Bong v Barclaycard **WON**

[bill-k]

Eew - aren't we regal !!

 

That was the royal "we" - but I'm still taking the, er, mickey.

 

BTW I dumped a bit of verbal in Tanz's thread in reply to their earlier post.

[TUTTSI]

One of the big differences with contractual interest is also the fact that it is calculated as compound interest. DS - your method works OK for calculating simple interest, using the contractual rate, but have a go at using one of the compound interest spreadsheets. It can sometimes make a huge difference - particularly with older charges.

 

Or alternatively, you can put in the compound formula on your current spready, if you know how to do that. I can give you the formula if you need it.

 

Bill.

I have called it simple interest on my charges schedule. When I did the MCOL I added both the charges and interest together for the claim.

I believe what I did what OK it is what I have been charged them no more and no less. I have not charged the 8% and I have not asked for any further interest past my schedules which they have. I do expect to be paid.

Thanks for your advice.

DS

[TANZARELLI]

Thanks all will do a bit more reading on this subject as got some time as not got statements from Bcard yet. The longer it goes on the mor eit makes me want to clainm this, I will however (once I have got my head around it) be claiming the stat 8% in the alternative as suggested by bong et al.

 

I may pop back for some more wisdom at a later point, if thats ok.

 

Tanz.

[bill-k]

I have called it simple interest on my charges schedule. When I did the MCOL I added both the charges and interest together for the claim.

I believe what I did what OK it is what I have been charged them no more and no less. I have not charged the 8% and I have not asked for any further interest past my schedules which they have. I do expect to be paid.

Thanks for your advice.

DS

Didn't mean to insult your claim, DS. Yes, what you did was OK., as you say. It's just that, strictly speaking, contractual interest is compounded, and that is actually what they charged you. You are in fact claiming less than they charged you if you claim it as simple interest. But the plus point about that is that they will be less likely to argue with you, as you are claiming less than your contractual entitlement. All the best with your claim - I'm sure you'll be paid.

[noomill060]

Read this, it should make disturbing reading for Peter Townsend (DATA CONTROLLER OF BARCLAYS BANK if Judge Forrester is reading) assuming he doesnt want become a guest of Her Majesty.

 

(Avoid the showers, Peter, and dont go into the greenhouse, whatever you do!)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43&Itemid=2

 

 

Non disclosure imprisonment threat against RBS Data Controller!

A Consumer Action Group User was today (21/11/06) granted a County Court order in respect of the failure by the Royal Bank of Scotland to comply with his disclosure request under the Data Protection Act.

District judge Forrester, making the order commented that had the claimant been able to supply him with the name of the data controller

at the Royal Bank of Scotland that he would have added a threat of imprisonment for non-compliance.

 

The Royal Bank of Scotland now has until January 2007 to comply with the users subject access request. The District Judge has indicated that if the Bank has not complied with the order by that time that he may make an order for imprisonment of the RBS Data controller.

[bill-k]

Sorry, Bong. Not only stepped on your toes, there, but hijacked. SOZ.

[mrpromiscous]

(missus) Bong... Bill-K !!!! where were you guys last night when i needed you ! lol Looking into this contractual interest stuff is the 1st time my head has hurt on here and I actually had the hump last night.... tis so confusing ! Im not even sure if I have calculated my s69 8% correctly now ffs. For the 8% interest column (using works not excel although that does'nt really alter anything) i multiplied the charge amount by 0.00022 and then by the amount of days elapsed since the charge was applied. However now I cant see where I read the daily rate of 0.00022 on here, and im not sure if i've used the right multiplier doh !

[mrpromiscous]

after reading ds's post a couple of pages ago it looks like i should have divided 8% by 365 (days of the year) which would give a daily rate of 0.022.... big difference to 0.00022 !

[mrpromiscous]

nah that cant be right, i just entered that into my spreadsheet to see what difference it makes and its ridiculous, a charge applied on the 11th September 2002 of £25 on my original spreadsheet using the 0.00022 multiplier gives interest of £9.40, using the ds method of 0.022 that figure becomes £940 lol.

[Guest bong]

mrp - its 8%/365 = 0.00022 for the daily rate. why are you working out the number of days - doesn't your spreadsheet do that automatically?

[mrpromiscous]

hi bong, thank fook for that so it appears i have done it right ! sad but true i had a really poop nights sleep worrying about this ! No my spreadsheet works it out for me, would you review my spreadsheet if i sent it to you to put my mind at ease ???

