whoareya -vs- Barclays

[whoareya]

"Your request for judgment was deemed invalid as the defendant has filed a defence - your claim has now been transferred to Norwich County Court and all paperwork relating to this transfer is in the post to you now

regards

Kim Trivett

Money Claim Online

Tel 08456015935"

[whoareya]

Got a couple of questions if someone could be so kind and answer for me:

 

How long does it take to get a hearing date?

 

I would like to get a heads up for the next stage, what am I going to need to prepare myself?

 

I don't understand why these banks don't just pay, its costing them even more making us go through the courts, in interest fees and court fees. Why don't they just eat humble pie?

 

Do cases get struck out? Presumably they must do

If thats the case, can you resubmit your claim, as I am under the impression a case hasn't gone to court yet.

[dickeggsy]

if you look at the big picture the banks are paying out a miniscule amount.they made about £3000,000,000 (3 billion) out of these charges last year and according to this site have paid out about 5 million.even if you multiply that by 10 (50 million) it is peanuts to them.

they will hold out to the last minute ,a lot of people will get scared and drop it.they are in a win win situation.

at the moment anyway.

good luck mate,hope you fight all the way,i am.

[whoareya]

dick - Good point. Didn't know the scale of the daylight robbery

[whoareya]

Ok here goes.

Received the AQ today, here's the details of the defence

 

• The particulars of Claim do not provide details 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 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.
  
• The Defendant is entitled to charge the claimant for unauthorised borrowings by reason of its standard terms and conditions. The Claimant accepted the same when the account was opened, including (in particular but without limitation) the following terms and conditions (which are summarised):

• The Defendant’s right to charge a “Paid Referral Fee” where the Defendant pays an amount (ether by compulsion or election) which causes the account to become overdrawn - £30 per item (previously £25).
  
• The Defendant’s right to charge an administrative 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).
  
• The Defendant’s entitlement, if the Claimant becomes overdrawn without an overdraft limit, to charge interest at the unauthorised borrowing rate on the excess balance.

• The Defendant’s 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 limit).
  
• If and to the extent it is the Claimant’s case that the failure to make necessary payment and / or failure to remain within authorised overdraft limits failure to arrange an authorised overdraft constituted a breach of the terms applying to the account and that the contractual entitlement to debit charges from the Claimant’s account constitutes a liquidated damages clause, the same is denied. The charges constitute 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 the overdraft.
  
• Accordingly, it is denied that the legal principles relating to liquidated damages clauses and penalty charges are relevant or applicable to the facts set out above. Further or alternatively is denied that any such charges constitute unlawful penalty or are in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contacts Regulation 1999 (particularly but without limitation to, paragraph 1(e) 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 s.15 of the Supply of Goods and Services act 1982 (or indeed any other provision).
  
• Therefore, it is denied that the charges were unlawfully debited from the account.
  
• If and to the extent the Claimant incurred charges n his/her account, this was caused by the Claimant having gone into overdraft without having agreed with the defendant an authorised overdraft facility or to increase the overdraft facility and / or his/her failure to make payments to bring the balance of the account back into credit.
  
• It is averred that the said charges and interest are and remain lawful and 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.
  
• The Defendant denies that it is liable to the Claimant for the sums claimed and interest, as pleaded or at all. In the alternative if (which is denied) the said charges unenforceable and constituted a breach of contract by the Defendant, those charges which were applied to the account prior to 1 December 2000 are not recoverable because they are time-barred under the terms of Limitation Act 1980 in that more than six years have elapsed since the accrual of the cause of action.
  
• In the alternative, and without prejudice to paragraph 6 above, if (which is denied) the said charges and interest or any part thereof are unlawful or unenforceable as alleged by the Claimant or at all, the defendant has nonetheless suffered loss and damage as a consequence of the Claimant’s breach of contract in allowing the account to go into unauthorised overdraft. Accordingly, in the even t that the defendant is unable to rely on its express entitlement to enforce the charges as 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 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.

