Keith Jeramiah!?

[Movingon]

*stamps feet*

 

I WANNA ITEM E!!!

[Rooster-UK]

e) bah-goom, there's trouble at t'mill !

[oblong21]

Guys, let's not get carried away with the fact that Keith "stupid-surname" Jeremiah is responding to our claims.

 

No disrespect to Mr Jeremiah (or other folk unfortunate enough to share his surname), but I expect he is no more than a low to middle-ranking bank employee, with little if any legal training, whose job title as "legal executive" gives him a 90% remit of replying to claims submitted by post or email. Simply stating the intent of Barclays to defend in full the relevant case. The other 10% of his job description probably involves urns, hot water, and lots of tea bags or decaf.

 

We must retain perspective, and find it encouraging that Barclays are;

 

a) clearly inundated with claims

b) have employed a fella called Jeremiah to handle the paperwork

c) show little understanding of the legal or wider implications of their predicament

d) have yet to successfully defend a claim (in full, or otherwise)

e) there is no letter e.

 

All knowing and scornful Don, i doubt it. I rang to speak with him and left a voicemail and it was his ' assistant ' who called me back as he was away. In addition I would expect that as he is the person named on all of the forms he would /will be the person attending as representation of Barclays - much in the same way if we intend for a solicitor or other person to attend on our behalf, we must name them on the AQs.

 

Hello - this is a multi billion pound institution - I work for a company that has roughly 300 employees that has its own Full Time legal team - albeit a team of two! It is an absolute certainty that they do and if so it is only logical that this chap is one of them, not some phone monkey who also does the lawns. In any case, we are having a bit of fun!

 

If not, and somebodys reading, Keith, as Creative Director of Hot Beverages, mines tea with two, milky. Cheers son!

[Dom]

Hi Folks,

 

Recieved an acknowledgement of service this morning from the court...

 

Barclays intend to defend and have ticked the appropriate box...

 

However 'Hot news' it looks like Keith Jeramiah has realised he is going to be mega busy defending these claims the length and breadth of the country, and has taken on a trainee... a 'Nicholas Hartigan' (trainee solicitor) has signed the form...

 

Lets see what 'he' can come up with in 28 days...

[banks war on poor]

i also received the acknowledgement of service from Barclays today and signed by Nicholas Hartigan. His email is: [email protected]

 

He is going to learn real fast !!

[Don Quioxte]

Nicholas Hartigan' (trainee solicitor) has signed the form...

 

Obviously a pre-requisite for employment in the legal services department of Barclays.. you will have a pretentious or silly sounding surname.

 

they'll be a J R R Hartley or Jethro Tull signing the next claim.

 

Actually, there is one other possibility.

 

Maybe Keith Jeremiah has had to take sick leave because of the stress and abrupt increase in workload...

[oblong21]

Have a date to see one of them - see my thread or one of the mods will slap my bottom!

[CrispDust]

Maybe Keith Jeremiah has had to take sick leave because of the stress and abrupt increase in workload...

 

Ha ha, a solicitor with a workload? Don't make me laugh.

[Rooster-UK]

I think that as time goes on, we'll see more names. After all, a person can't be defending in more than one court at the same time.

At least this new name is anagram friendly.

 

 

Nicholas Hartigan...........

 

Sir Anal Aching-Hot.

Hail Ignorant Cash.

Clannish Goat-hair.

 

[CrispDust]

I think that as time goes on, we'll see more names. After all, a person can't be defending in more than one court at the same time.

At least this new name is anagram friendly.

 

 

Nicholas Hartigan...........

 

Sir Anal Aching-Hot.

Hail Ignorant Cash.

Clannish Goat-hair.

 

 

I like the first one best. Describes how certain Barclays moneygrabbers might feel when this is all over....

[Rooster-UK]

Kieth Jeremiah.........

 

 

MR JAKE HI-TEE-HI.

 

 

That's the best that I can come up with.

[Bookworm]

Have a date to see one of them - see my thread or one of the mods will slap my bottom!

 

Ah no, that's a service, not a penalty, we charge extra for that!

 

.

[davesuecpl]

Keith Jeramiah has also submitted defence in my case with the Woolwich so you can add my name to the growing list

 

PS not had hearing date yet

[swifts92]

Looks like He is busy supposedly defneing all these users claims in the same week eh!

