Help Needed Barclaycard

[jessiebaby]

I have sent my first letter into Barclaycard requesting my charges back, received a letter off them this morning stating that as my card is a Littlewoods card financed by Barclaycard and the charges have only been £10 each time that "I am not entitled to a refund as the charges levied on my account are a maximum of £10.00 and are therefore in line with the OFT recommendation"

Am I right in thinking that I am entitled to these charges back and to now send them the lba letter. Any advice anyone thanks:-x

[MilkTrayMan]

Hi jessiebaby,

 

Am not sure whether U had sent off your S.A.R. first to enable U to total your entire "UNLAWFUL" charges to be reclaimed?

 

The letter U got seems to suggest that they are basing the charges that U asked for on the "£12 recommended charge fee"

 

(...but recommendations ARE NOT the actual figures and are therefore still contestable surely?)

 

Sounds like a delaying fob off letter IMHO.

 

1/ S.A.R.

2/ Preliminary Letter

3/ LBA

4/ File Court Claim

5/ ???

6/ Life Back...lol

 

Hope this helps jessiebaby?

[jessiebaby]

Thanks for that yes I sent off SAR then worked out how much I had paid in charges and sent preliminary letter have not added any interest to charges. I will now send in LBA, cheers for that Kath

[MilkTrayMan]

Hi Kath,

 

Just make sure U also add Compounded Contractual Interest

(...@ the CASH % rate of course...lol)...(I think it is monthly for CC's?)

on your charges as well as the interest that they charged U on the charges!!!

 

Working out the extra little bit that U have been "unlawfully" charged will make a BIG difference the further back the charges were applied.

[jessiebaby]

Thanks for advice mtm will now revise amount claimed by using vamps spreadsheet - wait and see what response I get

[jessiebaby]

Hi update to my claim I am now ready for mcol, can anyone help me with the wording for particulars of claim as I am now claiming compounded contractual interest. I can find the link for particulars with 8% interest but not for compounded any help would be really appreciated

[TANZARELLI]

I have this which was cribbed from another thread this is only part of what needs to be included but the one in the templates library has additions which need to be added you will have to cut and paste to suit then post for discussion:

 

"The Claimant also claims interest at a rate of xx%, from the date of each transaction to (date of claim) of £xxxxxx, as set out in the attached list of charges. The claimant further claims interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment, at a daily rate of £xxxxx per day.

 

The Claimant believes this rate to be justified under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity, and is based on the Defendants overdraft interest rate that would be applied under the terms of the above mentioned account.

 

Should the court find that this interest rate is not applicable, then as an alternative the Claimant wishes to claim interest pursuant to section 69........"

I have another example which I will post next.

Tanz

[TANZARELLI]

Not sure where this one comes from but it is very detailed and very long, so again cut and paste to suit then post for discussion/support/questionning. HTH Tanz:

 

IN COUNTY COURT A

 

IN THE CASE BETWEEN:

X

CLAIMANT

- and -

The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC

DEFENDANT

________________________

Particulars of Claim

________________________

 

 

PART I - INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL DETAILS AND BASIS OF CLAIM

 

Jurisdiction

1. This section is pled without prejudice to all matters not related to jurisdiction in this court.

2. The Claimant is a customer of the Defendant. The Defendant’s standard terms and conditions for personal customers (hereinafter referred to as the “Terms & Conditions”) prorogate jurisdiction of disputes in these circumstances, where the Claimant’s address isn’t in Scotland, to the courts of England.

3. Separtim: the Defendant:

a. is a company; which

b. was incorporated or formed under the law of a part of the United Kingdom and has its registered office or some other official address in the United Kingdom;

c. has its central management and control exercised in the United Kingdom;

d. has a place of business located within inter a Kingston Upon Thames, a place within England; and

e. accordingly the Defendant is domiciled within England as defined by the terms of s42 Civil jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as the “CJJA”). As such this court has jurisdiction by virtue of Rule 1 of Schedule 4 to the CJJA,

4. Separtim: it is unclear whether or not a contract ever existed between the parties hereto relating to the subject matter of this action, Without prejudice to this fact, the Claimant contends that if one did exist it was a consumer contract, within the meaning of Rule 7 of Schedule 4 of the CJJA. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction by virtue of Rule 8(l) of Schedule 4 of the CJJA.

5. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction by virtue of Rule 1 and Rule 8(1) both of Schedule 4 to CJJA and also by the Terms & Conditions. Thus, this is a competent action which should be allowed to proceed on the basis of it having a jurisdiction and there being no reason for the court not to exercise its jurisdiction.

 

Factual Background

6. The Defendant is a well known commercial bank with branches in most moderately-sized settlements throughout Scotland and most major towns and cities in the United Kingdom. The Defendant also has branches and places of business throughout the world.

7. The Claimant has an account (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Account”) with the Defendant which was opened during or around May 2000.

8. During the period between 16 June 2000 and 31 January 2003, or thereabouts, the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account, in respect of “unarranged Overdrafts”, “Unpaid Item(s)” and “Referral Charges”. The Defendant has also charged interest upon these charges once applied. (amounts debited and mentioned in this paragraph are hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Charges” and all detailed within Schedule A attached hereto).

9. The Claimant views the Charges as being unlawfully applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the Charges were debited in accordance with the Terms & Conditions, which it appears to claim form part of an agreement between itself and the Claimant. A copy of the Terms & Conditions is attached hereto.

10. The Claimant was only able to obtain complete details of the Charges by virtue of a Subject Access Request, served upon the Defendant, pursuant to s7 Data Protection let 1998. The cost for said request was £10.00 and the date whereof was 13 May 2006.

11. At various points in time, during the period in which the Defendant levied the Charges to the Account, the Claimant contacted the Defendant — pleading to have the charges refunded or even just reduced as they were consuming a significant portion of her income.

12. On or about 15 June 2006 the Claimant sent a letter to the Defendant asking for a refund of inter alia the Charges. In said letter the Claimant made various assertions and arguments to substantiate her request, quoting relevant sources of law and evidence. Claimant concluded therein that the Charges were unlawfully levied to the Account by the Defendant. At this point the Claimant invited the Defendant to present a defence to this claim and set out its reasoning, making reference to any statutes, cases, authorities, opinions, references and/or evidence which it relied upon. As yet the Defendant hasn’t availed itself to this opportunity.

13. The Claimant subsequently received a letter from the Defendant, dated 19 June 2006. Therein the Defendant, informed the Claimant that the Charges would not be refunded. Further, the Defendant averred that the Charges were “fair, reasonable and transparent” and were provided for by the Defendant’s “published tariff’ which, it claimed, complied “with all applicable laws and regulations”. Unfortunately, the Defendant, was unable to provide any legal and/or factual basis for its assertions.

14. A letter before action was served personally, at l045hours on 27 June 2006 or thereabouts on the Defendant. The Claimant received a letter from the Defendant, dated 11 July 2006, giving its “final response” to the claim, denying a refund of inter a/ia the Charges, to the Claimant.

15. Claimant notes that the Defendant, to date, has made no attempt whatsoever to present a competent defence to the Claimant’s claim.

 

Brief Outline of Claim

16. Claimant as part of her basis of claim, advances that:

a. the Charges have been unlawfully applied to the Account;

b. no contract ever existed between the parties hereto that purports to allow the Defendant to levy the Charges to the Account. In that eventuality the Claimant is entitled to Judgement as sought in paragraph 64.

c. should such a contract exist it could only exist in the form of the Terms & Conditions.

d. only if this court, being of competent jurisdiction, should find that such a contract existed between the parties hereto then the Charges are penalties relating to a breach of contract and hence irrecoverable as set out hereinafter. In that eventuality the Claimant is entitled to Judgement as sought in paragraph 64.

e. only if this court, being of competent jurisdiction, finds that the Charges are remuneration to the Defendant for services provided then they are irrecoverable as set out hereinafter, due to inter a/ia the fact that the terms, if any, which provide for the Charges are unfair and the Charges themselves are unreasonable. In that eventuality the Claimant is entitled to Judgement as sought in paragraph 64.

f. the Defendant’s levying the Charges to the Account has resulted in significant inconvenience and distress being inflicted upon the Claimant, which she is entitled to compensation for;

g. the court should award exemplary and aggravated damages, to the Claimant.

