Dont worry you have taken the first step and that is by registering here the next thing to do is start your own thread so it keeps all your information together and read others experiences as it will show you all the dirty and underhanded bully boy tatics the banks will try to apply to you to get you to stop claiming your charges also only claim for what you are comfortable with as you may need to present your arguments to a judge the easiest claim is for charges and interest they debited on the charges and statutory interest sec 69 8% when you file at court i am of the mind they made my life hell so i will give them some back ad i am trying for the unproven charges and compounded unauthorised interest on top of their charges as well but this is unproven yet as to the best way to go and you will need to do alot of research on it yourself as well but otherwise hi and welcome to the campagian

15th March 2007 Response to Gesture of Goodwill. Dear Stephen Hill Thank you for your letter dated 13th March 2007. However as you should now be aware on the 8th March 2007 I filed with Colchester County court paperwork to start court proceedings against Abbey for the full amount I believe to be owing to me. So I respectfully decline your Gesture of Goodwill and will assume by the return of this letter that you will not send the cheque to your debt Management Department or will place a stop on the said cheque. As you should be aware my account has been passed to an outside debt collection agency and I have no access to the account (bank cards etc to check the balance outstanding) So I will assume that on your receiving of this letter you will take the appropriate action to re-claim the £233 offer you have made (you have my permission in this instance to remove the aforementioned £233) as I will deem it as not paid and pursue this matter through the courts for the full claimed amount. To trial if need be unless a suitable agreement can be made prior to trial. Whilst I appreciate your assumption that this would be an acceptable sum to myself if indeed your charges are a true cost of what the administration costs are in regards a breach of the account, I am not of the same consensus and believe the charges to be nothing more than a Penalty and thus not legally sustainable as such, and request you do not make ay further unagreed payments without consulting with myself first. Also in reference to your letter you say you are not able to provide me with specific information regarding the breakdown costs in regards these charges. Then with no offence meant surely then this matter should be passed on to someone who is able to pass to do this and save the prolonged drawn out action from continuing. Again I re-iterate if your charges are a true reflection of your costs and not a Penalty charges as I believe them to be then I will be happy to cease all action but failing the supply of this information then I will be forced to continue with the above said legal action. In regards the default in formation you have filed in regards this account yes I agree that it is your duty to register and share information on how we run our accounts But due to the fact again that Charges in excess of what are true costs are what bought this breach into effect it is therefore my contention that it was not my handling of the account that caused for these defaults to be occurred but yours as my Bank taking money in excess of what it should have. Therefore again I request that you remove the said defaults from my record not merely mark as satisfied otherwise I will be continuing my legal action on with this matter as well. So to recap I require you stop any payment of this Gesture of goodwill or remove it from the said account You provide me with a full breakdown as to the true cost of what each charge costs Abbey to administer in relation to the defaults You remove the default history from my credit rating And with any further offers of settlement you correspond with me before making the payment I trust this clarifies my position. Yours faithfully Newbody Comments welcome

ok update Recieved a GOGW in the post today once i had settled down enough to scan it on to the pc I have entered it on here for all to see now the question is how many of you honestly think I should settle for this as a fair offer allowing for my missus has threatened to leave me if I do accept it (so it does have some appeal to accepting it ) 13 March 2007 Our ref:XXXXXXXXX Abbey Current Account XXXXXXXXXX Dear XXXXXXXX Thank you for your letter dated 6 February 2007, about the charges on your bank account. I have now carried out a full investigation on your behalf. I'm sorry you are unhappy with the charges and I understand you would like these refunded. Although the charges were correct, as a gesture of goodwill, I am happy to refund £233. (bet they are I claiming for over £11,000) I have sent a cheque for this amount to our Debt Management Department, to help repay any remaining outstanding balance on your account. I appreciate your feelings on this matter but we are satisfied that the charges do not contravene the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. We also comply with the Office of Fair Trading, in dealing fairly and openly with our customers. When opening your account you were provided with information detailing the terms and conditions. We have also sent you regular updates and Tariff of Charges, which detail the amounts of our charges. I have enclosed a further copy for you. You have requested a breakdown of how our charges are apportioned and I regret that I am unable to provide you with the specific information that you have requested. I can inform you that your charges are based on the extra administrative work incurred by Abbey when, for example, an account has insufficient funds to meet a requested payment. Abbey believes that it is reasonable to make a charge on such an occasion to pass on the costs incurred by the bank and that the charges applied to the account are fair and transparent. Should you require details of the specific charges applicable, these are stated in the terms and conditions of your account. Any information registered with credit reference agencies is a true and factual reflection of the situation on your account. We are required by the Information Commissioner to register and share information on how customers run their accounts. Because of this, we are unable to remove or alter the information that is held. However, when the outstanding balance is paid in full, although the default will remain, it will then be Please be assured I have carried out a full investigation for you and I hope you feel I have offered a considered and complete response to all of the issues you've raised. I will keep your file open for the next. 8 weeks and if I don't hear from you within that time, Iwill assume that everything is resolved and will close your file. If you remain dissatisfied though, the leaflet you'll find with this letter explains your rights and how to take your complaint further within Abbey. The address to contact is: Complaints Abbey PO Box 5129 Milton Keynes MK9 2YN If you remain unhappy with the response from the Complaints Department, you have an ultimate right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Stephen Hill Senior Customer Resolution Manager Enc. Complaints Leaflet Tariff of Charges

