Glenn Vs Abbey

[kippy2]

any further developments on this Glenn

[2gr82btrue]

I have an issue with the abbey and even after refusing their settlement figure they still put it in my bank acccount anyway and are not making any efforts to remove it. its based on SI of 8% but i asked the courts to consider 28.7%, 16.9% and 8% interest. the court date is on the 14th May and the abbey have threatened me with attending to fight the CI issue. They were a little confused with my case .... which I found quite amusing. She refused to answer or make comment on issues i had raised in a letter to her about the setlement..... she was sooooooo annoyed.... oh what a shame! lol ;-)

[quietzap]

ShAbbey have started paying Mrs Quietzap and myself the illegal charges without interest, perhaps this is becoming standard now, and the real arguement will be about the the alternative interest rates?

 

I think the best plan is to remove the cash to another place, together with one's custom and go as far for the interest as possible.

 

If they pay the charges back and the court throw out the interest claim is there any chance that shAbbey would be entitled to the charges back AGAIN?

[TANZARELLI]

Hi quietzap,

 

Once they have paid they wont be entitled to them back. You will need to reject the offer though so that you can keep the claim intact. See here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/25716-rejecting-offers.html

[Armsoft]

ShAbbey have started paying Mrs Quietzap and myself the illegal charges without interest, perhaps this is becoming standard now, and the real arguement will be about the the alternative interest rates?

 

I think the best plan is to remove the cash to another place, together with one's custom and go as far for the interest as possible.

 

If they pay the charges back and the court throw out the interest claim is there any chance that shAbbey would be entitled to the charges back AGAIN?

 

Very unlikely quietzap as it would take Abbey to settle the charges dispute prior to court and then dispute the interest rate to get it into court in the first place.

At the moment there is no way that Abbey are going to enter a court room to argue the charges point (they can`t afford too), so they would only be defending the interest claim, so your charges refund should be safe.

 

If I was you, I would take some time to read through some of the `Abuse of Process` threads that are springing up all over the site, as at the moment Abbey are having a hard time of it even with their defence entries, it makes interesting reading.

 

As always though, be prepared to go to court, make sure you are able to argue the Interest points just in case you need too.

[Hercules]

Hi All,

 

I'm goingto have a bash at claiming CI through courts and have plageurised the above and adapted to myself, of which i am not claiming debit interest can you have a scan and see if it looks ok?

 

 

1. The Claimants has 1 Account XXXXXXXX ("the Accounts") with the Defendant.

 

2. The Account XXXXXXXX was opened on or around January 1997 and is still held with the defendant.

 

4. During the period in which the Accounts were operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Accounts in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimants and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimants understand that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

 

5. Schedules of the charges applied are attached to these particulars of claim for the Accounts.

 

6. The Claimants wrote to the Defendant and made a Subject Access Request under Section 7 of the Data protection Act 1988 on the 22nd July 2006 in respect of Account XXXXXXXX requesting a complete list of transactions and charges relating to his banking history with the Defendant. The maximum statutory fee of £10.00 was enclosed in the form of a cheque drawn in favour of the Defendant.

 

7. The Defendant supplied account information.

 

8. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim. The entries for the periods set out in item 7.

 

10. The Claimants contend that:

 

a) The charges debited to the Accounts 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 Claimants; 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 Claimants find the charges listed in the Defendant’s statements are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law. Regardless of the wording of automated letters sent to the Claimants, these charges constitute a “penalty charge” as the amounts bear no relation to the actual costs incurred by the Defendant. Such penalty charges are legally unenforceable, even if a clause exists in the Terms and Conditions that authorizes such a charge.

 

c) The Defendant concealed the nature of their charges and unauthorised interest rates and led the Claimants to mistakenly pay the unlawful charges and interest through their misrepresentations regarding the nature of the charges and interest.

 

d) The facts relevant to the Claimants' right of action have been deliberately concealed from him by the Defendant.

 

e) The Defendant continues to conceal both the nature of their unlawful charges and interest charges, and the facts relevant to the Claimant’s right, as the holder of the Accounts, to recover unlawful charges and interest removed from the Claimant’s accounts.

 

f) Further, as a disproportionate penalty the charges and unauthorised interest are invalid under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 s.4 and under The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Para.8 and sch.2(1)(e). In the event that the charges are not a penalty then they are unreasonable within the meaning of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15.