11. The Defendant would like to thank the claimant for giving his hard earned cash to the company so that the directors can produce excellent reports for its’ shareholders and in turn receiving big fat bonus’s so they can go first class everywhere.

[whoareya]

Actually I added point 11. As you may have guessed.

 

Anything interesting on there? I thought not.

 

It reads very standard and is full of inaccuracies, for one they didn't even grace me with a personalised defence, they couldn't identify me as a MR and wrote his/her on more than one occasion!

[whoareya]

I'm going to fill in my AQ and post what

[whoareya]

I'm going to fill in my AQ and post what I write (I filled one out for my Lloyds case so I'll just use that - a Ha take that Barclays, touche on the standard letters)

[whoareya]

I respectfully request that my claim be allocated to the small claims track. This issue is not a complicated one; it is an issue of fact and not of law. The issue is only whether the money levied by the Defendant in respect of its customer’s contractual breaches exceeds their actual costs incurred. I am happy to pay their actual costs and I am surprised the Defendant did not counterclaim for these, because I would have paid them without argument.

 

However, the continuing problem is (in common with the 1000’s of other cases currently being brought by other bank customers) that the banks refuse to reveal the details of their penalty-charging regime. As the banks have a fiduciary duty towards their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly and in utmost good faith.

 

Accordingly, I would respectfully ask that the court in this case, not withstanding allocation to the small claims track, order standard disclosure. I understand that it is in the courts discretion to do so. I believe this would bring a rapid end to this litigation.

The defendant in its defence contends that this claim is not suitably particularised and the statement of claim shows no reasonable grounds for the claim to be brought. The Claimant disagrees with this contention entirely. The claim particulars clearly state the statutory and common law provisions on which this claim relies, and the claimant will of course elaborate upon the claim particulars at such time as is required upon the direction of the court. Further, contrary to the contention of the defendant, the relevant numbers of the account in question were clearly identified in the claimant’s particulars of claim. The defendant was served with this information on two occasions previously within a 28 day period allowed by the claimant to attempt to resolve the issue prior to the commencement of this litigation. For the sake of expediency, I have attached another copy of the schedule to this allocation questionnaire.

The defendant points out that any charges applied prior to December 2000 are not recoverable because they are time-barred under the terms of Limitation Act 1980, whilst I acknowledge the impact of the Limitations Act 1980 in respect of disputes over contractual issues, I believe claim falls outside the six year rule. Section 32, which gives relief to the claimants in cases where the defendant has concealed the nature of their actions, acted unlawfully or has made an error or omission. It is my belief that the Defendant knew, or reasonably should have known that the charges they were levying were unlawful and disproportionate, also that this would have been apparent to their legal advisors following the enactment of the UTCCR 1999.

As is known to the defendant, I am a litigant in person in this case. It is respectfully submitted that the contentions of the defendant are highly likely to be an attempt to distress and intimidate, rather than presenting any valid or reasonable objections to the clarity of the Particulars of claim.

Read it and weep Barclays!

[Laineybelle]

Whoareya,

 

I like your style!!!!

 

Keep us posted as I am about a week or so behind you.

 

Regards

Laineybelle

[nursiepoos]

Crikey, are Barclays a nightmare or what!!!

I was successfull in my £11,500 claim against Nationwide last year and am now starting all over again with Barclays on behalf of my brother (a mere £1585 claim)

I've been reading threads regarding Barclays and the feeling of dread is setting in already lol, What on earth are the Court Bundles I keep reading about? Do I just floolw CAG's advice as normal?

Love to you all

Nursiepoos x x x

[pjdavies2000]

I think your letter is very good whoareya!

 

Do I take it from the tone of the letter that you are actually pressing for this to reach court so you can force their hand, or is this an extremely counter-aggressive move to force them to pay in full for your last XX years of charges?

 

I also think more should be made of the standard letter in the rebutle (and no doubt when I get to that point in mine I will add it) that the first few paras of the defence state that we do not provide the details of each cost:

 

'The particulars of Claim do not provide details 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 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.'