Well Done and well earnt

send back saying thanks for the GOGW and You will be pursing for the remainder of the monies outstanding then just deduct the GOGW from either the most recent charges or from the total balance and send an amended schedule of charges with the letter

Just starting a thread to keep details of going for Norwich and peterborough on behalf of a friend Going to keep this one simple just going to claim Charges and debited interest + Sec 69 progress so far got a few statemets for last 2 years charges hit just over 1400 so now sending off SAR to get the rest of the statements

i think it is best to acknowledge the reciept of the money and state you wish for them to remove it or you are accepting it as part payment and will pursue them for the rest in case you get called for a hearing with a judge they cant then claim as far as they were concerned it was settled as you will have proof that you informed them that it was not a final payment and you would continue to pursue the matter

it is for thoose who decide to charge the interest that was applied to the charges weather the figure used was to idividual charges or the total amount of interest charged each month where charges were made. it is to each claimiant to decide what they are comfortable with to claim for and i think mad nick has pointed you in the right direction Remeber the letters are just that a template that will need amending for each cliament to reflect their own case and situation

you go bong good response

If abbey are still within the 40 days of the SAR then allow the time to pass the letter you recieved is the standard acknowledgement and your statements will follow within the week and the printouts of the microfiche information within a week or 2 after So hold off doing anything for the minute when you are closer to the date for teh SAR running out you can send them another letter Geeing them up but at the minute it is a case of waiting also a good point would be to start your own thread in the relevant bank section so as not to confuse people reading this thread and it keeps alot of the information in regards your claim(situation) in one place so people can comment and help easier also read some of the other threads in the abbey forum to show the things abbey will throw up to try and intimidate you and drag it out i am ahead of you at the minute but feel free to read my thread to show you of what you have to come http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/57977-newbody-abbey.html

double post

County Court Fees Preparing for trial Allocation to track: claims for money of £1,500 or less no fee all other claims£100 This fee is payable by the claimant except where the case is proceeding on a counterclaim alone, when it is payable by the defendant. Where a fee is due, it must either be paid when the allocation questionnaire is filed, or, if: either the court decides that an allocation questionnaire is not required; or the Civil Procedure Rules do not require an allocation questionnaire to be completed, then the fee must be paid: within 28 days of filing the defence (or the filing of the last defence if there is more than one defendant); or within 28 days of expiry of the time for filing all defences. Warning: if you do not pay the allocation fee when required, the court can make an order which may lead to your statement of case (claim or counterclaim) being ‘struck out’. This would mean that you could not proceed with your claim (or counterclaim).

Just my opinion and as a view to stop the banks claiming they only offered it as a full payment not a part payment so you could demonstrate you gave them the chance to take the money back if it was not acceptable to them for it to be used as partial payment the only leeway i can see you would be giving the banks in this action is to withdraw the funds which you would continue to claim back anyhow and as mad nick says Just trying to cover all bases Sorry for the hi-jack Alexted

