some info please ***WON***

[Lula]

well you can do, in the section at the end, but I dont think it is necessary at this stage

[bp]

Thanks

[bp]

Couple more questions plz. I've included the SAR fee in the spreadsheet, is that correct? if so should the interest also be added? or should i just mention the fee in my N1?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Lula]

Im not entirely sure that you can claim it back, but I do stand to be corrected on this, I have never heard of anyone claiming it back before.

[Michael Browne]

Couple more questions plz. I've included the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) fee in the spreadsheet, is that correct? if so should the interest also be added? or should i just mention the fee in my N1?

 

 

Not in the s/s. But it is a legitimate cost that can be claimed on the N1,which you gave notice of in the DPA letter.

[Lula]

Thanks for that Michael

[bp]

Sorry for all the questions but i just want to get it right. Abbey refunded some of my charges but it was an awkward amount so not sure how to work it out. Do i take that amount out from the recent charges on s/s or just put total amount taken then show it - the amount already refunded on N1? How would that work out with the court interest?

[Michael Browne]

Do i take that amount out from the recent charges on s/s?

 

Yes, because you can't charge the 8% interest on charges they've refunded, but if you remove the most recent charges you're losing the least amount of interest

[bp]

Now is the beginning of the real battle. N1 form lodged today and when i arrived home, there was a lovely letter from Shabbey.

 

"I'm sorry for the delay while we continue to look into your complaint. although we have made progress, we want to make sure we fully understand the problem before writing and we are unable to give you a full response just now"

 

At least i know they care enough to keep me updated!

[Michael Browne]

"I'm sorry for the delay while we continue to look into your complaint. although we have made progress, we want to make sure we fully understand the problem before writing and we are unable to give you a full response just now"

 

My translation of this is " You're mistaking us for someone who gives a toss"

[bp]

My translation of this is " You're mistaking us for someone who gives a toss"

 

And there i was thinking Abbey though i was special!

[bp]

Just an update, received an acknowledgement from Abbey, they intend to defend. Also got a letter from them on same day saying they were not going to offer me anymore £ and will be charging me a further £120 at the beginning of Dec! How nice!

[bish]

Yes just the usual tactics to put you off, ignore it and carry on. The only time you get any positive response from abbey is just prior to a hearing in court. Although they treat the courts as a stalling tactic I still think they fear them, and so they should to. The last bastion of Honesty, Integrity, and Justice. All my reading on this site leads me to believe that the court system in this country is still the best in the world. I hope it stays that way.

 

Regards bish.

[bp]

Just a moan really, still waiting for Abbey's defence. Also i still haven't got my earlier statements even thought i asked for them early Aug! LBA for non compliance sent today and I'll call them tomorrow.

 

I know it may sound far fetched but i think they realise they owe me a lot more than I'm claiming for (part of my claim is estimated). I've just found two of my statements from 2004 and bloody hell in 2 months alone, there are charges amounting to just over £800! I know that for about six months things were really bad!

[missphant]

if they haven't sent you the statements you've asked for then i believe i'm right in thinking you can submit an estimated claim for the missing months and it's then up to abbey to bring the exact figures to your attention - just make sure you state clearly at some point which part is estimated and why to cover yourself.

[missphant]

sorry ignore that last post - just read your thread all the way through and realised that's been covered! oops!

[bp]

received a copy of Abbey's defence by our beloved Ingra Kirman. its marked "without prejudice" Does that mean i can't discuss it or does it just means i can't post on here?

 

Also i'm a bit annoyed as they keep referring to me as HE which can only mean its the usual standard defence.

[bp]

Sorry its the letter that says "without prejudice" but i assume this applies to the defence also since all that the letter does is state my claim no and that they are sending me a copy of their defence. I'll post their defence later just popping out for the mo.

Thanks for your help

[bp]

Here's a copy of Abbey's defence.

IN THE EDMONTON COUNTY COURT

DEFENCE

1 Save as is specifically admitted in this Defence, the defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim

2 Is admitted that the claimant has a bank account with the defendant, account number to particularised (“Account”)

3 At all times the account has been subject to the applicable terms and conditions (“Conditions), which form part of the contract between the claimant and the defendant and to which the Claimant agreed when he opened the Account. The defendant will refer at trial to the full conditions but for the purposes of this defence will refer to the following extracts:

(1) “You can apply for an overdraft on your Account. If we give you an overdraft we will tell you your limit and the interest rate applicable.”

