Hi there Having monitored this site for several weeks I'm not aware that anyone's case has ever ended up in court although the earliest hearing dates were scheduled for the beginning of July so not many people will have been in that situation so far. I think you can be fairly certain that they will settle before then although no doubt if anyone has got as far as a hearing they will let us all know! I think Barclays will be unwilling to go to a full hearing for fear of having judgment against them and setting a precedent.

Hi Giselle You've managed to get a very generous offer out of them - I was offered only £450 out of £2300 owed and turned them down and am now suing. If you turn them down then I don't think they will increase their offer and your only option is to issue proceedings. It's up to you and you may decide that getting more than 50% of it back just like that is better than several months of litigation to (probably) get back the whole lot. A bird in the hand and all that. Anyway good luck with whatever you decide. S

In theory they could close your account and demand repayment of the overdraft. Your options would be to take out a loan to pay off the overdraft, transfer to a credit card or take out an overdraft on another account. I'm not sure if this has actually happened to anyone although there have been a lot of rumours flying around about it.

Your executors/administrators could carry on the action on behalf of your estate.

I think that's the point. Maybe £30 was reasonable on the two occasions they called but not on any of the others

It would certainly form part of their defence to justify the fee they charge. How much of an impact it is likely to have would depend upon what sort of sums of penalty charges you are talking about and over what period.

I don't think the amount you exceed your overdraft by is relevant. The charge should be a "reasonable pre-estimate" of the administrative costs of dealing with you as a creditor. If in fact all that happened was a standard computer-generated letter was sent to you then you can argue that £30 (or £60 or £90!) was not a "reasonable pre-estimate" of those costs. This is particularly the case if the same thing happened month after month (as it has done with me!) and the bank never did anything different. If the bank has actually been proactive and rung you up to talk about your account and difficulties then that would be a different matter - this has never happened to me though. Don't forget also that the bank charges a penal rate of interest once you exceed your overdraft limit so it is not as if you are getting the credit for free. The bank still makes money out of you by charging interest.

"Without prejudice" means exactly what the term suggests, i.e. that an offer is being made without prejudicing the party's legal position - ie as claimant to pursue the full amount of the claim or as defendant to defend the claim. It is often used on correspondence in an attempt to settle a claim out of court and means that parties can be open in making offers without prejudicing their case should the matter ultimately end up in court. Without prejudice correspondence cannot form part of a party's case in court - in other words you can't say to the judge "they offered to settle so they must accept liability" etc. Sometimes correspondence is marked "without prejudice save as to costs" and this means that the terms of the offer cannot be disclosed in court but that the correspondence can be taken into account by the judge when deciding who must pay whose costs. For example a party who refused to accept, say, a 95% offer of settlement and forced a full trial may find that even if ultimately successful, the "wasted costs" of the hearing are awarded to the losing party.

"Without prejudice" means exactly what the term suggests, i.e. that an offer is being made without prejudicing the party's legal position - ie as claimant to pursue the full amount of the claim or as defendant to defend the claim. It is often used on correspondence in an attempt to settle a claim out of court and means that parties can be open in making offers without prejudicing their case should the matter ultimately end up in court. Without prejudice correspondence cannot form part of a party's case in court - in other words you can't say to the judge "they offered to settle so they must accept liability" etc. Sometimes correspondence is marked "without prejudice save as to costs" and this means that the terms of the offer cannot be disclosed in court but that the correspondence can be taken into account by the judge when deciding who must pay whose costs. For example a party who refused to accept, say, a 95% offer of settlement and forced a full trial may find that even if ultimately successful, the "wasted costs" of the hearing are awarded to the losing party.

Just a quickie: I've heard talk about the banks closing people's accounts if they sue them. Has this actually happened to anyone? Not that I particularly want to stay with Barclays but with three accounts there's obviously a considerable hassle factor in switching to another bank.

Thanks guys that's really helpful

Hi all Just a brief summary of where I have got to. I have two accounts, one in my own name and one a joint account with my wife, and I estimate total charges for both accounts of c.£2300 (excluding interest) over the last 6 years. I have been in correspondence with Barclays which resulted in an offer of only £450 "as a goodwill gesture". They refused to increase this offer and I am not willing to accept it. As I don't have a complete set of statements I have just sent off a DPA letter requesting copy statements for the whole period to enable me to calculate the precise value of my claim. My question is: do I need to issue two separate claims, one in my own name and one in joint names with my wife, or can I just issue a single claim with myself and my wife as joint claimants in respect of both accounts? I have received informal legal advice suggesting that the former is what I need to do but I just wondered if anyone else had come across this situation. Clearly I would like to avoid two court fees if possible! Also, is it just me or are Barclays being the most stubborn of all the banks in refusing to settle? Looking at the "litigation concluded" section I couldn't find a single person who had a Barclays claim that had been settled.