Here is WRAGGES 6 PAGE DEFENCE - have a read

[alice-rose]

Hi there fellow claimers

 

I made my claim against alliance & leicester via mcol

and within TWO days received a cheque for settlement from alliance & leicester for Full and Final Settlement of £124. plus court costs.

(I have since returned this cheque with a template letter from the libary)

 

7 Days after alliance & leicester's offer.

I received this 6 page Defence from Wragges this month.

If you haven't received your defence - this is what you are likely to receive (or similar)

I am led to believe they are sending out a standard document to everyone.

 

If you have already received your Defence -

please have a read of mine, and let me know how it compares to yours, or

how it differs.

I would also welcome any constructive advice from professionals/experienced claimers who are further down the line,

who may be reading this thread.

 

I am currently awaiting to hear from my local court, as I do not think it has been transferred from Northampton yet.

 

When you telephone mcol - (they are snowed under) - there is currently an ansafone message apologising for the slowness of the mcol site - due to a heavy load - which they say they are working on 'to put right'

 

Together we are Strong !

 

Good luck everyone

 

thankyou and may the Power be with you Flower !

 

Alice x x x

 

 

 

 

DEFENCE

 

1. Save insofar as the same consists of admissions and save insofar as it is herein expressly admitted or expressed not to be admitted, the Defendant joins issue with the Claimant's claim.

 

2. This Defence is served and filed without prejudice to the Defendant's contention that the Particulrs of Claim disclose no reasonable cause of action and ought to be struck out pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Procedures Rules Part 3.4 and/or that summary judgment ought to be granted against the Claimant pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules Part 24.2 as the Claimant has no real prospects of succeeding on the claim or issue and there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue ought to be disposed of at trial.

 

General

 

3. It is admitted and averred that the Defendant is a company providing Banking services.

 

4. It is further admitted and averred that the Defendant agreed with the Claimant to provide banking services for the Claimant in accordance with the Defendant's standard terms and conditions.

 

5. It is admitted that the Defendant has debited various chages to the Claimant's account with the Defendant in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed to be the Claimant.

 

6. It is denied that the charges debited to the Claimant's account with the Defendant are a penalty and invalid as is alleged or at all. In particular, it is denied that the charges are unfair and/or invalid pursuant to the provisions of the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 and/or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations or otherwise.

 

7. With respect to each and every charge, the Claimant is put to strict proof of the allegation that the charge is a penalty and/or unfair and/or invalid, as is alleged or at all.

 

8. It is denied that the charges, or any one of them, are punitive in nature and/or a penalty. The charges were incurred as part of the banking services provided by the Defendant and calculated in accordance with Defendant's terms and conditions agreed to by the Claimant.

 

Insufficient Particulars of Claim

 

9. It is denied that the Defendant has applied charges to the Claimant's account with the Defendant as claimed and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the amount claimed and that such amount has been unlawfully debited from the Claimant's account.

 

10. The Claimant has failed to particularise the claim against the Defendant adequately or at all and the Claimant is requested to particularise each and every charge that the Claimant alleges the Defendant has added to the account, specifying the amount charged, the date of the charge and the explanation given for the charge.

 

11. The Defendant repeats paragraph 2 above.

 

Charges:

 

12. In accordance with the Defendant's standard bank account terms and conditions agreed to by the Claimant, the Claimant agreed to pay charges as levied by the Defendant for banking services provided by the Defendant in the course of the banking relationship. It is admitted that, in accordance with those terms and conditions, the Defendant has debited the Claimant's account with bank charges as set out below.

 

13. The Defendant's terms and conditions from time to time, which are incorporated into the agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant, provide specifically for the debiting of these categories of charges as follows:

 

13.1 PAID ITEM FEE

This is where the customer (the Claimant) presents an item for payment, and the Defendant is prepared to pay the charge, but the payment is in excess of the Claimant's agreed credit limit.

the charge for this is currently set at £25. per item, with a maximum of no more than four paid item charges per day or six paid item chages per month being levied.

 

13.2 FAILED TRANSACTION FEE

This is where the customer (the Claimant) goes in exces of the agreed overdraft limit, or where the customer (the Claimant) never had an overdraft limit and went overdrawn.

The charge for this is £25 for the first day and then a further £25 if the customer (the Claimant) remains overdrawn for five or more days during the month.

 

14. The only charges relevant to this claim are those which have been debited to the Claimant's account within these three charge categories in the last six years from the date of issue of these proceedings.

 

15. These charges were incurred as follows:

 

15.1 The paid item fee is a charge incurred where the Claimant presents an item for payment which, if honoured, would give rise to the Claimant's account being overdrawn in excess of any overdraft limit at that point agreed between the parties, and where the Defendant decides nevertheless to make payment in relation to the item.

 

15.2 The failed transaction fee is a charge incurred where it is necessary to return a cheque or other item unpaid as a rsult of the Claimant presenting an item for payment which, had it been honoured, would have given rise to the Claimant's account being overdrawn in excess of any agreed limit.