 

Skippy

Red_ratty_rat

Boonyed

Krisbutler

Kaznelson

Jinx_UK_98

Don Quioxte

JJ

Exbarclaysbanker

Oblong21

Babylon

Bren_01uk

Rebel_uk

Icefall

Carl stevens

Dom

Gemsurf

 

I bet you they WILL back down! He must be innundated! :lol:

Add my name to the list.Received defence notification from Mr Keith Jerimiah today

[CrispDust]

Should we start a seperate thread for Mr Hartigan, the trainee?

[Pillowatrick]

Add my name to the list please. Received notification that Barclays was defending my claim a few days ago.

[mossysue]

yes, and me too..!

[twinkle]

And me, except I get Nicholas Hartigan defending!

[BankFodder]

Any chance that somebody might be prepared to e-mail a scan or the defence please.

[slimliz30]

my case was settled by mr jeramiah,very nice man gave me all my charges back so do not worry peeps your money will be in your bank soon...good luck all ...paul

[Alleycat]

Got sent notification that they were going to defend by Nicholas Hartingdon a week or so ago.

[antony273]

Add me to the list!

[Mervalous]

Add me to the Nicholas Hartigan trainee list.

 

Only had acknowledgement to defend so far.

[Guy]

For BF and reference.

 

Barclays defence for our case is as follows:

 

1. They admit the claimant has an account with no authorised o d limit. They say that previously the claimant had the benefit of authorised limits of £600 and £450 but these have been withdrawn.

1.2 The balnce is currently £530.94 OD.

1.3 THe claimant incured bank chrges (paid referral fees) for unauthorised borroings by exeeding the aforemenioned authorised limits over the period 2000 - 2006

2. The defendant is entitled t charge by virtue of its standard terms and conditions, which the claimant accepted when the account was opened in feb 1999.

The terms and conditions which applied to this account would be:

i) A paid referral fee is charged when you go over your paid referral buffer. You will not incur more than three fees in any monthly period.

ii)£25 per day.

3. The defendants standard terms and conditions gives the claimant a fair and transparent view of those terms and the cahrges applicable for unauthoruisedborrowings (including whee the account is od without an od limitor where the customer exceeds thgeir od limit.

4. The charges the claimant paid to teh defendant when she incurred an od were payments which, under the T's & C's of the account, she agreed to make.

5. such administrative costs were consideration for the defendant advancing further credit to the claimant.

6. The defendant was under no obligation to advance the aforementioned further credit to the claimant, and was entitled to impose the charges when teh claimant incurred the OD.

7. It is denied that teh defendants charges are unenforceable, as alleged. It is further denied that the sums were unlawfully debited form the claimants account.

8. In all the premises, it is averred the bank charges are legally enforceable and the defendant was entitled to charge.

9. the defendant denies that it is liable to the claimant for the tortal sum claimed of £641.81 or at all.

 

 

This is a bit stronger in wording than my Natwest one was.

Points to note specifically in this case - they say there was an agreed od of £600. The only time in recollection of an OD was when a payment plan was set up to clear the OD this was recent. The total amount claimed is actually more than the current balance ie the account is £530 OD but this is ALL cahrges so if there had been an OD facility there would be no charges so no need to sue them.

 

point 5 consideration for further advancement - £25 a time.

Point 6 the bank could have NOT paid an Not charged.

 

THe whole defence really hangs on pomt 8 wher they say the charges ARE legally enforceable and there are enough cases / arguments and precedence to show otherwise.

 

Anyway - hope this helps BF and does this defense compare to any / all of teh others in this thread.

 

plaese excuse the attrocious spelling - got a dodgy wireless keyboard which my little one insists on pouring juice into.

[jinx_uk_98]

Hi Guys,

 

I'm still waiting for a date of my court hearing but have recivied a letter from the courts

 

Reads as follows:

 

Further to the filing of allocation questionannaries in the above case Judge Jolly has reviewed the file and made the following comments:,

 

"It is difficultto see how the Defendant, absent any witness evidence, could show reasonableness of charges or details of its costs. Surely there will be a witness. This has a bearing on the time estimate for the case. Any observations please within 10 days, whereafter file to be referred to district Judge Jolly for directions."

 

What do you guys think? Sounds quite good I think.

 

thanks