Jump to content


Jamie Vs Barclays (court stages!)


mazda626
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6151 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

 

Just thought I would post a message detailing where i am with the claim - Have to thank this website for all of their help as well!

Have gone through all of the necessary Prelims and LBAs etc with an offer of £1000 turned down (am owed about £4000)

Served papers on the Bank (deemed served 26th August) and they filed an acknowledgement 5th Septemeber.

As I had heard nothing I called the court this morning as the 28 days allowed (from date papers were deemed served) has passed and I had assumed I had won!

Court advised me that Barclays have filed a defence and appointed asolicitor to fight it in court.

Naturally Im REALLY worried about this but have read through all the info on the site so if it gets this far hopefully Ill be ready for them!

Im rather hoping that anytime soon ill have have an offer or something back from Barclays but does anyone know whats likely to happen next?

Should I be doing anything ? How long until things happen ?

Im SCARED I wont get my money

 

JAMIE :|

Cheers!

 

Jamie

Me vs Barclays

As of 25.09.06 - They advise the court they have prepared a defence and appointed a solicitor to fight!

Watch this space for updates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks ! Need the encouragement! How long do things take - When am I likely to get an offer/ refund ? When am I likely to get a date ?

Thanks

JAMIE

Cheers!

 

Jamie

Me vs Barclays

As of 25.09.06 - They advise the court they have prepared a defence and appointed a solicitor to fight!

Watch this space for updates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Barclays forum, Bookworm v Barclays. I don't have the link at hand.

 

Offer/refund, don't hold your breath. Barclays will hold on to your cash until the last minute. About 1 week before hearing date sems to be the norm these days, and I wouldn't put it past them to leave it till the same day if they can get away with it.

 

Date of hearing will depend on how busy your local court is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers ! - guess Ill have to remain patient.

Good things come to those who wait - Softly softly catchy monkey!

 

All the best

JAMIE

Cheers!

 

Jamie

Me vs Barclays

As of 25.09.06 - They advise the court they have prepared a defence and appointed a solicitor to fight!

Watch this space for updates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to keep you all updated (and maybe this might help somebody?!?)

I have had a copy of the banks defence back today.

Heres what it says.

 

1) the particulars of claim do not provide details of the account in question and/or the precise charges alledged to have been unlawful, or the date thereof.

Notwithstanding the claimants failiure to correctly identify and particularise an account held with the defendant, it is admitted that the claimant has an account number ~~~~~~~ sort code ~~~~~~. However to the extent it is alledged that the claimant incurred bank charges on his/her account for unauthorised borrowings (whether unpaid fees for returned cheques, paid referral fees or any other such fees) the defendant puts the claimant to strict proof of each charge and the date thereof.

 

2) the defendants standard terms and conditions give the claimant a fair and transparent view of those terms and the charges applicable for unauthorised borrowings (including where the account is overdrawn without an overdraft limit or where the claimant exceeds his/her authorised overdraft limit)

 

3) If and to the extent that it is the claimants case that the failiure to make necessarry payments and / or failiure to remain within authorised overdraft limits failiure to arrange an unauthorised overdraft constituted a breach of the terms applying to the account and that the contractual entitlement to debit charges from the claimants account constitutes payments the claimant agreed to make by reason of the terms and conditions of his/her account and were consideration for the defendant advancing credit to the claimant which the defendant was under no obligation to advance. The defendant was entitled to impose such charges and interest when the claimant incurred overdraft.

 

4) Accordingly it is denied that the legal principles realating to liquidated damages clauses and penalty charges are relevant or applicable to the facts set out above. Further r alternatively it is denied that any such charges constitute unlawful penalty charges or are in breach of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999 (particularly but without limitation to paragraph 1E of schedule 2) or are in breach of the unfair (contracts) terms act 1977 (or any other provision) or are unreasonable within the meaning of the supply of goods and service act 1982 (or indeed any other provision)

 

5) Therefore, it is denied that the charges were unlawfully debited from the account.

 

6) If and to the extent the claimant incurred charges on his account this was caused by the claimant having gone into overdraft without having agreed with the defendant an authorised overdraft facility to increase the overdraft facility and his/her failiure to make payments to bring the balance of the account back into credit.

 

7) it is averred that the said charges and interest are and remain lawful anf enforceable and that the defendant was entitled to debit the same. Accordingly the claimant is not entitled to a declaration by the court as to the enforceability of the said charges.