 

15.3 The unauthorised overdraft fee is a charge incurred where the Claimant's account becomes overdrawn and no overdraft facility has then been agreed in advance by the Claimant; or becomes overdrawn in exces of the overdraft limit at that point then agreed between the parties.

 

16. As to any allegation (if any) that these charges are penalty clauses, they are not. The charges are administrative fees levied by agreement in the circumstances set out above. They are not charged by way of damages for breach of contract. The charges are thus not capable of constituting penalties, and the principles of law in relation to penalty clauses have no application.

 

17. As to any allegation (if any) that these charges are unenforceable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, the charges are administrative fees levied by agreement in the circumstances set out above. As such, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 has no application to these charges.

 

18. The terms are not in any event unreasonable in relation to the service in question.

 

19. As to any allegation (if any) that these chages were unenforceable under the Unfair terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:

 

19.1 The charges are administrative fees levied by agreement in the circumstances set out above. There are not levied contrary to the requirment of good faith and do not cause any or any significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract to the detriment of the Claimant. In consequence, by reason of section 5 they are not unenforceable.

 

19.2 The terms relate to the price or remuneration as against banking services supplied in exchange, as explained above, and therefore constitute a 'core' provision. In consequence, by reason of section 6 they are not unenforceable as no assessment of the fairness of the term is to be applied to such terms.

 

19.3 The terms are not in any event unreasonable in relation to the banking services in question.

 

20. However, without prejudice to the above, the Defendant will refund and/or has refunded the Claimant's account part of each failed transaction fee to the extent of any excess above a debited charge of £12 per item.

 

Limitation

 

21. The charges incurred by the Claimant at any time prior to six years before this action was commenced are statute barred by virtue of section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980.

 

22. The charges incurred by the Claimant were in accordance with the Defendant's standard terms and conditioins agreed to by the Claimant when the Claimant opened the account with the Defendant. The charges were incurred as part of the banking services provided by the Defendant and calculated in accordance with Defendant's terms and conditions agreed to by the Claimant. The Claimant was notified in monthly statements of the charges to the account as provided for by the terms and conditions.

 

23. The Claimant has been aware or ought to have been aware of the charges incurred from the date of each statement: the charges are open and apparent on the face of each statement.

 

24. It is denied that there has been any fraud on the part of the Defendant which, in any event, the Claimant has failed to particualrise or substantiate against the Defendant. It is denied that the Defendant has concealed any of the charges and it is denied that the claim is for relief from consequences of a mistake. The Claimant knew, or ought to have known, of the charges when they were levied and section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 is not applicable. The Defendant has no duty to advise the Claimant on the law, and there is no fraudulent and/or any concealment just because the Claimant did or did not know whether a legal remedy was available.

 

Overdraft/Set-off

 

25. In any event, if at the trial of this action the Claimant holds overdrawn accounts with the Defendant, then even if any money is due to the Claimant by way of refund, the the Defendant is entitled to and claims to set off the sum refunded agains the overdraft sum then outstanding on that acount(s) and owing by the Claimant to the Defendant.

 

Conclusion

 

26. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the loss and damage as pleaded. The Claimant is not entitled to the relief sought, or any relief.

 

 

STATMENT OF TRUTH

 

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I am duly authorised by the Defendant to sign this statement on its behalf.

 

Signed: Elizabeth Bridges

 

Position: Trainee Solicitor, Wragge & Co

 

 

 

Wragge & co

Birmingham office

55 Colmore Row

Birmingham

B3 2AS

 

telephone 0121 20 5050

[squarebob]

Hi Alice,

 

My defence is only different in two sections;

Paragraph 9. It is denied that the Social Security Administration Act 1992 has any application or relevance to this claim, and that part of the Particulars of Claim should be struck out.

 

Failed Transaction Fee. This is where the customer (the Claimant) presents an item for payment that the Defendant was or is not prepared to pay. This is currently charged at £34 per item presented.

 

Signed by Clark Antony Sargent. Partner etc.

 

Did mention to the 'Boss' of C.A.G that a library of these defence's would not go amiss. (No reply yet). Helps to calm the wobbles down, for those who have never received one before, just as you have for me.

 

Squarebob

[gwebstech]

mine is pretty similar, but i have no section 21, 23 and 25 i think

 

gaz

[squarebob]

Sorry Alice,

Another bit different to yours. Paragraph 20. In addition, the Claimant cannot claim charges which had not been incurred at the time of the issue of these proceedings. Therefore, any claim for charges incurred at the time of these proceedings. Therefore, any claim for charges incurred on or after 24th May 2007 must fail.

 

If your'e looking in Wragges-----------------double raspberry

[alice-rose]

THANKYOU to

squarebob &

gazzalad for posting

and for getting the ball rolling............

 

at least now - we're not all left in the dark wondering what the other claimers have received !

Its good to pool our resources and information on these claims,

and I hope reassuring for everyone who is taking the same steps to reclaim their money.