(2) “An unauthorised overdraft occurs if without our agreement you overdraw your Account or exceed the limit of an overdraft which we have agreed.”

(3) “If you have an unauthorised overdraft, you will be charged fees as set out in our tariff of Charges or specified to you and these may include fees for transactions we are unable to process due to lack of funds in your Account.”

• Throughout the period that he has had the Account, the Claimant received a number of copies of the conditions and of the said Tariff of Charges as they were amended and updated (though there has been no material amendment to the Conditions extracted in paragraphs 3(1), (2) and (3) above).

• Any overdraft facility on the Account was (and is) subject to the Conditions.

• The Claimant has overdrawn or exceeded authorised overdraft limits on the Account on a number of separate occasions, full details of which will be provided on disclosure. Therefore by virtue of the Conditions referred to in paragraph 3 above such overdrawing was unauthorised and in breach of the contract and the Claimant became liable to pay fees to the Defendant in accordance with its Tariff of Charges applicable at the relevant time. In accordance with the Conditions, such fees were debited to the Account.

• In view of the facts and matters referred to in paragraphs 3,4,5 and 6 above, the defendant denies that the amount of £3754.46, or any other, amount was unlawfully debited to the Account an the Claimant’s claim for the repayment of that amount is therefore denied.

• The Claimant’s contention that the said fees are unenforceable and/or are “penalty charges” is denied. The fees reflect and are proportionate to the Defendant’s administrative expenses incurred due to the Claimant’s breach of contract and are a genuine pre-estimate of the damage suffered by the Defendant.

• Further or in the alternative, even if the said fees are not proportionate to the defendant’s administrative expenses incurred (which is denied), the Claimant remains liable to pay such fees as may be found to be proportionate and the Claimant is not entitled to claim repayment of the full amount of each charge made to the Account.

• The defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to interest.

• No admissions are made as to the amounts claimed by the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the same.

The defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true.

[bish]

Hi

 

Bog standard defence other than I have not seen before or in my defence, which was filed by DLA Piper,

 

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to interest.

 

Under S69 of the county court act the Claimant is entitled to interest, all be it at the courts discretion. So what interest are they refering to, did you claim contractual interest on your claim?, or just the interest applied on the account due to the charges and the S69 8% interest.

 

Regards bish.

[bp]

Hi

 

Bog standard defence other than I have not seen before or in my defence, which was filed by DLA Piper,

 

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to interest.

 

Under S69 of the county court act the Claimant is entitled to interest, all be it at the courts discretion. So what interest are they refering to, did you claim contractual interest on your claim?, or just the interest applied on the account due to the charges and the S69 8% interest.

 

Regards bish.

 

 

The only interest i asked for was the S69 8% infact i didn't even bother with the interest they had charged me and worst of all they still won't send me all my statements and i'm quite sure my claim is underestimated!

[bp]

oh crap i've just realised what i've done. i included the S69 interest in my particulars of claim. should i have left it out?

[bp]

having looked at it i can't see what the problem is.

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

 

1. The Claimant has an account 1 73803389 with the Defendant which was opened on or around 11 June 2002

 

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. 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.

 

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

 

4. 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 Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.

 

5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

 

a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £ 3754.46

 

 

b) Data Protection Act Subject Access Request Fee:£10.00

 

c) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act as set out on the attached list of charges or at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just.

 

I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true

 

 

[bp]

I spoke to the courts today and my AQ is on its way, we have till 28Dec to submit. When i mentioned that part of my claim is estimated the lady wasn't too sure if i could change it this far into the claim. she did however ask me to make sure i bring this to the judge's attention as it may affect which track its allocated to. as i said before, i think my claim is underestimated but very much doubt this would take me out of the small claims court.

 

Abbey have today promised it would take 3-4 days for my statement to arrive. My main question is, as i'm fairly sure i'm gonna have to amend the amount i'm claiming, could i ask that the defendant becomes liable for this fee if i can prove that had it not been for them, i would not have had to amend my claim. i am exempt from paying court fees but don't think this covers the amendment fee.

 

any suggestions or am i barking up the wrong tree?

[Tigs33]

bp's defense is the same as the one I have got apart from mine hasn't got this bit "The defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to interest."