 

8) The defendant denies that it is liable to the claimant to the sums claimed and interest as pleaded by the claimant or at all. In the alternative which is denied, if the said charges amount to sums payable on breach of contract it is averred that the charges asserted by the claimant to have been applied to the account prior to 23rd August 2000 would not be recoverable for reason of exhaustion of time in bringing contractual claims from the date of accrual, pursuant to the limitation act 1980.

 

9) In the alternative and without prejudice to paragraph 6 above (which is denied) the said charges and interest or any part therefore are unlawful or unenforceble as alledged by the claimant or at all, the defendant has nonetheless suffered loss and damage as a consequence of the claimants breach of contract in allowing the account to go into unauthorised overdraft. Accordingly in the event that the defendant is unable to rely on its express entitlement to enforce the charges set out at paragraphs 2 to 3 above it will seek to recover to the extent necessary such loss and damage as it actually suffered which will not necessarily be limited to the value of the said charges, and the defendant seeks to set off such sums against any liability owed hereunder to the claimant

 

Statement of truth etc.....signed by ADrain ruffhead

 

I would welcome your comments people as Im now really worried that they have a good case - Is this letter normal ?

Whats does it all mean

Now Im scared ?

What next ?

 

Thanks People - This website is fab!

:)

Cheers!

 

Jamie

Me vs Barclays

As of 25.09.06 - They advise the court they have prepared a defence and appointed a solicitor to fight!

Watch this space for updates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I will reply to each of their defence points:

 

Just to keep you all updated (and maybe this might help somebody?!?)

I have had a copy of the banks defence back today.

Heres what it says.

 

1) the particulars of claim do not provide details of the account in question and/or the precise charges alledged to have been unlawful, or the date thereof.

Notwithstanding the claimants failiure to correctly identify and particularise an account held with the defendant, it is admitted that the claimant has an account number ~~~~~~~ sort code ~~~~~~. However to the extent it is alledged that the claimant incurred bank charges on his/her account for unauthorised borrowings (whether unpaid fees for returned cheques, paid referral fees or any other such fees) the defendant puts the claimant to strict proof of each charge and the date thereof.

 

You need to list all your charges & the dates - when you reply you can attach your statements highlighting charges. I take it you worked this out to get a figure as to what you are claiming, just maybe need to say in more detail.

 

2) the defendants standard terms and conditions give the claimant a fair and transparent view of those terms and the charges applicable for unauthorised borrowings (including where the account is overdrawn without an overdraft limit or where the claimant exceeds his/her authorised overdraft limit)

 

These are unlawful penalty charges.

 

3) If and to the extent that it is the claimants case that the failiure to make necessarry payments and / or failiure to remain within authorised overdraft limits failiure to arrange an unauthorised overdraft constituted a breach of the terms applying to the account and that the contractual entitlement to debit charges from the claimants account constitutes payments the claimant agreed to make by reason of the terms and conditions of his/her account and were consideration for the defendant advancing credit to the claimant which the defendant was under no obligation to advance. The defendant was entitled to impose such charges and interest when the claimant incurred overdraft.

This is not a defence to your claim that the charges are unlawful penalty charges.

 

4) Accordingly it is denied that the legal principles realating to liquidated damages clauses and penalty charges are relevant or applicable to the facts set out above. Further r alternatively it is denied that any such charges constitute unlawful penalty charges or are in breach of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999 (particularly but without limitation to paragraph 1E of schedule 2) or are in breach of the unfair (contracts) terms act 1977 (or any other provision) or are unreasonable within the meaning of the supply of goods and service act 1982 (or indeed any other provision)

This is a blank denial - they haven't said WHY the charges are not unlawful penalty charges or not in breach of UTCC regs - they'll have to do better than that!

 

5) Therefore, it is denied that the charges were unlawfully debited from the account.

Again, they haven't given any reason!

 

6) If and to the extent the claimant incurred charges on his account this was caused by the claimant having gone into overdraft without having agreed with the defendant an authorised overdraft facility to increase the overdraft facility and his/her failiure to make payments to bring the balance of the account back into credit.

This is irrelevant as to the issue of whether the charges were unfair charges.

 

7) it is averred that the said charges and interest are and remain lawful anf enforceable and that the defendant was entitled to debit the same. Accordingly the claimant is not entitled to a declaration by the court as to the enforceability of the said charges.