17. In support of part of her basis of claim the Claimant contends, and intends to prove that:

a. the Charges are:

i. punitive in nature;

ii. unreasonable;

iii. generally disproportionate;

iv. excessive;

v. unfair;

vi. unlawful;

vii. not a genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred by the Defendant in respect of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant;

viii. exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant;

ix. not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss in respect of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which conducts its regime of charging with a view to profit;

x. not intended to bear any relation to the Defendant’s actual losses which it can show it has incurred and wouldn of incurred but for any alleged breaches of contract on behalf of the Claimant; and

xi. are held in in terrorem to discourage the Claimant from presenting items on the Account for payment where there are insufficient funds to cover such payment of said item.

b. without prejudice to paragraphs 16(b), 21 and 22 of this claim, all contractual provision(s), if any, between the parties hereto, which purport to permit the Defendant to levy the Charges to the Account, are unenforceable by virtue of:

i. the UTCCR;

ii. the Unfair Contract Terms Act /977 (hereinafter referred to as the “UCTA’)

iii. the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982; and

iv. the common law; and

c. the processes involved in processing unarranged overdrafts, unpaid items, referrals, etc are entirely, or else almost entirely, automated.

18. The claimant makes reference to inter alia the following cases, in relation to the notion of stare decisis, to support her case:

a. Dunlop Pneumatic Tvre Co. v. New Garages and Motor Co. [ AC 79 (hereinafter referred to as Dun1op”);

b. Lordsvale Finance PLC v. Bank o/Zambia [ QB 752;

c. Murray v. Leisureplay [ EWCA Civ 963; and

d. Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co. LtLL [ AC 600

e. Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Ltd v Tilebox Ltd [ EWE-Information Commissioner 281 (TCC) (hereinafter referred to as “McAlpine”)

f. f Commissioner of Public Works v Hills [ AC 368 (hereinafter referred to as “Hills”)

19. Additionally, the Claimant makes reference to inter alia the following Office of Fair Trading cases, as reported in their Unfair Contract Terms Bulletin 21 (July to September 2002). as persuasive authorities:

a. Case 4 — Dampcure-Woodcure/30Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “OFT Case 4”)

b. Case 15 — Kids of Wilmslow Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “OFT Case 15”)

c. Case 18 — Legal & General Franchising t/a Parker Estate Agents (hereinafter referred to as “OFT Case IS”)

20. The Claimant reserves the right to raise additional issues at a later date, depending upon inter alia any defences that the Defendant lodges.

 

PART 2- INDICATION OF CLAIMANT’S SPECIFIC REASONING, ARGUMENTS, ETC

 

No contract ever existed between the parties hereto

21. No admissions are made by the Claimant as to the incorporation of any term in any contract between the parties hereto purporting to entitle the Defendant to levy the Charges. If the Defendant intends to rely upon such a term whatsoever as part of any defence it seeks to advance, then the Claimant calls upon it to show that such a contract and term did in fact exist.

22. Furthermore, except as detailed in paragraphs 62 and 63 of these particulars, no admission is made by the Claimant whatsoever as to whether she entered into a contract with the Defendant whatsoever. If the Defendant intends to rely upon such a contract whatsoever as part of any defence it seeks to advance, then the Claimant calls upon it to show that such a contract did in fact exist.

23. The Claimant does not recall ever entering into a contract with the Defendant with respect to the Account.

24. Assuming, the Defendant is unable to show that a contract existed as per paragraphs 21 and 22 then the Defendant cannot claim to have ever had any right whatsoever to levy the Charges against the Account and the Claimant is entitled to Judgement as sought in paragraph 64.

25. For the avoidance of all doubt, the rest of this claim is pleaded without prejudice to the non-admissions plead in paragraphs 21 and 22, and the submissions made in paragraphs 16(b) and 16(d).

