STATEMENT of EVIDENCE

[CuriousCat?]

I really need one at the ready.

I'm there with the rest of the bundle I think.

The 'STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE' I found was a for Lloyds account and I wondered if anyone had something more relevant or could explain how to adapt it. Things like how many times HSBC has raised it's charges over the last six years...

 

Much appreciated

[freakyleaky]

This is the one that rich did. If you use this one and the one from nawandas thread and just adapt it to suit it will be fine. as for the bit about how many times they have raised there charges, I ust put that they had raised there charges and I had been charged between £18 and £35 per item within that period!

 

CLAIM NO: 7QZnnnnn

 

In the Brentford County Court

 

 

Mr & Mrs xxxxxxxx

 

 

Claimant

-AND-

 

 

HSBC Bank PLC

 

 

Defendant

 

 

CASE SUMMARY

_________________________ _________________________ ___

1. We are the Claimant in this case.

 

2. On 9 February 2007 we wrote to the Defendant requesting a fully comprehensive list of all default charges over the last 6 years.

 

3. On 22 February 2007 we received all statements over the last 6 years from the defendant.

 

4. On 5 March 2007 we wrote to the Defendant requesting a refund of charges.

 

5. On 23 March 2007 we wrote again to the Defendant requesting a refund of charges and advising I would file a claim should I not receive a satisfactory response.

 

6. On 17 April 2007 we filed with Northampton County Court a claim against the Defendant for the return of excessive penalty charges as outlined in our Particulars of Claim.

 

7. On 1 May 2007, we received a reduced offer from the defendant.

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

 

8. On 7 May 2007, we declined the offer and advised that legal action has been taken against the defendant.

 

9. On 23 May 2007, the defendant submitted a defence to our claim.

 

10. On 25 May 2007, we submitted the list of charges to DG solicitors(HSBC Bank’s solicitors) as we had not heard from them. We also sent the same list to Brentford County Court requesting these to be attached to the particulars of our claim.

 

11. On 11 June 2007, we sent a further letter to DG Solicitors requesting a more timely resolution to the matter and suggesting to avoid further intervention from the courts, they should settle this with us as soon as possible.

 

12. On 18 June 2007, we received the Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing) from Brentford County court.

 

13. On 21 June 2007, we sent a further letter to DG Solicitors requesting an early settlement to this case.

 

14. The Claimant contends that:-

 

a. The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and are not intended to represent or related 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. The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, Paragraph 8, Schedule 2(1)(e); The Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 Section 4; and the Common Law.

11. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

i. The return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £1177.50 which includes overdraft interest charged;

 

ii. Court costs (court fee of £120.00).

 

iii. Interest of £224.55 (as at 11.01.07) under Section 69 of the County Courts Act as set out on the attached list of charges.

 

12. I would respectfully ask that the Court, in this case, notwithstanding allocation to the small claims track, order standard disclosure.

a. The Defendant to file at the Court office and serve me with a list setting out how charges have been calculated.

b. I understand that it is in the Courts discretion to do so.

 

 

Statement of Truth

I believe the facts stated within this Case Summary to be true comprising of xx pages.

 

Dated this day of 25 June 2007

 

Signed

[CuriousCat?]

But this is a summary, rather than evidence. Will this really be adequate?

 

THANK YOU by the way

[freakyleaky]

Have you seen nawandas on her thread? Mix the 2!

[freakyleaky]

here is lotte's. the bits in red are just questions she was asking! so don't include them.

 

 

1. The Claimant has an account number ********** with the Defendant which was opened as a student account on or around October 1991 and updated to a standard joint current account on or around July 1996.

 

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

 

3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.

 

4. The Claimant submits that the charges levied to his bank account, as set out in the attached schedule, are, notwithstanding the contention of the defendant, penalty charges arising from and relating directly to breaches of contract on the part of the claimant. As a contractual penalty, the charges are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Unfair Contracts (Terms) Act 1977, and the common law.