Still no reasons given as to why the charges weren't unfair

 

8) The defendant denies that it is liable to the claimant to the sums claimed and interest as pleaded by the claimant or at all. In the alternative which is denied, if the said charges amount to sums payable on breach of contract it is averred that the charges asserted by the claimant to have been applied to the account prior to 23rd August 2000 would not be recoverable for reason of exhaustion of time in bringing contractual claims from the date of accrual, pursuant to the limitation act 1980.

They are probably right that you can't claim b4 23rd Aug 2000 because of the 6 year limit on claims, but don't admit this!

 

9) In the alternative and without prejudice to paragraph 6 above (which is denied) the said charges and interest or any part therefore are unlawful or unenforceble as alledged by the claimant or at all, the defendant has nonetheless suffered loss and damage as a consequence of the claimants breach of contract in allowing the account to go into unauthorised overdraft. Accordingly in the event that the defendant is unable to rely on its express entitlement to enforce the charges set out at paragraphs 2 to 3 above it will seek to recover to the extent necessary such loss and damage as it actually suffered which will not necessarily be limited to the value of the said charges, and the defendant seeks to set off such sums against any liability owed hereunder to the claimant

they are suggesting a counter claim here - put them to strict proof of loss and damage & the amount of any such loss & damage.

 

 

The defence is balls if you ask me, essentially it says "no these aren't unfair charges" but gives no reasons.

 

HTHs

 

all advice given in my personal capacity & you should seek independant legal advice if you wish to obtain professional advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

I have the same clause 9 in Barclays defence. Will the standard court bundle be sufficiently robust to counter their threat? I have only until Friday to submit and was tying up loose ends I thought! The AQ is dispensed with and I have a hearing date so I don't know how to counter this. Do I need to be concerned?

 

Regards,

 

John.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John,

When is your hearing date? Have you tried phoning them and seeing if they want to settle.

Alot of people have been phoning saying they have a court date ( dont tell them it is a hearing) and they have settled.

Worth a try, most people are doing this and getting their money back now.

Caz

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John,

 

As long as you stick to the time frames (I nearly missed my deadline and had to get a courier to take my docs to London!) the standard court bundle will be sufficient - I doubt if they even look at it anymore.

Their defence is totally ridiculous and although it sounds a bit daunting its just meant to scare you off - I wouldnt worry about it.

Within days of my documents getting to the bank (maybe it helped that a courier took them in as I think they thought I really meant business) I got a decent offer (£4700 - They owed about £5000) which I took.

Its a waiting game but youre nearly there - The standard court bundle is excellent and just whats needed - Try not to worry - Its just a case of getting the bits in and waiting for the cash!

 

Good luck (though you wont need it!)

 

Jamie

Cheers!

 

Jamie

Me vs Barclays

As of 25.09.06 - They advise the court they have prepared a defence and appointed a solicitor to fight!

Watch this space for updates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jamie , Have noticed you seem clued up on the process for reclaiming bank charges.

was wondering if you can help me please, got a letter from northhampton court today to say my case has been transferred to chester county court rang them today and they said they have a date for the 6th june2007 for court.. oh my god panicking now. would you be able to read through my defence from barclays and advise if i should continue this claim..

1. the particulars of claim do not provide details or particulars of the precise charges alleged to have been unlawful, or the date thereof. To the extent it is alleged that the claimant incurred bank charges on the claimants account for unauthorised borrowing whether unpaid fees for returned cheques "paid refferrel" or any such fees. the defendent puts the claimant to strict proof of each charge and the date thereof.

2. the particulars of the claim are summary in nature. accordingly this defence is summary in nature and the defendent reserves the right to amend this statement of case in due course.

3 the defendent is entitled to charge the claimant for unaouthorised borrowings by reason of its own standard terms and conditions. the claimant accepted the same when the accoount was opened including in particular but without limitaion the following terms and conditions which are summarised.

a. the defendents right to charge a paid referrel fee, where the defendent pays an amount either by compulsion or election which causes the account to become overdrawn £30 per item {previously £25}

b. the defendents right to charge an administative fee if any cheque standing order or direct debit cannot be paid because of insufficient cleared funds in the account £35 per item previously £30

c. the defendents entitlement if the claimant becomes overdrawn without an overdraft limit, to charge interest at the unauthorised borrowing rate on the excess balance.

4. the defendents standard terms and conditions give the claimant a fair and transparent view of those terms and the charges applicable for unauthorised borrowings (including where the account is overdrawn without an overdraft limit or where the claimant exceeds the authorised limit.