 

Charges arise from a breach of contract

26. Should the Defendant be able to show that the Terms & Conditions form part of a contract binding the Claimant in relation to the Account, then it is almost axiomatic that the Charges are a result of breaches of contract on behalf of the Claimant.

27. The Claimant makes particular reference to the following. All of the Charges relate to a case where the Claimant has allowed a request for payment of an item to be presented against the Account, whilst it contained insufficient funds to cover the transaction. This is a clear breach of the Terms & Conditions. Term C4 makes it abundantly clear that, should the Terms & Conditions form part of a contract between the parties hereto then, the Claimant must have funds in her account to cover payment of items presented against it. As such, should the Terms & Conditions form part of contract between the parties hereto then, the Charges can only pertain to breaches of contract. Accordingly, the Charges are penalty charges and cannot be said to merely be service charges.

 

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (S 2083/1999)

28. Any contract between the parties hereto falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the UTCCR as the Claimant could only be a consumer, within the meaning of the UTCCR, in relation to any contract between the parties hereto.

29. Regulation 5(l) of the UTCCR provides as follows: ‘A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall he regarded as unfair if contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a sign unbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.”

30. Paragraph 1 to Schedule 2 of the UTCCR includes all “terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails tojuIjIl his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation” as being part of a indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which maybe regarded as unfair” (Regulation 5(5) UTCCR).

31. Paragraph 1(k) to Schedule 2 of the UTCCR includes all “terms which have the object or effrct oJ’enahling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics oJ’the product or service to be provided” as being part of the “indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may he regarded as un/air”. The Terms & Conditions allows the Defendant to unilaterally alter the charges applied for “Unarranged Overdrafts”, “Unpaid Item(s)” and “Referral Charges”.

32. Regulation 8(l) of the UTCCR provides that: “.1n unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.”

33. Particular reference is made to OFT case 4. Clause W’ had the potential to impose a high financial penalty when payment was not received within seven days of the date of invoice. The OFT revised same to make clear that interest will be charged at 4% above a high street bank rate per annum if payment not received within 7 days of the date of invoice.

34. Further reference is made to OFT Case IS. In that case Clause 7 of the company provided for the supplier to charge interest on unpaid fees at an excessive rate above the bank base rate. Also unclear as to how the interest would be charged. The OFT amended the clause so interest was charged on unpaid fees at 3% per annum above the bank base rate. Further, an administration fee offlO per letter sent concerning unpaid fees was deleted.

35. Further reference is made to OFT case 18. In that case, a commission clause had the potential to allow the estate agent to charge a penalty fee for late payments. The OFT revised the clause to reflect the company’s practice of charging 8% per annum or the current rate of county court interest on late payments.

36. Accordingly, in light of paragraphs 33, 34 and 35, the Defendant is being at minimum fairly and amply compensated for unauthorised lending by the imposition of its unarranged overdraft interest rate. The imposition of further charges is unfair in terms of the UTTCR.

37. Separtim without prejudice to paragraph 16(b), 21 and 22 hereinbefore, regardless of whether or not this court finds that the Charges are remuneration to the Defendant for services rendered rather than compensation for damages arising from a breach of contract, if a term of contract exists between the parties hereto that purports to allow the Defendant to levy the Charges to the Account then such a term of contract is unfair, and hence unlawful and unenforceable, by virtue of regulation 5(I) of the UTCCR.

38. Accordingly, in light of the averments made hereinbefore regarding the Charges being disproportionate and punitive, any term of contract purporting to allow the Defendant to levy the Charges is deemed to be unfair and unenforceable by virtue of Regulations 5(l), 5(5) and 8(I), and paragraphs 1(e) and 1(k) of Schedule 2, all of the UTCCR. As such the Claimant is entitled tojudgement as sought in paragraph 64.

 

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

39. Any term of contract between the parties hereto purporting to entitle Defendant to levy the Charges to the Account is unenforceable by virtue of s4 UCTA. In this eventuality the Claimant is entitled to judgement as sought in paragraph 64 of these particulars.