 

5. It is admitted that the Defendant’s charges were levied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the account in question. However, it is submitted that the Defendants charges are not related to or intended to represent any actual loss arising from a breach of contract, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which, by virtue of the legislation cited in paragraph 4 above, exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

 

6. The Defendant avers that the charges levied are legitimate fixed price contractual services, unrelated to breaches of contract, which are therefore not required to be a pre-estimate of loss incurred on the part of the defendant. The Claimant further submits that this contention is merely an attempt to ‘cloak’, or disguise, their penalties in order to circumvent the common law and statutory prohibition of default penalty charges with view to a profit.

 

7. The Claimant believes the definition of a 'service' to be a provision of knowledge, skill or other transferable facility that benefits the consumer, and one that the consumer agrees is at a reasonable market rate commensurable with the service provided. The Claimant believes it to be inconceivable that the charges levied to his account by the defendant could be any form of ‘service’, rather than a penalty.

 

8. I understand the definition of 'breach of contract' to be the failure of a party, without legal excuse, to perform a contractually agreed obligation pursuant to any or all of the terms agreed within that contract. I have an overdraft with the defendant. This overdraft has a contractually agreed limit, which is an express term of the bank account contract between myself and the Defendant. When I exceeded this agreed overdraft limit, therefore breaching an express term of the contract between myself and the Defendant, I was consequentially penalised for each such breach by way of a charge ranging from £18 to £27.50.

 

9. In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co [1915] AC 79, Lord Dunedin stated that a clause is a penalty if it provides for;

 

"The essence of a penalty is a payment of money stipulated as in-terrorem of the offending part;”

I.e. if it is designed to scare or coerce or is used as a threat. It is submitted that the charges applied are not representative of any 'service' provided by the Defendant, but instead are punitive, and held "in-terrorem".

 

10. The Claimant further submits that the Defendant’s contention that the charges are now a legitimate service charge represents a contradiction to materials published by the bank previously. Midland Bank’s 1996 Terms and Conditions section 7.9 state: “As well as charging interest for unauthorised overdrafts, we may also charge a fee to cover the cost of the administration involved”

Is this the right thing to argue or have I completely misunderstood?! Also still not really clear on which T&C's and how many to use. Don't want to go for overkill - don't want to miss anything really important ...

 

11. The Claimant refers to the statement from the Office of Fair Trading (April 2006), who conducted a thorough investigation into default charges levied by the British financial industry. While the report primarily focused on Credit card issuers, the OFT stated that the principle of their findings would also apply to Bank account charges. They ruled that default charges at the current level were unfair within their interpretation of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. With regard to the ‘cloaking’ or disguising of penalties, the OFT said this;

 

“4.21 The analysis in this statement is in terms of explicit, transparent default fees. Attempts to restructure accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made should be viewed as disguised penalties and equally open to challenge where grounds of unfairness exist. (For example, a charge for ‘agreeing’ or ‘allowing’ a customer to exceed a credit limit is no different from a customers default in exceeding a credit limit.) The UTCCR’s are concerned with the intentions and effects of terms, not just their mechanism”.

 

12. As submitted above, the Claimant believes the charges levied to his account to be disproportionate contractual penalties, arising from clear and demonstrable breaches of express terms of the account contract between itself and the Defendant. The Claimant vehemently refutes the Defences contention that they are legitimate contractual service charges.

 

13. However, and without prejudice to the above, in the event the charges were accepted by this honourable court as being a fee for a contractual service, the claimant submits that they are unreasonable under section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

 

14. Further, under the UTCCR:

 

"5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

 

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

 

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was."

 

Schedule 2 also includes such clauses (to define examples of unfair clauses) as:

 

"(i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;

 

(j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;

 

(m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract."

 

The defendant is a multi-national corporation. The term regarding charges was inserted unilaterally in contract. The contract was pre and mass produced and I had no opportunity to negotiate the clause, or indeed any of the contract.

 

15. Following on from the above, the claimant does not accept The Defendants contention that the charges are enforceable as a service charge. It is not disputed that the Defendant is entitled to recover its damages following my breaches of contract, and it is entitled to include a liquidated damages clause. I accept without reservation the banks right to recover its actual losses or a genuine pre-estimate thereof. A penalty however, is unenforceable.

