Can I claim Punitive damages

[stevie8abes]

Hi everyone,

 

I'm in the process of claiming my charges back from Barclays and have got to the stage where it's been referred to County Court as Barclays have put in a ridulous defence and I fully expect them to make the full offer just in time to avod the case being heard.

 

Obviously, this is annoying and I now want to claim punitive damages against Barclays. Can I do this? Am I able to increase my claim to include punitive damages or would this require a new claim being levied against them at the Small Claims Court process? Can I right to them and explain that the only offer I will now entertain is a full offer plus the punitive damages?

 

These punitive damages would be due to the stress I have been subjected to as a result of the actual charges being levied in the first place but also the hassle of getting my money back from them.

 

Does anyone know what my options are?

[Azazal23]

Have a look at this

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Judge warns 'unreasonable' banks

 

Its possible but i dont think you would get much, you require alot more work. If you have the time give it a wirl.

[stevie8abes]

Thanks for that.

 

I too saw the same news article which is why I raised the question.

 

However, I've just seen this:

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Bank's overdraft charges upheld

 

Which, as my current claim is awaiting to go before a District Judge, doesn't bode too well. Fortunately it's not in Birmingham.

[Azazal23]

I would think that that could be a case of the claimant being more unprepared than anything. I get the impression most people on here are in the belief that the banks will always back down, it was always going to happen, maybe they spotted a flaw in his/her POC's and decided to exploit it for some publicity

[justwon]

Yeah probably.

 

"Judge Mackie pointed out that in some cases bank customers had tried to claim damages for stress and inconvenience. Such claims have been unsuccessful so far..."

 

I have actually helped in a case where the bank paid about £1000 in exemplary and aggravated damages along with damages for stress and inconvenience. The problem however with these claims is, as one person on this site said to me, most claims for stress and inconvenience "sound like rants". You also really need to have a good knowledge of the case law around this area, in case you are defended against.

[Azazal23]

yeah i agree you really need to be able to quantify the damages and you need experience or advice from someone who s working in the litigation field.

 

Possible way to add on more money is by "costs" ive just taken Sky Tv to court and claimed £200 for letters and emails phone calls etc.... They have up aswell.

[nobodys fool]

To get damages you'd need to be claiming negligence..(or unreasonableness)

[stevie8abes]

Wise words indeed and thank you all for your insights. I suspect my 'claim' for damages was really born out of frustration at Barclays' delays.

 

Azazal23, I suspect you are right. I was guilty of just downloading the letters without actually knowing what I was claiming for or the rules behind it when I started and I'm sure I would have been laughed out of court. The fact that the bank representatives weren't there and just submitted a standard defence in writing suggests that they were just defending in hope and expecting to lose.

 

It was always going to happen I guess and should serve as a warning that despite the millions already won, we shouldn't get complacent. vbmenu_register("postmenu_828003", true);

[jayz1979]

Hello,

 

I'm interested in this area (i'm not new to the site but this is a new account)

 

I was 100% successful in a large claim against Lloyds. I too am seeking advice on damages but this isn't just a rant (though it of course sounds like one) Would start a new thread but can't for some reason?!

 

Anyway, I completed my claim but rather than allowing that money to stay with Lloyds I took it out a spent it (as is my right) so I still have a large overdraft. I'm in collections and have to pay money back each month. Which is fine.

 

However I am considering taking them to court again for damages. I'm sure it helps that I did the actual claim for charges seperately. Anyway, my point is that all thse charges were levied when I was a student so when I graduated I was hugely in debt to Lloyds. This hindered my chance of getting a job and I had to endure two and a half years of painful low paid jobs just to pay rent. When I think about whetehr I should claim damages I think about all the times that I couldn't eat for a week while their execs drove around in BMWs. There's a lot of material for a case I believe.

 

Also because of their charges (which stem from one intial breach of contract/offence in 2002) I have lost the opportunity of taking full advantages of the graduate account they offered. I couldn't extend my overdraft or obtain a graduate loan which would have all been very helpful. If it weren't for the charges I would have been seen as a 'good customer', not the best but certainly no liability.