5. if and to the extent it is the claimants case that the failure to make necessary payments and or failure to remain within authorised overdraft limits and or failure to remain within an authorised overdraft limit and failure to arrange an authorised overdraft constitutes a breach of terms applying to the account and that the contractual entitlement to debit charges from the claimants account constitues a liquidated damages clause, the same is denied.

the charges constitue payments the claimant agreed to make by reason of the terms and consitions of the account and where consideration for the defendent advancing credit tyo the claimant, whcih the defendent was under obligation to advance.

the defendent was entitled to impose such charges and interest when the claimant incurred the overdraft.

6. accordingly it is denied that the legal principles relating to liquidated damage clauses and penalty charges are relevent or apllicable to the facts set out above. further or alteratively it is denied that any such charges constitute unlaw penalty charges or are in breach of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999 or are in breacdh of s.4 of the unfair {contracts} termas act 1977 or any other provision or are unreasonabale within the meaning of s.15 of the supply of goods and services act 1982 or indeed any other provision.

7. therefore it is denied that the charges were unlawfully debited from the account.

8. if and to theextent tha claimant incurred charges on the account, this was caused by the claimant having gone into overdraft wihtout having agreed with the defendent an authorised overdraft facility or to increase the overdraft faciltiy and or the failure to make payment to bring the account back into credit.

9. it is averred that the said charges and interest are and remain lawful and enforecable and that the defendent was entitled to debit the same.

10. the defendent denies that it is liable to the claimant for the sums claimed and interest as pleaded or at all. in the alternative the said charges are unenforcable and constitiuted a breach of contract by the defendent those charges which were aplied to the account prior to 23 march 2001 are not recoverable because they are time barred under the tems and of the limitation act 1980 in that more than six yerars have elapsed since the accrual of the course of action.

11. in the alternative and without predudice to matters stated above if which is denied the said charges and interest or any part thereof are unlawful of unenforceable as alleged by the claimant or at all and the charges were a consequnce of the breach of contract by the claimant the defendent has nontheless sufferd loss and damge as a consequence of such breach of contract in allowing the account to go into unauthorised overdraft. accordingly in the event that the defendent is unable to rely on its express entitlement to enforce the charges a set out above, it will seek to recover to the extent necessary such loss and damge as charges, and the defendent seeks to set off such sums against any liabbility owed hereunder to the claimant

barclays bank plc.

 

 

oh my god sorry about spellings still shaking what do i do..help...........

 

 

julie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try Dar£n he is around on threads at the moment, he will know the answer, that is very quick for a court date now i am paniking as i am nowhere near ready.

Dont forget you can phone BB two weeks before and ask for a settlement so that would make it around the end of next week.

Good luck hope you et the advice you need Caz

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi There,

 

Basically dont worry - I worried so much I thought about dropping the whole thing but Im more than pleased I didnt.

I got most of my advise from the chat room on this website.

Theres some really nice people who know alot about these things and they will help boost your confidence and offer really useful advise.

To put this all into perspective only TWO people have ever lost so to the banks so far out of hundreds and hundreds of winners.

Unfortunatly you will see that somebody did lose to the bank the other day - This will probably start to change things and you may have to take this into account ?

Others may need to offer your advice on this as Im not really clever enough to work out the legal ins and outs !

My best advise would be to get yourself onto the chat room.....

 

Jamie

Cheers!

 

Jamie

Me vs Barclays

As of 25.09.06 - They advise the court they have prepared a defence and appointed a solicitor to fight!

Watch this space for updates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Jamie,

 

I wondered if you had contacted the bank about a settlement. I'm not sure when or even if I should do that. I was directed to provide my bundle by last Friday as was the bank but the court date isn't until August.

 

Any advice please.

 

Regards,

John.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The Gingerninja & Barclays BankToe 2 Toe

 

Help received defence this morning and it's totally above my head. What do I do?

 

Their defence:

1: The particulars of claim do not provide details or particulars of the precise charges alleged to have been unlawful, or the date thereof. To the extent it is alleged that the claimant incurred bank charges on the claimants account for unauthorised borrowing whether unpaid fees for returned cheques "paid refferrel" or any such fees. the defendent puts the claimant to strict proof of each charge and the date thereof.

2. the particulars of the claim are summary in nature. accordingly this defence is summary in nature and the defendent reserves the right to amend this statement of case in due course.