 

16. The Claimant cites the case of Robinson v Harman [1848] 1 Exch 850 which states that a contractual party cannot profit from a breach and that the charge for a loss suffered from a breach of contract should be the amount necessary to put both parties in the same position before the breach occurred.

 

17. Lord Dunedin in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co [1915] AC 79 set down a number of principles in definition of a penalty clause and how such clause may be ascertained from a liquidated damages clause. One of these principles being -

 

"The sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could have been suffered from the breach"

 

 

18. The Claimant will further rely on numerous recorded authorities dating throughout the 20th century up to the most recent case of Murray v Leisureplay [2005] EWCA Civ 963, all of which have upheld and reinforced the principles set down by Lord Dunedin defining contractual penalty clauses and the unenforceability thereof.

 

19. Further, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, schedule 2 (1) includes to define an example of an unfair clause as -

 

"(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;"

 

20. In a recent study undertaken in Australia, (Nicole Rich, “Unfair fees: a report into penalty fees charged by Australian Banks”) it was estimated that the cost to an Australian Bank of a customers direct debit refusal was estimated to be in the region of 54 cents. By reviewing the charges against the above figure, the study estimated that banks could be charging between 64 to 92 times what it costs them to process a direct debit refusal. The study’s key findings stated that in its opinion the Australian Bank’s cheque and direct debit refusal fees were likely to be penalties at law.

 

21. For their recent BBC2 documentary “The Money Programme”, the BBC appointed a commission of former senior banking industry figures and business academics to attempt to ascertain the actual costs to the UK banks of processing a customer’s breach of contract. They concluded that the absolute maximum conceivable cost that could be incurred by a direct debit refusal or overdraft excess is £2.50, and of a returned cheque £4.50. They did state however, that the actual cost is likely to be much less than this. The commission also estimated that the UK banks collectively derive as much as £4.5billion in profit a year from their charging regimes.

 

22. It is submitted that the Defendant’s charges are applied by an automated and computer driven process. This process consists of a computer system ‘bouncing’ the direct debit, and sending out a computer generated letter. It is therefore impossible to envisage how the Defendant can incur costs of between £18 and £27.50* by carrying out this completely automated process. Note that the letter received notifying of a charge is identical in every instance, and if multiple breaches occurred on the same day, a separate letter will be sent in each instance.

*The charges are shown on my statement as being taken out as sums between £18 and £100. I know the ones that are £100 are actually 4 x £25 charges but have nothing to demonstrate this. If I put £100 they'll say their charges were never that much.

 

 

23. On 22nd May 2006, the House of Commons passed an early day motion which welcomed the OFT's statement that default charges should be proportionate to the actual loss incurred. The house described such default charges as "exorbitant" and "excessive".

 

24. The Claimant also cites a radio interview in 2004 with Lloyds TSB’s former head of personal banking, Peter McNamara, in which he states bank charges are used to fund free banking for all personal customers as a whole.

Is it worth putting this in as I am taking HSBC to court and not Lloyds TSB?

 

25. As set out previously, it is submitted that The Defendant’s charges can not be considered to be a service charge. In arguing that they are, they also effectively admit that their charges make profits. The Defendant seemingly contends that their charges are not subject to any assessment of fairness whatsoever. This implies they can set these fees at whatever level they like without limit or regulation. Similarly, as set out above, the charges cannot be considered to be liquidated damages. They, by The Defendant's own admission, are not a pre-estimate of loss incurred as a result of the breach of contract. The charges are punitive, held “in-terrorem", and unduly and extravagantly enrich the Defendant. As such, they are a contractual penalties and unenforceable at law.

 

26. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

 

a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £701.50 and any interest charged thereon;

 

 

b) Court costs;

 

c) The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year, from the date that each charge was applied to 23 April 2007 of £179.72 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of ????.

Not sure what daily amount is - know it is somewhere on this site but if anyone has it to hand would be grateful!

 

 

I, the Claimant, believe all facts stated to be true.

