This is Barclays Defence, is it the same as everyone elses?

[Guest 10110001]

The claimant is female... and several other assumptions are made. This is an exact rendition of the defence subitted by Barclays Level 29 department. Has anyone else had the same defence. Claimint has all bank statements to Jan 01 showing charges, so its not an estimated claim. (im testing an estimated claim later - also with Barclays)

 

Comments?

 

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 his account for unauthorised borrowings (whether unpaid fees for returned cheques, “Paid Referral fees” or any other such fees), the Defendant puts the Claimant to 5trict proof of each charge and the date thereof.

 

2. This defence is summary in nature and the Defendant reserves the right to amend this Statement of Case in due course.

 

3. 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)

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

b. 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).

c. The Defendant’s entitlement, if the Claimant becomes overdrawn without an overdraft limit, to charge interest at the unauthorised borrowing rate on the excess

 

4. The Defendant’s standard terms and conditions give the Claimanc 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 authorised overdraft limit).

 

5. If and to the extent it is the Claimant’s case that the failure to make necessary payments and / or failure to remain within authorised overdraft limits and / or 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 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.

 

6. 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 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 1(e) of Schedule 2), or are in breach of the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 (or any other provision).

 

7. 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 or to increase the overdraft facility and / or his failure to make payments to bring the balance of the account back into credit.

 

8. 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.

9. The Defendant denies that it is liable to the Claimant for the sums claimed as

pleaded or at all. In the alternative if (which is denied) the said charges are

unenforceable and constituted a breach of contract by the Defendant, those charges

which were applied to the account prior to 21 February 2001 are not recoverable because they are time-barred under the terms of the Limitation Act 1980 in that more than six years have elapsed since the accrual of the cause of action.

 

10. In the alternative, and without prejudice to matters stated 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, and the charges were a consequence of the breach of contract by the Claimant, the Defendant has nonetheless suffered loss and damage as a consequence of such 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 as set out at paragraphs 3 to 4 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.

[Michael Browne]

Apart from paragraph 2 absolutely identical

[Guest 10110001]

I just tested the defence for plagiarism and it seems to confirm the defence is a generic one for all Barclays/Woolwich bank charge reclaims.

[deemerriman]

except that in paragraph 9 yours is saying any charges requested prior to 21st feb 2001 are not viable (due to the 6 years thing) dunno if u have tried to claim further back than 5 years?

[deemerriman]

sorry, further back than 6 years i ment

[johnstutton]

Slightly different but very similar.

[thespaceshanty]

Mine was the same apart from para 2, the first para claims they did not get a copy of the charges which is rubbish, I sent mine in every correspondance, idiots!

[Guest 10110001]

except that in paragraph 9 yours is saying any charges requested prior to 21st feb 2001 are not viable (due to the 6 years thing) dunno if u have tried to claim further back than 5 years?

 

AFAIK Its 6 years max in England & Wales and 5 years in Scotland.

[Guest 10110001]

Mine was the same apart from para 2, the first para claims they did not get a copy of the charges which is rubbish, I sent mine in every correspondance, idiots!

 

That confirms its a generic defence and is why the Judge has set aside the Allocation Questionaire. They seen this all before.

 

Question

---------

 

I submitted an Application Notice where Ive added interest under Section 69 (of County Courts Act) of £341 plus 0.00022% daily until payment. Could this have any adverse effect on the claim?