3 the defendent is entitled to charge the claimant for unaouthorised borrowings by reason of its own standard terms and conditions. the claimant accepted the same when the accoount was opened including in particular but without limitaion the following terms and conditions which are summarised.

a. the defendents right to charge a paid referrel fee, where the defendent pays an amount either by compulsion or election which causes the account to become overdrawn £30 per item {previously £25}

b. the defendents right to charge an administative fee if any cheque standing order or direct debit cannot be paid because of insufficient cleared funds in the account £35 per item previously £30

c. the defendents entitlement if the claimant becomes overdrawn without an overdraft limit, to charge interest at the unauthorised borrowing rate on the excess balance.

4. the defendents standard terms and conditions give the claimant a fair and transparent view of those terms and the charges applicable for unauthorised borrowings (including where the account is overdrawn without an overdraft limit or where the claimant exceeds the authorised limit.

5. if and to the extent it is the claimants case that the failure to make necessary payments and or failure to remain within authorised overdraft limits and or failure to remain within an authorised overdraft limit and failure to arrange an authorised overdraft constitutes a breach of terms applying to the account and that the contractual entitlement to debit charges from the claimants account constitues a liquidated damages clause, the same is denied.

the charges constitue payments the claimant agreed to make by reason of the terms and consitions of the account and where consideration for the defendent advancing credit tyo the claimant, whcih the defendent was under obligation to advance.

the defendent was entitled to impose such charges and interest when the claimant incurred the overdraft.

6. accordingly it is denied that the legal principles relating to liquidated damage clauses and penalty charges are relevent or apllicable to the facts set out above. further or alteratively it is denied that any such charges constitute unlaw penalty charges or are in breach of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999 or are in breacdh of s.4 of the unfair {contracts} termas act 1977 or any other provision or are unreasonabale within the meaning of s.15 of the supply of goods and services act 1982 or indeed any other provision.

7. therefore it is denied that the charges were unlawfully debited from the account.

8. if and to theextent tha claimant incurred charges on the account, this was caused by the claimant having gone into overdraft wihtout having agreed with the defendent an authorised overdraft facility or to increase the overdraft faciltiy and or the failure to make payment to bring the account back into credit.

9. it is averred that the said charges and interest are and remain lawful and enforecable and that the defendent was entitled to debit the same.

10. the defendent denies that it is liable to the claimant for the sums claimed and interest as pleaded or at all. in the alternative the said charges are unenforcable and constitiuted a breach of contract by the defendent those charges which were aplied to the account prior to 23 march 2001 are not recoverable because they are time barred under the tems and of the limitation act 1980 in that more than six yerars have elapsed since the accrual of the course of action.

11. in the alternative and without predudice to matters stated above if which is denied the said charges and interest or any part thereof are unlawful of unenforceable as alleged by the claimant or at all and the charges were a consequnce of the breach of contract by the claimant the defendent has nontheless sufferd loss and damge as a consequence of such breach of contract in allowing the account to go into unauthorised overdraft. accordingly in the event that the defendent is unable to rely on its express entitlement to enforce the charges a set out above, it will seek to recover to the extent necessary such loss and damge as it actualy suffered, which will not necessarily be limited to the value of the said charges, and the defendant seekls to set of sums against ant liability owed hereunder to the claiment. barclays bank plc.

 

So boys and girls please help, dont know what i am supposed to do next.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ginger

 

Firstly don't panic, this is their standard defence at the moment, but will comment on various points

 

1. This refers to schedule of charges. Have you sent SOC's with N1 form in not forward them to both the court and Barclays

 

2. This will all be covered with your court bundle

 

10. They are claiming that you are claiming for more than 6 years and as such are quoting the limitations act

 

11. They are basically saying that the charges are for arranging credit.

 

As you have filed at court you may want to consider contacting the Litigation team at Barclays. Thay are settling cases before court, see thread below. All phone numbers and email addresses are there

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclays-bank/94602-barclays-litigation-team-good.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Trucker,

 

N1 form SOC's I sent to barclays a recorded delivery letter with 31 pages of charges, I then wrote again after the specified time, then I wrote a 3rd time (which i didnt have to do) I then started court procedings in Feb via mcol. I have never received any letters from barclays, I have a paracute account which i am now using. I am in my overdraft at barclays, as I didnt want them closing the account. I have not received the allocation papers from the court, they even put a line through filling in and returning the questionnaire. Does this mean Barclays will settle minus my overdraft, if I contact the litigation team??

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...