damages).

 

External View and Comments

 

Pressed by the House of Commons Select Committee 2005, banks revealed these charges are designed to offset their debt recovery losses. (It’s therefore not about my account but a charge to contribute to all customers debt).

 

Peter McNamara, who was Head of Personal Banking at Lloyds, said in a BBC Radio 4 interview in 2004 that charges are used to fund free banking for all personal customers.

 

Finally the Office of Fair Trading on April5, 2006 suggested that these penalty charges are unfair.

 

Service – The Defence’s Argument

 

It is inconceivable how these charges are for a service. However in argument:

 

Their claim that under Section 7 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR99) states that their prices do not have to be fair, that they are NOT subject to the scrutiny of a court.

 

This then implies they can set them at whatever level they like - £100 for going over your overdraft limit? £150.00 for not paying a direct debt. [bank] imply that their charges can be uncapped and unregulated.

 

However the Sale of Goods and Services Act 1982, sec 15.2 clearly states that the sum must be fair and reasonable. Is a 3000% mark up fair when the average mark up on the High Street is 100%?

 

This is an unfair term within the contract because it allows Lloyds TSB to charge any price they wish for a service - which is far in excess of the cost or value of the service.

 

Further under the UTCCR99, Sec 2 Par 1 states that

 

“A terms that allows a party to unilaterally raise of price or for a price to be determined on delivery is unfair”

 

Summary

 

The charge made by [bank] is not for a service but is a penalty charge, used in-terroum to frighten and coerce individuals not to breach their contract.

 

The charge made is not liquidated damages as it does not reflect the true cost of the breach incurred by [bank]. They have not offered any evidence of how these costs are constructed or proof that for example, bouncing a direct debit costs them £30.00.

 

I estimate that the cost is less than £1.00.

 

UK contract Law states that the charge must be the amount needed to put both parties in the position they were before the breach happened.

 

Contrary to [bank] argument, there is both an explicit and implied breach of contract by myself by going over an agreed overdraft limit or not having sufficient funds in the bank to pay a direct debit. These charges are directly related to actual breaches in contract. They are not levied in any other situations that I am aware of.

 

 

Obviously, it needs a fair bit of tweaking to your own circumstances, but the general arguments are totally usable.

[Mervalous]

First off sorry

 

And thanks I will save that to disk and give it a good tweaking

[austenpowers]

thanks for posting this bookworm. Sorry to hijack your thread Merv, but question to bookworm, would this be used as part of your court bundle or should it be held back for any potential hearings?

 

And Merv, my fingers are crossed for you and I feel sure your phone will be ringing soon. And in any case, you sound like you are prepared for court even though it is highly unlikely.

[Bookworm]

would this be used as part of your court bundle or should it be held back for any potential hearings?

 

For the hearing. If for whatever reason, you were to end up inside the courtroom, you need to have something to say to the judge.

[heidiK]

Quote:

The Facts

 

I have a contract with [bank] that is governed by UK Contract Law. I have held two accounts with [bank] since xxxx and they have charged me £xxxx in penalty charges in that time.

 

The Case under UK Contract Law

...............As above ..........etc...............

 

Thanks Bookworm- very helpful. I have copied it (and will tweak) onto a word doc and will use it closer to the time!

Heidik

[Grimsolo]

Yep thats VERY handy!

 

Have tweaked it all ready

 

Cheers!

[Spotted Dog]

Good LUck Mervalous and thank you Bookworm for the argument ( Would that be the full half hour ?)

 

Spotty

[Bookworm]

Ah! Found where it came from! So credit due to Wolfcub, a lady after my own heart, and if you want to read how to kick a*** well and truly, her thread is an inspiration. (Wolfcub v Lloyds)

[squishy]

Thanks Bookworm, what a lady Wolfcub is!!

[feefofum]

WOW, that's a great piece Wolfcub abd Bookworm. Anyone know if anyone has used it against Barclays and if it's on this site at all? (Am not too confident with going through the whole of Barclays T&C's to insert the relevant bits... but then I haven't got a court date yet either).

 

Good luck!

[Bookworm]

It wouldn't have been used against Barclays, as Barclays has NEVER been to court!

 

Don't thank me, all I did was copy/paste!!!

[Mervalous]

Well done Wolfcub

 

If Barclays dont hurry up it looks like that defence will be used against them in 1 weeks time!

[omollmeg]

Good luck Mervalous!!

great thread.

;-)