Parrot vs Barclays - **WON**

[funkyparott]

I received a phone call from the Barclay's Data Protection department yeterday morning. Unforntunatley I don't recall the gentleman's name.

 

I was told that my DP request was being dealt with. He said he new exactly what the term 'manual intervention' meant, and that they had received many letters in a similar format. They stated their department was taking longer to deal with these requests because they had received so many.

 

He told me that at no time was there manual intervention on my account in relation to any late payement fees / charges. He promised me he will put this to me in writing. He stated that Barclay's 'overall' ran reports to get a summary of of charges on people's account, - but this was not done on an individual basis. I'm not too sure why he was saying this. Is this a new defence they have up their sleeves ?

 

FP

[Candice]

Meh, he could have just been being polite

As mentioned all over this site, a lot of bank employees are on our side

[funkyparott]

I have no received a reply from Barclays.

 

Barclays state that they are not obliged to present information in any particular format. They appear to refer to 'a schedule of charges' as a document of some specific format. I wonder what the Information Commisioner would make of this type of response. The truth of the matter is, I want a piece of paper with my bank charges written down on. Does it really matter what I call it? What would have happened had I called it a 'list' (would they have refussed that - implying that a list is a specific format??)

 

In my case, it would appear that BArclays are sending my copy statements free of charge. They do, however seem very stuborn!

 

Barclays (I think) have also confirmed they hold no information on 'manual intervention' in my case that falls under DPA. They however state the bank does hold "aggregated information for statistical purposes", which they won't disclose to me.

 

"I write further to our telephone conversation today and would provide confirmation of the following:-

 

You have requested a schedule of bank charges - please be aware that the Bank is not under an obligation to present information according to any particular format. Therefore, your request to assemble a schedule of charges is turned aside. You may of course obtain this data from copy statements and preperation of these is underway and they will be supplied without charge on this occasion. Your cheque will be threfore returned as and when this comes to hand.

 

You have requested information held about 'manual intervention' and I must advise you that the Data Protection Act ("the DPA") does not oblige the Bank to comment about internal polices and procedures. Furthermore, the context and managing of transactions arising from out of order accounts, the bank does not hold the information you have requested in a form that would be covered by the DPA. Whilst aggregated information is retained for statistical purposes, this would not constitute "personal data" under the DPA and therefore would not be covered by a s.7 DPA subject access request.

 

I trust the above will be satisfactory for your purposes.

 

Peter Townsend

Manager, Barclay's Data Protection.

"

 

FP

[funkyparott]

Checking back through the statements that Barclays sent me, I can see that I was charged £110 in bank charges. Most of these occured in 1999. At this time my account was a 'student' account, and the charge was £5 a go. I know this is below the £12 the OFT have mentioned. However, I still don't think it cost Barclays £5 each time they sent me a letter. I can pop down Tescos and purchase a pack of 100 envelopes, 1 reem of A4 paper and 5 fist class stamps for under £5.00.

 

Of course, I realise the implications of the Statue of Limitations, however I do believe that the true nature of these charges was concealed from me. Accordingly, I have carried on with my caim.

 

I received a standard 'FO' letter from Barclays after my initial request for payment. They enclosed a leaflet explaining how they dealt with such matters and said they would either give me a decision or an update by the 7th of June. The letter was a standard template, despite me requesting a sincere dialouge in my intial request letter.

 

I even followed up with a phone call requesting my money back and to discuss the charges. I was fobbed off again and told someone would call me back.

 

Yesterday, I fired off the following letter:-

 

"

16/05/06

 

 

LETTER BEFORE ACTION

 

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

 

ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

I write reference your letter dated 11th May 2006, the contents of which I note.

 

I would draw your attention to the terms of the contract which you agreed to at the time that I opened my account. It is an implied term of that contract that you would conduct yourselves lawfully and in a manner which complies with UK law.

 

To clarify; I now understand that the regime of 'fees' which you have been applying to my account in relation to direct debit refusals, exceeding overdraft limits, returned cheques and so forth are unlawful at Common Law, Statute and recent Consumer regulations.

 

I am frankly shocked that you have operated my account in this way as I had always reposed confidence in your integrity and expertise as my fiduciary.

 

I calculate that you have taken £110.

 

Judging by your standard reply, you are clearly not prepared to enter into a sincere dialouge with me and as such I am forced to issued a letter before action. You of course will realise you have a duty to attempt to mitigate any losses outside the courtroom. I do not wish to waste the court's time in bringing a claim if this can be avoided, however you seem most unwilling to discuss the matter.