Removed to avoid confusion on this subject

as far as i am aware there is normally 2 fees involved one when you file your n1 or mcol and the second one is if you have to file an AQ the only other fee that i can think of is if you amend your claim at any point after filing it and that is for £35 hope this helps

this is standard response you will get 14months statements in singular envelopes and about a week l8r a delivery of all older info in microfiche format i am a little further on than you but feel free to read my thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/57977-newbody-abbey.html and others to show you the things to expect from shabbey Abbey

i would personally suggest leave the money where it is send a letter saying you accept as part payment and will assume they have accepted these terms unless the respond by XX date. then if they havent replied by XX date then remove it that way they cannot argue that you took the money as full and final payment as you gave them the oppotunity to dispute it as partial payment and remove the money if it wasnt acceptable Just my opinion

Ok update recieved this in the morning post standard delay tatics letter of we are investigating but not resolved yet sorry to say but court papers served yesterday :lol: Abbey Complaints Abbey PO Box 51 29 Nlilton Keynes MK9 2YN Telephone: 0845 600 6014 Facsimile: 0845 600 1378 Typetalk: 18001 0845 600 6014 Email: customerservices@abbey.com Date: 08 March 2007 Our Ref XXXXXXXXXXX Dear Mr XX XXXXXX As you know, we are currently investigating your complaint that you raised with Abbey four weeks ago. l am sorry for the delay you are experiencing and I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your continued patience,. Our research is taking longer than expected because we want to make sure a full investigation is done. If we are unable to complete our investigation beforehand, we will write to you again in four weeks time to let you know how we are getting on. I am sorry that it is taking longer than originally though: and would like to reassure you that your complaint is very important to us. Yours sincerely, Richard Harris Head of Complaints

just to clear up my gender issues:D Also thanks to all who tipped my scales and added to my reputation points

removed post due to confusion on what was claimed

If you are refering to my case Westy i agree the 11,700 is no small matter but i didnt refer to it in the successful part of above as i am still cliaming it and am currently at the N1 stage. If not i do apologise for getting the wrong end of the post and a link would be nice thank you The aim of my above post was to just try and clarify alot of the information and confusion in regards Charges Debited interest and CI and what is allowed without argument (proven methods) and then what some of us are trying and the different approaches we are taking towards this end I left off Statute of Limitaions as in taylormandy's case (my prasie and sympathies to her on her claim) as to me this is a seperate issue from the CI issue which this thread was about

first off my sympathies to you taylormandy on the outcome of today then if arguing statue of limitations wouldnt another angle then to be Make our prima facia case be the charges then the secondry issue being the SOL to this end from ourside to pull in an expert in financial accounting to give a report on the costing to these charges to thus prove they are in fact in breech of the contract thus illegal so if in front of a judge on a hearing such as this if the other side (banks)try arguing statue of limitations you argue that Statue of limitations is not what the case is about but the legality of the charges and statue of limitations is what the defence are hiding behind to avoid having the leagality of the charges being challenged. so a stay would be in order for the banks to allow a financial expert access to their proceedures to give an acurate costing of thisto the judge. So the judge can deem weather they are in fact punative and illegal or are indeed a true estimate of their liquidated damages. And then to have the hearing in regards the SOL as you cannot say SOL sec32 concealment is not valid if they wont disclose the true costing to an independant financial consultant for the judge to form the legality of these charges on it for then surley they would in fact be concealing the legality of the charges from the courts themselves And as you are arguing legality of the charges themselves then until the bank defends the legality of the charges (true cost of what they actual cost the bank) then SOL is not what the case is about and that the banks by not granting even the courts this information shouldnt be allowed to use this as its defence and as such the case should be allowed to proceed

it is your choice to accept or not the GOGW if you decide to accept it as settlement then that is your choice thoughfrom what i have read on here in numerous posts this is nothing more than bully tatics from the banks sying here is something you better to accept it or get nothing if you go to court I personally would send a letter along the lines of thank you for your offer of XXXX dated YYYY i am quite happy to accept it as part payment of the monies you owe me and will pursue for the additional amount from court you have until XX date to state you are unhappy with my acceptence of your gesture of goodwill and request it back otherwise i will assume you have accepted that this is only apart payment of the outstanding debt and I will continue to pursue the rest . then continue your action as normal there are some letters in template libtrary for accepting/refusing part payments etc Also read a few of the other threads on here also one on recieved GOGW in the abbey stickies will show it is common tatic of abbeys