 

Signed, dated.Documents attached in support of this statement

 

* HSBC and Midland Bank’s Terms and Conditions

 

* Office of Fair Trading report, April 2006

* House of commons early day motion, May 2006

* BBC commission conclusion - BBC NEWS | Business | The Money Programme bank commission

* Australian Default charges report, Nicole Rich - Domain Names, Web Hosting, Web Design, Search Engine Optimisation, and Search Engine Marketing at Melbourne IT

[CuriousCat?]

1. The Claimant has an account, number of which; ********** with the Defendant which was opened with Midland Bank in approximately 1985 and then went on to a student account in 1993, a graduate service in June 1996 and then to a current account in June 1999.

 

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

 

3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.

 

4. The Claimant submits that the charges levied to his bank account, as set out in the attached schedule, are, notwithstanding the contention of the defendant, penalty charges arising from and relating directly to breaches of contract on the part of the claimant. As a contractual penalty, the charges are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Unfair Contracts (Terms) Act 1977, and the common law.

 

5. It is admitted that the Defendant’s charges were levied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the account in question. However, it is submitted that the Defendants charges are not related to or intended to represent any actual loss arising from a breach of contract, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which, by virtue of the legislation cited in paragraph 4 above, exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

 

6. The Defendant avers that the charges levied are legitimate fixed price contractual services, unrelated to breaches of contract, which are therefore not required to be a pre-estimate of loss incurred on the part of the defendant. The Claimant further submits that this contention is merely an attempt to ‘cloak’, or disguise, their penalties in order to circumvent the common law and statutory prohibition of default penalty charges with view to a profit.

 

7. The Claimant believes the definition of a 'service' to be a provision of knowledge, skill or other transferable facility that benefits the consumer, and one that the consumer agrees is at a reasonable market rate commensurable with the service provided. The Claimant believes it to be inconceivable that the charges levied to his account by the defendant could be any form of ‘service’, rather than a penalty.

 

8. I understand the definition of 'breach of contract' to be the failure of a party, without legal excuse, to perform a contractually agreed obligation pursuant to any or all of the terms agreed within that contract. I have an overdraft with the defendant. This overdraft has a contractually agreed limit, which is an express term of the bank account contract between myself and the Defendant. When I exceeded this agreed overdraft limit, therefore breaching an express term of the contract between myself and the Defendant, I was consequentially penalised for each such breach by way of a charge ranging from £10 to £30. In November 2005 charges for a period of one month totaled £100.

 

9. In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co [1915] AC 79, Lord Dunedin stated that a clause is a penalty if it provides for;

 

"The essence of a penalty is a payment of money stipulated as in-terrorem of the offending part;”

I.e. if it is designed to scare or coerce or is used as a threat. It is submitted that the charges applied are not representative of any 'service' provided by the Defendant, but instead are punitive, and held "in-terrorem".

 

10. The Claimant further submits that the Defendant’s contention that the charges are now a legitimate service charge represents a contradiction to materials published by the bank previously. Midland Bank’s 1996 Terms and Conditions section 7.9 state: “As well as charging interest for unauthorised overdrafts, we may also charge a fee to cover the cost of the administration involved”

Is this the right thing to argue or have I completely misunderstood?! Also still not really clear on which T&C's and how many to use. Don't want to go for overkill - don't want to miss anything really important ... ANY IDEA IF THIS IS A GOOD IDEA TO ADD IN HERE?

 

11. The Claimant refers to the statement from the Office of Fair Trading (April 2006), who conducted a thorough investigation into default charges levied by the British financial industry. While the report primarily focused on Credit card issuers, the OFT stated that the principle of their findings would also apply to Bank account charges. They ruled that default charges at the current level were unfair within their interpretation of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. With regard to the ‘cloaking’ or disguising of penalties, the OFT said this;

 

“4.21 The analysis in this statement is in terms of explicit, transparent default fees. Attempts to restructure accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made should be viewed as disguised penalties and equally open to challenge where grounds of unfairness exist. (For example, a charge for ‘agreeing’ or ‘allowing’ a customer to exceed a credit limit is no different from a customers default in exceeding a credit limit.) The UTCCR’s are concerned with the intentions and effects of terms, not just their mechanism”.