 

11. Accordingly the Claimants claim:

 

a) return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £xxxx.xx and interest charged thereon, estimated at £xx.xx

 

b) A declaration from this Honourable Court that the level of levied charges are unlawful and unenforceable;

 

c) Court costs;

 

d) The Claimant claims compound interest on the charges and overdraft interest applied thereon to the Claimant’s account (“the principal claim”), at the annual rate of 28.7%. This is the rate currently applied by the Defendant to unauthorised use or borrowing of the Defendant’s monies, as provided for in the contract.

 

The Claimant’s case for claiming this rate is based in equity, and a legal requirement for fairness and balance.

 

The Claimants deem the Defendant’s principal indebtedness to the Claimants to be unauthorised, since it is comprised of charges that are unconscionable, remain unsubstantiated, and amount to unenforceable penalties at law. If the Defendant avers that its charges are fair, reasonable and therefore enforceable, its remedy will be to defend the claim by providing evidence of its actual losses or pre-estimate of costs in relation to the Claimant’s accounts breaches. Since the Defendant has been invited to do so prior to the issue of Court proceedings, and has refused, and since the Claimants are aware that the Defendant has failed to defend any other similar claim, choosing to settle before the trial dates, the Claimants deem the Defendant ’s charges to the Claimant’s accounts to be indefensible, unenforceable at law, and unauthorised, since it was clearly not in the Claimant’s contemplation when entering into the contract, that the Claimants would authorise the Defendant to apply unlawful penalty charges and interest thereon to the Claimant’s accounts, or to profit in an unlawful manner from the Claimant’s accounts breaches.

 

For the contract to confer advantageous terms (i.e. entitlement to compensation) on one party (the Defendant ) where there is no comparable term in favour of the other party (the Claimant) is to create an imbalance in the parties’ rights and is contrary to the requirements of Regulation 5 (1) of the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“UTCCR”).

 

Regulation 5 (1) of the UTCCR states as follows:

 

Unfair Terms

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.”

 

Therefore, to satisfy the requirement of fairness, within the definition given by the UTCCR, the contract would have to provide a mutual or reciprocal term permitting the customer to apply the same rate of interest on any unauthorised withdrawals from the customer’s accounts by the bank (the Defendant). The interest claimed is therefore deemed to provide an equitable remedy.

e) In the alternative to 11(d), should the Court deem that the claim does not merit the application of the Defendant’s unauthorised lending rate, the Claimant claims that the Defendant is put to an Account of profits and that any profits derived from their unlawful removal of sums of money from the Claimants accounts be returned to the Claimant.

f) As particularised at 11(d), contractual interest at an annual rate of 28.7 % compounded daily from the date of each transaction to 30th March 2007, of £xxxx.xx.

 

g) Further contractual interest at 28.7 % compounded daily from xx/xx/xx up to the date of judgement or earlier payment. As the interest is compounding and the Claimant is unable to predict when the claim will be heard or settled, the Claimant is unable to specify a static daily interest figure, but will provide an updated settlement figure in respect of the interest at any hearing, or if and when the Defendant requests an earlier settlement.

i) In the alternative to 11(f) & 11(g), any award made to the Claimants pursuant to paragraph 11(g)

[woodentop]

Hi Glenn,

Fascinating read - just subscribing - will be commencing my battle with Abbey this weekend - leaving the best to last as they say LOL. This one's gonna be a nightmare!!!

Good luck

Woody

[Hercules]

by the way there is no way of doing this via mcol right?

[TANZARELLI]

by the way there is no way of doing this via mcol right?

 

Not a chance, not enough room for a decent poc.

[beetlejuice]

Glen,

 

Have Abbey claim at LBA stage they've ignored this and keep writing to say no not us we're all fair and above board. I have claimed CI from beginning at 28.7% and want to issue Claim in Court, to avoid Abbey paying back just the charges and then contesting the Ci, should I close the account.?

 

Your POC is wicked and I would love to plagerise if you have no objection.

 

Comments?

 

BJ

 

See http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/83274-beetlejuice-abbey.html?highlight=beetlejuice

[beetlejuice]

Glenn thanks for PM, good luck. I have a hearing on Tuesday to lift a stay on a NatWest claim, any ideas what to bring to court to help my argument. I have a few debters letters hopefully DJ will take pity on me can't see it though it. Also Natwest previous in full settlement letters as evidence. They did n't put up much of a fight then and settled in full so I can't see why they're digging their heals in on this one!

 

I'll keep you posted

 

BJ

[d1cky]

can some1 help me out pls monument charges!