ok update filed n1 at colchester on thursday after mad nicks advice revised it to the following Claimant XXXXXXXX XXXXXX Essex XXXXXXXX Defendant ABBEY NATIONAL PLC ABBEY NATIONAL HOUSE 2 TRITON SQUARE REGENT'S PLACE LONDON NW1 3AN Brief details of claim Money claim for return of penalty charges applied to the Claimants bank account by the Defendant Value Penalty charges in the sum of £4,454.00 and Interest to be determined as the Court deems just, as per section 10 of the attached Particulars of Claim, with the maximum to not exceed £6,975.13. A maximum total of £11,429.13 Plus any applicable Court fees. Plus interest from date of issue to date of judgement or earlier payment at a maximum rate of £8.99 per day or at such rate and for such periods as the Court deems just, according to section 9 of the attached Particulars of Claim. Amount claimed £11,429.13 Does, or will, your claim include any issues under the Human Rights Act 1998? No Particulars of Claim (attached)(to follow) 1. The Claimant has a Current Account, number XXXXXXX (“the Account”), operating from the Defendant’s XXXXX branch (sort code XXXXX) 2. The Account is governed by the Defendant’s Personal Banking Terms and Conditions (“the contract”) 3. During the period in which the Account has been operating the Defendant has debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract in regards to “Card Misuse”, “Unpaid Items”, “Referral Charge”, etc.. on the part of the Claimant and also charged overdraft interest on the charges once applied. 4. 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. 5. A schedule of the charges and overdraft interest applied is attached to these particulars of claim (Appendix 1), that itemise the charges and interest charged thereon. 6) It is impossible to envisage how the Defendant can incur costs of £30-40 for a default when the rejection of a direct debit, application of the default charge and sending out a computer generated letter are completely automated. The letter received notifying 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 charge is the same regardless of whether the breach of overdraft is £1 or £1000 7) Therefore the Claimant contends that: a) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy the charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) paragraph 8 and Schedule 2(1) sub paras (e)(i)(j)(q); the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 section 4 and the common law; b) the charges are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of costs incurred by the Defendant in relation to the purported breaches; and far exceed the actual costs to the Defendant in each case. c) The view that such charges are a penalty is supported by common law (inter alia, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1915] [AC79]; Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Ltd v Tilebox Ltd [2005] EWHC 281 (TCC); Lordsvale Finance PLC v. Bank of Zambia [QB 752]; Murray v. Leisureplay [EWCA Civ 963]; Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co. Ltd [AC 600]; Commissioner of Public Works v Hills [AC 368] d) in its replies, the Defendant has ignored the Claimant’s requests (Claimant’s letters dated 6th Feb 2007 and 20th Feb 2007 ) to disclose the costs which it incurred as a result of the breaches to which it applied the charges thereby to confirm that its charges are : proportionate to its admin expenses incurred due to the Claimant’s breach of contract; and a genuine pre-estimate of the damage suffered by the Defendant, and not a penalty. e) the Claimant’s assertion that the Defendant’s default charges far exceed the actual costs to the Defendant in each case and therefore constitute a penalty is supported by : i. Investigation (December 2004) by the Consumer Law Centre, Victoria, Australia which concluded that Australian Banks’ default charges ($25-50 ≈ £11-22) are at least 5 times greater than their costs of dishonouring cheques and at least 64 times for dishonouring direct debits, and constitute penalties as this is excessive and out of all proportion to their costs; ii. Treasury Select Committee, 2nd report, 25 January 2005. Banks' evidence (not the Defendant although its charges are similar/competitive) was that their default charges included costs unrelated to an actual breach; iii. Office of Fair Trading report (OFT842, April 2006) about credit card default charges which stated that default fees have been set at a significantly higher level than is fair for the purposes of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999). The OFT stated that its findings were likely to be relevant to bank account charges; iv. Members of Parliament who expressed concern about the “exorbitant costs to customers of default charges applied to current and credit card accounts” in two House of Commons Early Day Motions (EDMs 2227/0506 and 500/0607); v. Competition Commission inquiry into personal banking in Northern Ireland (provisional findings October 2006). The Commission noted that Banks’ default charges include unrelated costs and profit; i.e. the charges are significantly greater than Banks’ actual costs; vi. Treasury Select Committee - Thirteenth Report, 7 November 2006, HC1717 which stated that “We are not convinced that penalty charges of up to £39 are reasonable and accurately reflect the costs incurred by the banks.” vii. Investigation by commission of experts for BBC Money Programme (12 December 06) which concluded that the highest cost which banks could justify were £4.50 for dishonouring cheques, and £2.50 for dishonouring direct debits and dealing with unauthorised overdrafts, compared with typical default charges of £30. 