 

MrP

[Guest bong]

no

[Guest bong]

Hah!! only kidding:D post it up in your thread and give me the link so I can have a lil lookie

[mrpromiscous]

harsh very harsh lol, if i stick it in the thread it wont show the fromulaes i've used though will it ?

[Guest bong]

gawd don't talk formulas to me mrP - Bills the one you need

 

 

Bill?- you can come outta your tree now:D

[mrpromiscous]

hehe no problem miss, hes looking into it over on why is noone claiming contractual interest thread anyway.... come join the party lol

[bill-k]

gawd don't talk formulas to me mrP - Bills the one you need

 

 

Bill?- you can come outta your tree now:D

 

...You rang, ma'am ?

 

Yeah, it's OK, Bong MrP's got us multi-tasking, and Glenn's telling him to pack it in !!!

 

Great fun.

[bill-k]

Bong, I'm not sure if this is any good to you, but I've only just come across it, and it seems amazing. Long thread, but worth a scan through. The first posts outline the scenario, and you can decide from there. I'm looking into it as a possible way of getting my IVA dissolved.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/10900-loan-company-cannot-supply.html

 

Also:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/32080-my-mums-catalogue-bill.html

 

And there are links in them to other threads, too !!

[bill-k]

....and this one

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/27830-moorcroft.html

[Guest bong]

cheers Bill. will take a proper look later on this eve when I have more time.

[dennis philip hardy]

hello bong, i can probably help with some of your questions but first have the bank settled or contacted you?

[TANZARELLI]

Hi Dennis and welcome to the forum.

 

Tanz

[Guest bong]

hi dennis, no they haven't contacted me.

 

I will be looking for a little bit of a sweetener shall we say if they contact me at this stage. All that printing and photocopying took a fair little while, and has quite put me in the mood for a morning in court. I wonder if they've got their bundle ready yet?!

[TANZARELLI]

hi dennis, no they haven't contacted me.

 

I will be looking for a little bit of a sweetener shall we say if they contact me at this stage. All that printing and photocopying took a fair little while, and has quite put me in the mood for a morning in court. I wonder if they've got their bundle ready yet?!

 

Bundle? They could prob write theirs on a stamp. lol

 

It will prob be a copy of the terms and conditions and some useless leaflets.

[Guest bong]

LOL Tanz:p

 

just for the record

 

In the Edmonton County Court

Claim Number 6QZ63036

xxxxxxxxx Claimant

and

Barclays Bank Plc Trading As Barclaycard

Defendant

 

SKELETON ARGUMENT

 

• The claimant was at all material times a customer of the defendant and is a consumer for the purposes of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“UTCCR”).

• The defendant is a financial institution and credit card provider.

• The claimant claims the recovery of charges and interest applied on those charges (breakdown provided at pages 37 to 38 of the court bundle) debited to the claimant’s account by the defendant between August 2004 and September 2006, on the basis that they are unlawful:

• The charges constitute a disproportionate penalty within the meaning of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79 (pages 73 to 74 of the court bundle), in not being a genuine pre-estimate of the defendant’s losses in relation to contract breaches by the claimant, and are therefore unenforceable.

• If not a penalty, the charges are unreasonable within the meaning of s.15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (page 105 of the court bundle).

• The contract term which purports to entitle the defendant to make such charges is invalid under the UTCCR;

i. Schedule 2.1.e of the UTCCR (page 82 of the court bundle) defines any term, which has the effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation, as a term which may be regarded as unfair.

ii. Paragraph 8 of the UTCCR (page 77 of the court bundle) states that an unfair term in a contract shall not be binding on the consumer.

• The contract term which purports to entitle the defendant to make such charges is also invalid under s.4 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (page 87 of the court bundle)

• The defendant’s charges were £20 for exceeding the credit limit and £20 for late payments (the account breaches). Upon complaint the defendant refunded the claimant £8 in respect of each charge levied (£80 in total), on 6 September 2006, the effect being to reduce each charge levied to £12. No adjustment of interest already applied on the original charges was made with the refund.

• The claimant’s account has been debited with interest calculated on a daily basis by the defendant on the debit balance outstanding. This interest is sufficient to compensate the defendant for the claimant’s indebtedness to the defendant, whether that debit balance was in excess of the agreed limit or was not reduced by the correct date by the monthly repayment requested.

• The claimant contends that the defendant has not incurred any costs, loss or damage (in excess of the daily interest charged) in relation to the claimant’s account breaches. No letters were sent or telephone calls made to the claimant, and no transactions were refused, as a consequence of the breaches. The charges constitute a penalty at common law.

