Bobbair vs A+L

[Bobbair]

Ok, I closed my A+L account in 2004 but looking through the statements I have kept (only 2003 and 2004) and there is over a grand worth of charges for those two years. Am sending SAR recorded delivery today to ALLIANCE & LEICESTER PLC, CARLTON PARK, NARBOROUGH, LEICESTER

LE19 0AL and we'll see how much more is there! Not sure at the moment whether to claim 6 years prior to now, 6 years prior to account closure or just for the whole lot since I opened the account in 1995. From reading the forums it seems the first option is the safest, although others are in the process of claiming for > 6 years and I'll follow their progress with interest.

Have to say, am delighted I came accross this site, an excellent resource. Will be happy to donate in the event I am successful. Will also pursue MBNA and Natwest (current and credit card accounts).

[Bobbair]

Think I will shy away from claiming for > 6 years at the moments as it seems to be to be wandering into unchartered territory and may well jeopardise the claim. Best bet seems to be claim up to six years plus contractual interest - at the time i had a 'premier account' and it seems the going rate for overdrafts was around 6.9%. So I will put this in initially then if it goes to court I'll up it to the 8%.

Checked on the Royal Mail website and my SAR was received ok on the 5th Jan. Not a lot to do now except sit and wait!

[HadEnough]

Think I will shy away from claiming for > 6 years at the moments as it seems to be to be wandering into unchartered territory and may well jeopardise the claim. Best bet seems to be claim up to six years plus contractual interest - at the time i had a 'premier account' and it seems the going rate for overdrafts was around 6.9%. So I will put this in initially then if it goes to court I'll up it to the 8%.

 

Checked on the Royal Mail website and my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) was received ok on the 5th Jan. Not a lot to do now except sit and wait!

 

and read as many threads as you can

[Bobbair]

Oooh I dunno, the more I read the forum the more I want to do crazy stuff like make a claim back to 1996 with 29% contractual interest....

[HadEnough]

LOL if your up for a fight why not? but be sure your REALLY ready for it

[Bobbair]

Well, yesterday they returned my cheque and sent copy statements going back to 2001. So no chance of a claim back to 1996!!!

 

Added it all up and there's about 900 quid in charges and I've added contractual interest at 8% for good measure. Sent the prelim today.

[Vintage72]

Can someone please explain the whole contractural interest thing to me. Have gone through nearly every thread and forum and sti9ll struggling to find explanation of how to work this out. Also the spredsheet - Excel to help me set out my claim.

[Bobbair]

Normally you would only add 8% interest at the court stage. However, there is an argument that the 'mutuality and reciprocity' implied in your contract with the bank means that if they charge you, say, 24.9% for unauthorised borrowing then their unlawful charges (which you could say are unauthorised borrowing) can also be subject to the same charge! I used this sheet:

 

http://www.bobbair.plus.com/Contractual.xls

 

which was compliled from various other sheets posted on here. However, before you go ahead I would read some more threads on here (there are lots on the subject of contractual interest) and understand what you are doing first.

[Bobbair]

Got a very rapid response to my prelim, a letter today from Colin Hughes with the standard stuff about charges being applied in accordance with policy and saying that "I am unable to arrange a refund to your account on this occasion".

 

What i do now? As far as I can see the options are:

 

- Wait for the remainder of the 14 days of the prelim to expire and issue an LBA.

- Issue an LBA now as I have had a response to my prelim.

- Go straight to MCOL as they have clearly stated that they will not arrange a refund.

 

Any suggestions?

[SweetCal]

I wouldnt go straight to mcol personally - I would def send the LBA warning them of court action even though it is just a formality. I also stuck to the timescales but I know others havent and it doesnt seem to have jeopardised their claim - I was just worried that despite having a response if I didnt wait out the 14 days I would be going back on what I had said in the prelim and technically they could say they were not given the 14 days they were told they would get. Im sure it wouldnt make a difference but I was just scared of any technicality ruining my claim!