 

Surely the fact that in our initial SAR letters and responses where we are denied all information of manual or otherwise intervention they have actually inhibited us finding this information and so we must assume that each charge is unlawful unless THEY prove otherwise...I begin to wonder if Barclays lawyers only know the law from a complaintant viewpoint! They always seem to be attacking!

 

Also, the second para:

 

The Defendant’s right to charge a “Paid Referral Fee” where the Defendant pays an amount (ether by compulsion or election) which causes the account to become overdrawn - £30 per item (previously £25).

 

Seems to be clear in its wording that the paid referral fee is not covering any administration costs, but simply aggressively invoking a financial burden as a penalty to the account holder - this is also backed up by the third para which then goes on to state that the other referrals are for admin costs.

 

So it would seem that any judge in his/her (to coin a phrase!) roght mind would find it difficult to accept that these charges are both unlawful.

 

I know I am at an early stage (waiting on statements) but by jolly, these people need more of 'us' to sock it to them, and bring on the day that one makes it to a court. Although, I have a dim and distant memory that case law can't be made in the small claims court? Anyone know different?

 

Cheers whoareya!

 

Peter

[gee_gee]

Quick question people - i am in my intial stages with Barclays and recently got a reply to the first letter. The 14 days we give them - i presume this is 14 working days i presume because if not i may have given them too much time and need to send the second letter today

 

Thnx

[whoareya]

14 days including weekends and bank holidays.

 

You are the boss in this, you make the rules. You could even inform them of the date in 14 days time in future correspondence.

 

Have you started your own thread detailing your own story, probably best as we can then follow your history and answer questions easier.

[whoareya]

Went over drawn at the weekend. Oops. Oh well needed a letter as evidence.

 

Went to the bank today and asked for it back, the woman didn't even flinch or ask questions, it went back onto my account.

 

She asked if that was all 'Well it's a start.......'

[pjdavies2000]

I had a similar issue this weekend whoareya. I went over by £10, they charged me £30, then the interest went out (about a fiver) and they hit me with another £30 charge! I wouldn't mind so much if:

1 - it wasn't unlawful!

2 - I hadb't paid a £50 cheque in which is wasted until I can get to the bank to get my money back!

3 - The letter they sent me didn't KEEP SAYING FEE!!!!!

Bloody people - god damn them!

Peter

[whoareya]

Hi gang, I've had nothing to update in a while. Just found this out though

 

Hearing Date

21 May 2007 in the Norwich Court 12.40pm

 

I cheekily asked them to bunch it up with my other hearing but with Lloyds, they declined the offer. Tsk they can't even multi task

[smokeyspot]

Are you going to try and get the hearing sooner? Did you send the new order with your allocation questionnaire? I didn't but thought I would send it now to try and get things speeded up.

[whoareya]

Just got off the phone to a nice young man at Barclays.

 

Made me a settlement which I have accepted. He is sending the docs my way to sign.

 

He said that my account will be credited by tomorrow afternoon.

 

!!!Nice one!!!

[Laineybelle]

Nice one!!!

 

Well done.

 

How on earth did you get them to settle so quickly though with your Court date still being quite a few weeks off?

 

Regards

Laineybelle

[whoareya]

Haven't a clue, the guy initially thought the hearing was 21st April. But he phoned up out of the blue, said he wanted to settle there and then.

[dar£n]

PMSL.......These are the people handling our money and they dont even know what month it is.

 

 

Nice one, congratulations [who ever ya]

[whoareya]

Wow that was quick.

 

Money in the bank

 

Contribution coming CAG's way.....

 

I think I now need to change my thread to a success story

 

Never thought that would happen

[Kapalika]

Congratulations!

 

Just out of interest, at what time was the money credited to your account today? was it am or pm?

 

I have a reason for asking. It relates to my claim although I don't want to say anything just yet.

[lthomp192]

Well done whoareya, nice one they are comeing in thick and fast now,nearly one every day,thread No 49 Kapalilka, semms a bit mysterios there wonder what is going on???