 

I am still in contact with LTSB Collections. They're a humourless bunch but because of the way they treat me bringing a case against them is more and more likely. they are nasty and vindictive and continue to threaten me whenever I suggest changes to my payment plan which I feel I am entitled to do.

 

I know that is a rant but there is substance there.

 

Don't let the bastards grind you down.

[stevie8abes]

Hi Jayz1979,

 

Thanks for joining in the thread and contributing your thoughts.

 

As you will have gathered, I'm no legal eagle and not sure of my ground here so good luck with getting your damages. I've decided that I don't have the time, knowledge or sufficient motivation to go for the damages route but that could change if Barclays (and soon to be Halifax) don't see reason and play ball.

 

My contemplation of going after damages was due to similar reasoning. The Banks have made huge profits from these charges which are 'unlawful' which has allowed the fat cats to get fatter whilst those who can least afford it, people like I who were incurring these charges as a result of poor finances and financial management, were funding their lavish lifestyles.

 

As such, surely they should be held accountable and punished for acting unlawfully for profit? Again, my legal knowledge is a little rusty but isn't that fraud or theft - obtaining money unlawfully? (Fraud is obtaining money by deception and theft is taking without the owners consent with the intension to permanently deprive)

 

When I was at the peak/pit of my financial problems and Barclays were quite happily helping themselves to well over £100 per month of my money (thus creating an even harder cycle for em to break) I went to the branch and asked for some advice or to come to some agreement so that I could work my way out of the situation. The branches response was that cos I was already over my overdraft limit they would not consider increasing it and that 'I should learn to manage my money better'! Well stop taking my money each month and I would be able to, I thought!

 

As it is, I changed jobs, changed banks, rejigged my finances and now have much better financial dealings with Nat West and my relationship with a bank has, for the first time, been mutually satisfying. Although I do wish they'd stop ringing me to sell some ISA/savings plan/insurance/etc. I think I preferred it when they didn't want to speak to me.

 

I guess the lesson for us all in this is if we learn to manage our money better, the banks wont charge us and we wont get into this financial mess. Whilst I accept my responsibility in my financial problems I still feel that the banks should be brought to task for acting unlawfully and causing undue pain and stress to situations which are already stressful.

 

However, the relationship between banks and customers isn't as black and white as that I would argue (by the way, my uni essay's were less writing than this is turning out to be). People rely on basic banking services as salaries, pensions and benefits are often paid deirectly into them so it's impossible to exercise a customers right to vote with their feet. Therefore, there should be a non-profit making organisation providing those very basic banking services without any interest or leeway. ie, if you have a payment going out and insufficient funds then you should be charged a reasonable fine/fee for it to be rejected. wasn't this what the post office used to do?

 

Anyway, I suspect that's another thread for discussion. 8)

[jayz1979]

Hi, thanks for replying,

 

That's true but the point has not so much to do with whether or not the customer can manage his/her finances.

 

In my case all the charges can possibly be associated to a single first offence. This first offence caused the account to be £x below what it should have been at the time of the second offence. Therefore after years of this process it is not one's management skills it is specifically the banks maanging skills that cause the customer's financial deprivation.

 

A £1500 + punishment for going overdrawn by £10 is of course extreme and as widely acknowledged unlawful.

 

Therefore it is due to the unlawful charges based on this one offence that has caused the later struggles and consequently the damages claim.

[stevie8abes]

Hi Jayz1979,

 

Sorry if I came across as poking the proverbial finger as this was not my intention. I was merely stating that the management of my finances by me at the time of the charges was bad and exasperated by Barclays taking the charges and that in many cases I could have avoided a night out in order to cover the cost of the charge and reduce the impact of the cycle.

 

Obviously I can't comment on your particular circumstances as I don't know the details. I suspect though a clever lawyer would argue that a £30 charge for going overdrawn by £10 would amount to a £40 debt, which is a good night out and unless you'd lived like a hermit you might have had the opportunity to stop the cycle reaching £1500.

 

However, I am not a clever lawyer or one to judge. I just like to play devils advocate for the good of a debate.