40. Specifically, any such term would represent an indemnity clause in a contract where one of the parties deals as a consumer. Consequently such a term would be unenforceable as it would be unreasonable.

41. Under s 1 of the UCTA the requirement of reasonableness is that “the term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made.”

 

Common law

42. The authorities mentioned in paragraph 18 and the facts mentioned hereinbefore make it abundantly clear that, any term of contract purporting to allow the Defendant to levy the Charges against the Account, is a penalty clause and hence unenforceable at common law. In particular, the cases of Dunlop and Hills are powerful authorities in favour of the Claimant. Additionally, the case of McAlpine seems to re-affirm the views in these cases. Accordingly, the Claimant is entitled to judgment as sought in paragraph 64 of these particulars.

43. Lord Dunedin formulated the test for Penalty clauses as follows, in Hills “The general principle to be deduced is ... that the criterion of whether a sum -- be it called penalty or damages -- is truly liquidated damages, and as such not to be interfered with by the Court, or is truly a penalty which covers the damage if proved, but does not assess it, is to be found in whether the sum stipulated for can or can not be regarded as a ‘genuine pre estimate’ of the creditor’s probable or possible interest in the due performance of the principal obligation”

44. It was further noted in Dunlop that “There is a presumption (but no more) that it is penalty when a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage”.

45. Lord Dunedin, went further in Dunlop and, laid down three rules concerning penalty clauses:

a. The use of the words ‘penalty’ or ‘liquidated damages’ may prima facie be supposed to mean what they say, yet the expression used is not conclusive.

b. The essence of a penalty is a payment of money as “en terrorem” of the offending party; the essence of liquidated damages is a genuine covenanted pre-estimate of damage.

c. Whether a sum stipulated is penalty or liquidated damages is a questions of construction to be decided upon the terms and inherent circumstances of each particular contract, judged as of the time of making the contract, not as at the time of breach. There are a number of tests which would prove helpful, or even conclusive:

i. it will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison to the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach;

ii. it will be held to be a penalty if the breach consists only in not paying a sum of paying, and the sum stipulated is a sum greater than the sum which ought to have been paid.

46. In McAlpine, the aforementioned common law principles were held to generally be correct. Furthermore, it was held that where there was a substantial discrepancy between the level of damages stipulated in the contract and the level of’ damages which is likely to he suffered it can he said that the agreed pre-estim ate is unreasonable”

 

Response to possible service defence

47. This section is merely meant as a response to the possible defence, that the Defendant may attempt to raise, that the Charges are merely remuneration for services rendered and that the law on Penalty charges is irrelevant. This section is plead without prejudice should the Defendant not plead such a defence, or this court not find that the charges are merely remuneration for services rendered and provided for by an enforceable term of contract between the parties hereto. Furthermore, this section is plead without prejudice to the caveat of paragraph 25 of this claim.

48. Should this court, being of competent jurisdiction, find that the Charges are remuneration for services rendered by the Defendant, then they are irrecoverable as set out in this section hereinafter, due to in a/ia the fact that any terms which provide for the Charges are unfair and the Charges themselves are unreasonable. In that eventuality the Claimant is entitled to Judgement as sought in paragraph 64.

49. In particular, the Charges are unreasonable in the terms of sl5 Supply qf Goods and Services Act 1982. The Claimant submits to this honourable court that a charge of £20.00 for the administration resulting from the Claimant going over her authorised overdraft limit by £0.01 isn’t reasonable by any stretch of the imagination. The same can be said for a charge of £30.00 for an item which is returned as unpaid.

50. Furthermore, the Charges, regardless of their de facto nature are unfair by virtue of Regulation 5(I) of the UTCCR. Particular reference is made to the fact that any term of contract which purports to allow the Defendant to levy the Charges to the Account, contrary to the requirement of good faith, causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the Claimant, who in this case is a consumer.