 

12. As submitted above, the Claimant believes the charges levied to his account to be disproportionate contractual penalties, arising from clear and demonstrable breaches of express terms of the account contract between itself and the Defendant. The Claimant vehemently refutes the Defences contention that they are legitimate contractual service charges.

 

13. However, and without prejudice to the above, in the event the charges were accepted by this honourable court as being a fee for a contractual service, the claimant submits that they are unreasonable under section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

 

14. Further, under the UTCCR:

 

"5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

 

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

 

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was."

 

Schedule 2 also includes such clauses (to define examples of unfair clauses) as:

 

"(i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;

 

(j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;

 

(m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract."

 

The defendant is a multi-national corporation. The term regarding charges was inserted unilaterally in contract. The contract was pre and mass produced and I had no opportunity to negotiate the clause, or indeed any of the contract.

 

15. Following on from the above, the claimant does not accept The Defendants contention that the charges are enforceable as a service charge. It is not disputed that the Defendant is entitled to recover its damages following my breaches of contract, and it is entitled to include a liquidated damages clause. I accept without reservation the banks right to recover its actual losses or a genuine pre-estimate thereof. A penalty however, is unenforceable.

 

16. The Claimant cites the case of Robinson v Harman [1848] 1 Exch 850 which states that a contractual party cannot profit from a breach and that the charge for a loss suffered from a breach of contract should be the amount necessary to put both parties in the same position before the breach occurred.

 

17. Lord Dunedin in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co [1915] AC 79 set down a number of principles in definition of a penalty clause and how such clause may be ascertained from a liquidated damages clause. One of these principles being -

 

"The sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could have been suffered from the breach"

 

 

18. The Claimant will further rely on numerous recorded authorities dating throughout the 20th century up to the most recent case of Murray v Leisureplay [2005] EWCA Civ 963, all of which have upheld and reinforced the principles set down by Lord Dunedin defining contractual penalty clauses and the unenforceability thereof.

 

19. Further, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, schedule 2 (1) includes to define an example of an unfair clause as -

 

"(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;"

 

20. In a recent study undertaken in Australia, (Nicole Rich, “Unfair fees: a report into penalty fees charged by Australian Banks”) it was estimated that the cost to an Australian Bank of a customers direct debit refusal was estimated to be in the region of 54 cents. By reviewing the charges against the above figure, the study estimated that banks could be charging between 64 to 92 times what it costs them to process a direct debit refusal. The study’s key findings stated that in its opinion the Australian Bank’s cheque and direct debit refusal fees were likely to be penalties at law.

 

21. For their recent BBC2 documentary “The Money Programme”, the BBC appointed a commission of former senior banking industry figures and business academics to attempt to ascertain the actual costs to the UK banks of processing a customer’s breach of contract. They concluded that the absolute maximum conceivable cost that could be incurred by a direct debit refusal or overdraft excess is £2.50, and of a returned cheque £4.50. They did state however, that the actual cost is likely to be much less than this. The commission also estimated that the UK banks collectively derive as much as £4.5billion in profit a year from their charging regimes.

 

22. It is submitted that the Defendant’s charges are applied by an automated and computer driven process. This process consists of a computer system ‘bouncing’ the direct debit, and sending out a computer generated letter. It is therefore impossible to envisage how the Defendant can incur costs of between £10 and £30 *IS IT BETTER TO PUT THIS INSTEAD OF £10-£100, £100 BEING THE MOST I WAS EVER CHARGED IN ONE MONTH SHOWN AS A SINGLE AMOUNT DEDUCTED FROM MY ACCOUNT?* by carrying out this completely automated process. Note that the letter received notifying of a charge is identical in every instance, and if multiple breaches occurred on the same day, a separate letter will be sent in each instance.

*The charges are shown on my statement as being taken out as sums between £18 and £100. I know the ones that are £100 are actually 4 x £25 charges but have nothing to demonstrate this. If I put £100 they'll say their charges were never that much.