8. The Claimant thus contends that: a) The charges debited to the Account: i) are punitive in nature; ii) Are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; iii) Exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract On the part of the Claimant; iv) Are not intended to represent or relate 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 Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law. c) In the alternative to a) & b) above, if the Court finds that the charges are not a penalty, then the Claimant contends that they are unreasonable within the meaning of s.15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 9. Contractual Interest a) The Claimant claims compound interest on the amounts claimed under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, using the rate and method specified in the said contract, and as is applied by the Defendant to monies it is owed. b) The Claimant’s grounds for seeking restitution of the compounded contractual rate of interest is that the Defendant would be unjustly enriched if the Claimant's entitlement was limited to the statutory rate of interest in that the Defendant has had use of the sums and would have used these sums to re-lend at commercial compounded rates. c) The Claimant contends that the taking of unlawful penalties from the Claimant’s Account is deemed as unauthorized borrowing by the Defendant. Therefore, under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, in the first instance the Claimant has calculated compound interest at the Defendant’s current unauthorized borrowing rate advertised by the Defendant’s web site, being 28.7% EAR. The Claimant understands that the unauthorized borrowing rate at the time of opening the account was actually over 33%, but believes that using the current rate gives a fair result. d) In the alternative to c), should the taking of unlawful penalties from the Claimant’s Account not be deemed to be unauthorized borrowing by the Defendant, then, under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Claimant has calculated compound interest at the Defendant’s lowest current authorised borrowing rate for the account, advertised by the Defendant’s web site, being 16.9% EAR. e) In the alternative to c) and d), if the Court decides that the Claimant is not entitled to the contractual rate of interest under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, then the Claimant has calculated interest under section 69 County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% a year f) Schedules of interest calculated and are attached to these Particulars of Claim as follows: Appendix 2 – Compound interest calculated daily at an annual rate of 28.7% Appendix 3 – Compound interest calculated daily at an annual rate of 16.9% Appendix 4 – Simple interest as per s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at an annual rate of 8.00% Appendix 5 – Print of the Defendant’s web site showing the current borrowing rates 10. Accordingly, the claimant claims: a) The return of the amounts debited between 23-Dec-2001 and 122-May-2006 in respect of charges in the sum of £4,454.00 b) Any applicable Court fees c) Compound interest at the contractual rate of 28.7% EAR from the date of each transaction to 6th March 2007 of £6,975.13, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £8.99 d) In the alternative to c), compound interest at the contractual rate of 16.9% EAR from the date of each transaction to 6th March 2007 of £3,154.12, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £3.52 e) In the alternative to c) and d), interest under section 69 County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% a year, from the date of each transaction to 6th March 2007, of £1,065.87 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £1.21 f) All payments by the defendant are to be made by cheque to the claimant and not into the account in dispute. To which the claimant has no access due to the defendant to all intents and purposes closed the account by having passed it to an outside debit collection agency and having recalled all bank cards and cheque books in respect of this account giving the claimant no means of being able to check any monies passed on to them or being able to gain access to the monies in question and would also demonstrate on the defendants part even more cause to deprive the claimant of their monies for an even more extended period of time. So now waiting for notice it served and abbey to file their defence EDIT : Information from Mccuths post and Mad Nick thanxs and credit to whoever else contributed to it

Ok depending on what your claim consists of and your financial situation depends on your next step if your claim is for bank charges plus debited interest you can send a letter accepting as part payment from the templates library adding if you do not hear by XX days then you will assume they have accepted your conditions and you will be pursuing them to court for the rest and proceed with filing at court do not cash the cheque until the deadline in refusal letter is past as they may try to say your acceptance of this payment was in full and final settlement by cashing after your deadline you can point out that you cashed it in the belief that they had accepted your terms and conditions if your claim is for bank charges plus debited interest and you can afford to. Then send them a letter refusing the amount out right and file at court for the full claim guide for filling in N1/MCOL in templates LIBRARY if your claim is for charges debited interest and Contractural on top then i would recommend whatever your financial circumstances are that you return the cheque saying thanks but no thanks i want the full amount and will see you in court and proceed to file your N1/Mcol various ways to do this how i did my one is in my thread