 

Distress and inconvenience suffered by the Claimant

51. The Defendant was aware, due to the transactions on the Account, that the Claimant’s income derived solely from state-funded benefits. The amount of these benefit’s was determined, by the relevant authorities, to be the minimum amount that the law stated the Claimant required to live on. Despite, this the Defendant unlawfully and erroneously levied the Charges to the Account. As such, due to the Defendant’s unlawful actions, the Defendant’s was left with significantly less than the “legal minimum” to live on. In some cases the majority of the Claimant’s income was debited from the Account, by the Defendant, in the way of the Charges, which were unlawful. As such, the Claimant’s standard of living was significantly suppressed due to the Charges.

52. [Removed from public file]. This impoverished condition is caused by inter alia a significant portion of the Claimant’s income being consumed by the Charges. [Removed from public file].

53. Accordingly the Claimant is entitled to compensation for Distress caused by the Defendant as detailed in paragraph 64(d) of these particulars.

54. The Claimant has spent significant time, effort and money in researching this case, and also in corresponding and pleading with the Defendant in attempt to have the Charges refunded to the Account. Accordingly the Claimant is entitled to compensation for inconvenience caused by the Defendant as detailed in paragraph 64© of these particulars.

 

Other relevant facts

55. Parliament has noted that the average default charge, in the banking industry, has increased by over 50% from £12 in 1998 to nearly £19 in 2003. It could be considered strange that the industry’s costs have risen so dramatically, when compared with the rate of inflation. Also, continued advances in IT should have reduced costs by automating processes.

56. The Claimant has never been the subject of debt recovery action, or been pursued for payment of debt, by the Defendant. In addition, the Defendant has never been required to undertake any work other than sending automated letters to the Claimant with regard to Unpaid Items, Unarranged Overdrafts and Referral Charges.

 

Aggravated and Exemplary Damages

57. The facts contained hereinbefore indicate that the Defendant’s behaviour, included but was not limited to:

a. levying disproportionate and unlawful charges against the Account;

b. refusing to refund the Charges when it was made clear to the Defendant that the Charges were unlawful; and

c. causing significant distress and inconvenience to an unemployed single mother.

58. As such the Claimant contends that the Defendant’s behaviour is:

a. objectionable; and

b. is such that the court show profound disapproval of

59. Accordingly, the Claimant asks the court to grant aggravated and exemplary damages as detailed in Paragraphs 64(f) and 64(g) of these particulars.

 

Implied and/or imposed contractual term regarding interest

60. Defendant charges interest to the Claimant, via the Account, at its published “unarranged overdraft rate” of 29.84%. The Defendant claims that it is entitled to charge this rate, by virtue of the Terms & Conditions.

61. The unarranged overdraft rate is charged to the Claimant, via the Account, when the Claimant draws money from the Account whilst she hasn obtained permission from the Defendant for exceeding any overdraft limit that she has. It is in effect, a rate that the Defendant charges the Claimant when she draws funds from the Defendant when she has no right for doing so.

62. Using, that reasoning and maintaining the principal of equity, mutuality and reciprocity between the parties, the Claimant contends that she is entitled to an equal rate of interest in this case. The Claimant notes in particular that the Defendant erred in law. had no legal right to levy the charges to the Account and refused to refund the Charges when asked to do so by the Claimant.

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

 

PART 3 CONCLUSION

 

Details of Judgement Sought by Claimant

64. Accordingly the Claimant seeks:

a. the return of the amounts debited in respect of the Charges, as detailed in Schedule. The total sum whereof being £1357.50

b. the return of the Subject Access Request Fee, in the amount off £10.00, that the Claimant was required to pay in the perusal of this case

c. an award of £100.00 as compensation for the significant inconvenience caused to the Claimant by the Defendant erroneously levying the Charges to the Account;

d. an award of £500.00 as compensation for distress caused to the Claimant by the Defendant erroneously levying the Charges to the Account;

e. an award of £100.00 to remunerate the Claimant for printing, photocopying, admin, general and other expenses necessarily incurred, and also the time spent in preparation and perusal for this claim;

f. an award of £150.00 to the Claimant, for exemplary damages;

g. an award of £100.00 to the Claimant, for aggravated damages;