 

When it came to MCOL I did shave a few days off the 14 days in the LBA because I got so impatient!

[Bobbair]

Hmmm see what you mean, I guess going straight to MCOL now is a bit unreasonable on my part!! As for the LBA, reading the prelim again it says "you have 14 days to respond"... then "if you do not respond positively... I shall send you a Letter Before Action" so I guess I should send the LBA now as I have received a response.

[Bobbair]

Managed to resist the temptation to go straight to MCOL and sent a LBA today! Fully expect to get another 'bog off' letter in reply!

[Delboy01]

Sent my LBA today Bobbair after receiving a "blah blah sorry " letter

[Bobbair]

No reply to my LBA. After a lot of reading and much messing about, I have boshed together the following N1, mainly using one I pinched from the forums here! Can someone have a gander and point out any howlers?

 

 

1. The Claimant had a bank account, number xxxxxxxxx (“the Account”), maintained at the Defendant’s Bootle Branch.

 

2. The Account was governed by the Defendant’s Personal Banking Terms and Conditions (“the contract”)

 

3. During the period in which the Account has been operating the Defendant has debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged overdraft interest on the charges once applied.

 

4. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

 

5. A schedule of the charges is attached to these particulars of claim (Appendix 1).

 

6. Under the law of penalties, the charges are an unlawful ‘extravagant’ penalty. Referring to the case of 1896, Wilson v Love, a charge is a penalty if it does not reflect an item’s true cost.

 

7. The Claimant will further rely on the Office of Fair Trading’s (“the OFT”) statement of 5th April 2006 concerning default charges in credit card contracts, as the OFT’s recommendations regarding standard default terms in credit card contracts have wider implications, as regards bank current Account agreements.

 

8. The Claimant thus contends that:

a) The charges debited to the Account:

i) are punitive in nature;

ii) are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant;

iii) exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract

on the part of the Claimant;

iv) are not intended to represent or relate to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

 

b) Further to 8.a), the charges debited to the Account are penalties rather than liquidated damages. A charge is 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. A penalty clause is void in its entirety and unenforceable.

 

c) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.

 

d) In the alternative to 8.a), b) and c), if the Court finds that the charges are not a penalty, then the Claimant contends that they are unreasonable within the meaning of s.15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

 

9. Contractual Interest

a) The Claimant claims compound interest on the amounts claimed under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, using the rate and method specified in the said contract, and as is applied by the Defendant to monies it is owed.

 

b) The Claimant’s grounds for seeking restitution of the compounded contractual rate of interest is that the Defendant would be unjustly enriched if the Claimant's entitlement was limited to the statutory rate of interest in that the Defendant has had use of the sums and would have used these sums to re-lend at commercial compounded rates.

 

c) The Claimant contends that the taking of unlawful penalties from the Claimant’s Account is unauthorised borrowing by the Defendant. Therefore, under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, in the first instance the Claimant has calculated compound interest at the Defendant’s unauthorised borrowing rate, being 17.08%.

 

d) In the alternative to 9.c), if the Court decides that the Claimant is not entitled to the contractual rate of interest under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, then the Claimant has calculated interest under section 69 County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% a year

 

e) Details of interest calculated & rates used are attached to these Particulars of Claim (Appendix 1).

10. Accordingly, the Claimant claims:

a) The return of the amounts debited between 28/09/2002 and 27/07/2004 in respect of charges in the sum of £954.

 

b) All applicable Court fees

 

c) Contractual interest at an annual 17.08 % compounded daily from the date of each transaction to 14th March 2007 of £734.31, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment.

 

d) In the alternative to 10.c), interest under section 69 County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% a year of £254.63, from the date of each transaction to 14th March 2007, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment.

[Bobbair]

Update: Filed my N1 with the local county court last week, was deemed served on teh 17th March.

 

Got a letter today from A+L saying that they intend to defend the claim? I take it this is normal practise? Think I am gonna sweat a bit until they send the cheque!!!