 

 

23. On 22nd May 2006, the House of Commons passed an early day motion which welcomed the OFT's statement that default charges should be proportionate to the actual loss incurred. The house described such default charges as "exorbitant" and "excessive".

 

24. The Claimant also cites a radio interview in 2004 with Lloyds TSB’s former head of personal banking, Peter McNamara, in which he states bank charges are used to fund free banking for all personal customers as a whole.

Is it worth putting this in as I am taking HSBC to court and not Lloyds TSB? AGAIN ANY IDEAS?

 

25. As set out previously, it is submitted that The Defendant’s charges can not be considered to be a service charge. In arguing that they are, they also effectively admit that their charges make profits. The Defendant seemingly contends that their charges are not subject to any assessment of fairness whatsoever. This implies they can set these fees at whatever level they like without limit or regulation. Similarly, as set out above, the charges cannot be considered to be liquidated damages. They, by The Defendant's own admission, are not a pre-estimate of loss incurred as a result of the breach of contract. The charges are punitive, held “in-terrorem", and unduly and extravagantly enrich the Defendant. As such, they are a contractual penalties and unenforceable at law.

 

26. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

 

a) The return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £681 and any interest charged thereon;

 

 

b) Court costs;

 

c) The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year, from the date that each charge was applied to the account. to the sum of £212.44 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of ????. AGAIN, WHAT TO PUT HERE?

AND DO I LIST THE INTEREST AMOUNT AS ACCRUED AT DATE OF THIS STATEMENT?

Not sure what daily amount is - know it is somewhere on this site but if anyone has it to hand would be grateful!

 

 

I, the Claimant, believe all facts stated to be true.

 

Signed, dated.

 

Documents attached in support of this statement

 

* HSBC and Midland Bank’s Terms and Conditions

 

* Office of Fair Trading report, April 2006

* House of commons early day motion, May 2006

* BBC commission conclusion - BBC NEWS | Business | The Money Programme bank commission

* Australian Default charges report, Nicole Rich - Domain Names, Web Hosting, Web Design, Search Engine Optimisation, and Search Engine Marketing at Melbourne IT HOW DO I FIND THIS? I LOOKED BUT IT JUST TOOK ME TO A DOMAIN NAME WEBSITE AND I COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING RELEVANT THERE.

 

 

Please can you say if this looks ok?

 

Is there anything else that I need to include?

 

*=MY QUERIES

 

Sorry to sound like a dummie, but this is all new to me!

 

Many Thanks

[freakyleaky]

You should find it all in the links from lats new thread!

court bundles for dummies

[CuriousCat?]

Any ideas on the other queries? As lottie asked?

[freakyleaky]

Daily ammount is 0.00022%.

Leave the lloyds tsb thing in.

I put that I had recived charges of between £18 and £35.

leave section 10 in as it is a valid argument.

I included t&c's from 98 and 04.

 

I think that shouls just about cover it CC.

Did you have a look at the court bundle for dummies thread? It really is a great thread.

[Michael Browne]

Australian Default charges report, Nicole Rich - Domain Names, Web Hosting, Web Design, Search Engine Optimisation, and Search Engine Marketing at Melbourne IT

HOW DO I FIND THIS? I LOOKED BUT IT JUST TOOK ME TO A DOMAIN NAME WEBSITE AND I COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING RELEVANT THERE.

 

Australian Penalty Fees Report

http://www.govanlc.com/clcv20unfairfeesreport.pd f

[CuriousCat?]

MOST GRATEFUL

Thanks FREAKY and MICHAEL!

[CuriousCat?]

By the way,do you need the whole of the Australian Penalty Fees Report, it runs around 90 pages?

[Castlebest]

CC, its a CAG plan, in about 4 weeks time non of the DG staff will be able to get into the office for court bundles, they will miss all their deadlines and we will all win.

 

[freakyleaky]

The more you send in your bundle the better as long as it's relevant. Just try and use recycled paper if you can! (not used toilet paper as I have seen suggested)!