h. court costs; and

i. interest, either:

i. pursuant to the implied and/or imposed term of contract between the parties hereto as detailed in paragraphs 62 and 63. Claimant calculates interest at said rate up until 17 July 2006 as being £2075.88, details whereof are provided in Schedule B and Schedule C, attached hereto. Interest per day thereafter, or part thereof, is £1.20; or

ii. should this court not find that the Claimant is entitled to interest in accordance with the Defendant’s “Unarranged overdraft rate” then, at the Defendant’s Debtor Interest Rates” as all detailed in Schedule D and Schedule E, attached hereto. Interest, in that case, up until 17 July 2006 amounts to £928.72. Interest per day thereafter, or part thereof, is £0.54.

iii. should this court not find that aforesaid implied and or imposed contractual term does exist, Claimant claims interest pursuant to s69 County Courts Act. Interest, in that case, up until 17 July 2006 amounts to £556.54, as detailed in Schedule F and Schedule G, attached hereto. Interest per day thereafter, or part thereof, is £0.32.

65. In conclusion total amount sought by the Claimant is £2317.50, plus interest of £2075.88 until 17 July 2006 and £1.20 per day thereafter, or part thereof.

 

Statement of Truth

The Claimant believes that the contents of these particulars of claim are true

 

SIGNED

 

Date: 20 July 2006

__________________

[TANZARELLI]

I have sent my first letter into Barclaycard requesting my charges back, received a letter off them this morning stating that as my card is a Littlewoods card financed by Barclaycard and the charges have only been £10 each time that "I am not entitled to a refund as the charges levied on my account are a maximum of £10.00 and are therefore in line with the OFT recommendation"

Am I right in thinking that I am entitled to these charges back and to now send them the lba letter. Any advice anyone thanks:-x

 

Yes thats right.

 

Just because they are below the OFT's threshold, does not mean that they are lawful. Carry on and stick to your own timetable.

 

Tanz

[jessiebaby]

Thanks for that Tanz will plod through and get it sorted many thanks

[jessiebaby]

Can someone please check my wording for my particulars of claim to check if it is ok thanks.

1 The Claimant has an account *****

with the defendant,opened 2004

2Since June 2004 the Defendant debited

charges and interest in respect of

purported breaches of contract.3 The

Defendant is aware of all charges and

interest as a list of charges has already

been supplied.Another copy will be

sent.4.Claimant contendsa)The charges

exceed the Defendants losses caused by the

breaches;(b)The term permitting the

Defendant to levy such charges is

unenforcable under the Unfair Terms in

Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999,Unfair

Contract Terms Act 1977 and at Common

Law.5.Claimant claimsa)return of the

amounts debited of £160.00

The Claimant also claims interest at a rate of 28.30%, from the date of each transaction todate of claim of £81.52,as set out in the attached list of charges. The claimant further claims interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxxx per day.The Claimant believes this rate to be justified under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity.

Also can you help me what calculation do I use to work out the daily interest amount, I have used vampiress spreadsheet simple version with compounded contractural interest,

[TANZARELLI]

You would be advised to add in the alternative the statutory 8% interest amount:

 

"The Claimant believes this rate to be justified under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity, and is based on the Defendants cash advance rate that would be applied under the terms of the above mentioned account.

 

Should the court find that this interest rate is not applicable, then in the alternative the Claimant wishes to claim interest pursuant to section 69........"

 

 

to work out the daily rate use this calulation:

 

charges total x 0.00022 = daily rate in pence.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Tanz

[jessiebaby]

Thanks Tanz I am having trouble filing on mcol because of amount of space available can I cut anything out in order to add bit about 8% interest section 69

Cheers

Kath

[TANZARELLI]

Thanks Tanz I am having trouble filing on mcol because of amount of space available can I cut anything out in order to add bit about 8% interest section 69

Cheers

Kath

 

I would recomend using the N1 route its so much easier. You have more space to add your POC. All you do is then take it into your local court.

 

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n1_0102.pdf

 

The only times i have used MCOL i made mistakes.

 

Tanz