 

 

If anyone else's claim is different,

please post on here how it differs, and

which particular point numbers for everyone to see.

many thanks.

 

alice x x x

[alice-rose]

hi squarebob, make mine a raspbery ripple !

[alice-rose]

thats interesting squarebob.

ref. YOUR DEFENCE PARA 20

stating no further claims after 24 May

[squarebob]

Alice,

 

Should call myself ' Le Lapin Blanc' (I think!)

 

Thanks for your message, 1st I have had, it gets quite lonely here on 'Boot-Hill'.

'Bump' I always wondered why that was put on different messages, only bump I knew was on the dance floor! Alice I don't even know how to start a thread (and keep finding it), I just have to hook onto everyone else's messages to get my little bit in, as for 'drag and drop' and bump, 'oooh'.

But I am frantikly trying to find a way of getting your message out for some one who knows what they are doing. Alice you have done at one stroke, what i wanted to see being done when I first started on this journey, (seems like a lifetime ago), 'Pool our information'. This way we can see what really is going on.

 

Good luck, keep in touch. your little white rabbit xxx

[jansus]

squarebob

 

people will talk to you if you have your own thread. Go right to top of A&L and you will see " start new thread"

 

thats it - then if you want to add you can just reply to your own thread.

 

(there probably is another way as well but I have not found it yet) see I am a technaphobe as well8)

 

 

see you soon!

jansus

[Bigmark]

hi Alice

my defence from OIL WRAGGE has

13.3 UNAUTHORISED OVERDRAFT FEE

15.3 details of unauthorised fee

I see they have removed 13.3 from your defence but left 15.3 apart from that more or less the same.

 

we support the A&L freedom fighters

[squarebob]

Thanks Janus,

Computers!---- Makes you wonder how my old boss 'Scrooge' done without em let alone no coal on the fire!

 

Thanks for the tip, my two fingers have got blisters on em. My son goes to Manchester Uni to do a Business and I.T course in September, he finds all this computer work easy-peasy, Me? I'll stick to what I know.

 

Now I'm off to do a bit of sewing!

[alice-rose]

dear little squarebob - you do make me chuckle. you sound as bad as me on the old computer. I too didn't have a clue what a 'bump' was - I thought it was something you got on your head when you had a fall - but maybe thats a duck-egg !

[squarebob]

Oh God Alice,

 

You make me feel like a little boy . I started on computers when they had that 'green' screen and you had to try and remember what to type in just to open up a programme. Now windows makes that bit easier, but it is the rest of it that confuses me.

Duck Egg down here (lass) is a Proper Charlie down South.

 

Squarebob

[paul62]

Just recieved mine today and they havent even got my name right? They have called me Nicholas Brown ?? for some reason

[alice-rose]

hi paul,

thanks for posting.

that doesn't sound too good does it -

Getting your name wrong on the Defence document ?

they really must be flustered !

is the Defence you received today similar to mine -

would be very interested in hearing if its similar when you get a minute to go through it all. if not could you very kindly post the paras that aren't.

many thanks paul

and good luck

alice xx

[MimiJane]

Whoops ... sounds like you've maybe received someone else's defence:rolleyes:

 

Well done Alice and don't forget to "do the bump"

 

Mimi x

[squarebob]

Or the Hussle!

[MimiJane]

Think a few of us might be showing our age here

[squarebob]

I've still got a full head of hair even it has got lighter. Pity about the rest of me, one sister calls me 'Chunky' the other-------------'Squarebob'

 

Night Ladies, Yes I do believe in Fairies! xxxx

[Bigmark]

A&L freedom fighters sound more like dads army! lol don't know what chubbas dad will think of all this when he's back on line

 

we support A&L freedom fighters

[squarebob]

We will fight them on the beaches etc, and we certainly will not roll over and SURRENDER.

 

The older we get, the more determined we get, A&L "Watch This Space"!

[alice-rose]

is it possible to do the bump on the beach ?

 

Theres a new dance

thats going around

do the BUMP

do the BUMP

[alice-rose]

Who is Chubbas Dad

would he be the son of Hubba Bubba ?

[MimiJane]

Now that's sexist Bigmark Come back Chubbas, we miss you

 

Nice to know you believe in me squarebob ... don't know why I chose a fairy, perhaps something to do with my "flighty" nature

 

Night night everyone

[cazawilson]

Hi all

 

I have read your defence Alice-rose, and it is very similar to mine. Small differences, I have no limitation section instead it states

 

Interest

It is denied that the caliment is entitled to interest as is alleged or at all. If, which is denied the claiment is entitled to interes, that interest is to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum.

 

Apart from like i say small changes they are the same, wonder why I have no limitation section, mind you mine was sent in April.

 

I do find it interesting however that in section 16 they admit that the charges are admin fees and in 19.2 and 19.3 they state that the terms relate to the price of renumeration as against banking services supplied in exchange. Again where is the breakdown for thease admin costs. What piffle. I cant wait for them to have to disclose this info in court..

 

Caza