• The claimant would be willing to pay the actual costs incurred by the defendant in respect of the said account breaches but the defendant has refused to provide details of the costs to which it has been put.

• By reason of the above, the claimant claims the return of the said charges and interest levied on the original charges, interest pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% a year from 11/8/2004 until the date of judgement or earlier settlement and court costs.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

 

The claimant believes that the facts contained in this skeleton argument are true

SIGNED…………………………………………………..

xxxxxxxxxx - Claimant

DATED THIS 2nd day of January 2007

and

In the EDMONTON County Court

Claim Number 6QZ63036

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Claimant

 

and

Barclays Bank Plc Trading As Barclaycard

Defendant

 

WITNESS STATEMENT

 

Of xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Claimant

 

I, xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, of xx xxxxx Road, xxxxxx, xxxxxxx xxx xxx, will say as follows: -

• I am the claimant in this case.
  
• I make this witness statement in accordance with the directions given by the court dated 20 November 2006.
  
• I make this witness statement from information and facts within my own knowledge and which I believe to be true.
  
• My claim is in respect of charges debited to my credit card account by the defendant, the account provider, between August 2004 and September 2006, in respect of late payments and exceeding the account credit limit (breaches of the account terms) and also interest debited to the account in respect of the charges applied.
  
• A list of the said charges and interest applied to the account is attached to this witness statement.
  
• On 29 August 2006 I wrote to the defendant requesting a refund of the said charges (£212) and interest charged thereon (£143.53), as I understood the charges to be unlawful. The total refund requested was £355.53. A schedule of the individual charges and interest applied thereon was enclosed with the letter.
  
• On 1 September 2006 the defendant replied stating that they would aim to deal with my letter by 27 September 2006.
  
• On 6 September 2006 the defendant wrote again offering to refund £80 to my account, in respect of the charges, as a gesture of goodwill and without any admission of liability.
  
• On 6 September 2006 the defendant credited £80 to my account.
  
• On 7 September 2006 I wrote to the defendant declining their offer of settlement and requesting for a second time that they refund all charges, and interest on the charges, totalling £355.53. I also stated that I would accept the £80 offered in part settlement and on the understanding that I would pursue recovery of the remainder with a county court claim if necessary.
  
• On 9 September 2006 the defendant replied stating that they would not consider my request for any further refund.
  
• On 12 September 2006 I filed a claim in the Northampton County Court (Money Claim Online – “MCOL”) against the defendant for the return of excessive penalty charges and interest thereon, as outlined in my particulars of claim.
  
• On 13 September 2006 my claim was issued by MCOL and deemed served on 18 September 2006.
  
• On 2 October 2006 the defendant filed an acknowledgement of service of the claim, giving the defendant until 16 October 2006 to file a defence.
  
• On the evening of 16 October 2006 the defendant had not entered a defence and I requested judgement by default via MCOL.
  
• On 17 October 2006 MCOL accepted the late filing of a defence to the claim by the defendant, rejected my request for judgement and transferred the claim to Edmonton County Court.
  
• On 23 October 2006 I sent another itemised schedule in support of my claim to the defendant’s solicitors.
  
• On 1 November 2006 I filed my allocation questionnaire with Edmonton County Court.
  
• On 20 November 2006 the court allocated the case to the Small Claims Track and gave directions to the parties for the filing of documents prior to the hearing on 17 January 2007.
  
• On 27 November 2006 I wrote to the defendant’s solicitors asking if they had any intention of settling the claim out of court, and giving them one last opportunity to do so before 10 December 2006, after which date I would be preparing my court bundle of documents, in order to have it ready before a Christmas holiday with my children commencing on 20 December. They have not replied to this letter.
  
• The claimant understands from the defendant’s statement of case that the defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the claimant.
  
• The claimant contends that: -

i. The charges debited to the account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of costs incurred by the defendant; exceed any alleged loss to the defendant in respect of the 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.

ii. The contractual provision that permits the defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Paragraph 8 and Schedule 2.1.e., the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 s.4, and the common law (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79.)

iii. Alternatively, the charges are unreasonable within the meaning of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15.

• Accordingly the claimant claims:

i. The return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £242.33, which includes interest applied on the charges.

ii. Court costs of £30

iii. Interest of £34.77 (from 11/8/2004 to 2/1/2007) under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year, as set out on the attached list of charges, and interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or settlement at the daily rate of 5p.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

 

I believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true and it comprises two pages and an additional two pages (schedule of charges and schedule of charges showing county court interest calculations).

SIGNED………………………………………………………………….……….

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx - Claimant

DATED THIS 2nd day of January 2007