 

Today, I phoned your customer service line (as quoted in your letter) requesting to discuss this matter. I was told that someone would be in contact with me in due course. Your concealment of the true nature of said charges has prevented me from asserting my right until now - further compounded by your apparent unwillingness to discuss the matter.

 

 

You state in your letter, how you deal with such matters and provide a date of 7th June 2006 for which I should recieve a reply. Let me explain how I deal with such matters:-

 

Take note, if I do not receive from you the sum of £105 by return of post within 14 days I shall immediately commence legal proceedings through the County Court. I shall be claiming interest at the rate of 8% pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act in addition to my court costs. You will receive no further communication from me once this deadline has expired.

 

Furthermore, I shall submit a Consumer Credit Act 1974 complaint to the OFT upon the basis that you have failed to comply with the OFT's direction of 5 April 2006 and are therefore not a 'fit and proper person' to hold a consumer credit licence under the 1974 Act. If you do not understand what this means then seek advice from your legal department.

 

I look forward to your payment within 14 days.

 

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

Funky Parrot

"

 

I think I am pushing my luck a bit with this claim to be honest. Does anyone have any idea on rates of inflation? In other words, what would £5 have been worth 8 or so years ago?

 

 

FP

[Guest Lueeze]

Threads merged, Louise

[CrispDust]

Youy could hunt down the RPI tables (maybe Inland Revenue?) which show effects of inflation over eah year.

[funkyparott]

Hi,

 

My claim is for £60 in charges (£30 in interest at 8% if they don't cough up in five days)- the first in 02/12/98 and the last in 01/02/2001. I know I am pushing my luck with this claim owing to the statute of limitations. I have included in my particular of claims :-

 

"6. The claimant contends that the defendant, in it's fiduciary capacity, has concealed the true nature of said charges over recent years."

 

Barclays in the infintie wisdoms have sent me a template letter that totally contradicts it's self. The first paragraph states they are aware of the elements that support my claim, but that they disagree with it.

 

They then say they can't find any charges that were applied to my account. MUPPETS!! They were the ones, - in previous weeks, that sent me the microfiche printouts that show me all the charges!

 

I really can't be bothered with them now. They have had my letter before action. They have only ever replied with template letters. They now ask me to state which charges I am refering to, when it was they who sent me a breakdown of the charges in the first place. I believe I have acted reasonably in trying to mitigate the matter. They will have a summons in five days.

 

To that end, would anyone like to comment on my particulars of claim ?

 

 

"1. The Defendant is a high street bank. The Claimant has had with the Defendant a current account, number xxxxxxxx, sort code: xx-xx-xx. The claimant is unable to provide the date the contract commenced, owing to the defendant's failure to fully comply, with a recent s7 Data Protection Act request.

 

2. Between the date of commencemnt and 1 June 2006 the Defendant deducted various amounts in respectof: ‘unauthorised borrowing fees’/‘overdraft usage fees’/‘overdraft excess fees’/'unpaid charges'/'cheque charges'

(See attached schedule A).

 

3. 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.

 

4. The Claimant contends that the terms of the contract with respect to these charges are unfair and unlawful in light of the fact that:

 

i. They are punitive charges designed to penalise the Claimant for a breach of contract. That they unduly enrich the Defendant, which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to generating a profit. That under the law of penalties they are ‘extravagant’ and therefore unlawful.

 

ii. They are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant and exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of the breach of contract on the part of the Claimant. It is averred that pursuant to paragraph 8 under schedule 2 (1)(e) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), (‘a term is unfair if it requires any consumer who fails his/her obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation’) and under the Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977), in which it is stated that a trader can only include a clause in the contract requiring a consumer to indemnify him against any loss he may incur through negligence or breach of contract if he can show that the clause satisfies

the test of reasonableness, that the charges which have been applied to the Claimant’s account are unfair and therefore unenforceable at law.

 

iii. 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, which requires the supplier of a service to carry out that service for a reasonable charge.

 

iv. Under the law of mistake, the Claimant’s grounds for restitution are that the bank automatically debited the amount of the charge from the Claimant’s account

and was not legally entitled to do so.

 

5. The Claimant will be relying on, inter alia, judgements made in the cases of:

 

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. New Garages and Motor Co. 1915

Ford Motor Co. v. Armstrong 1915

Bridge v. Campbell 1962

Murray v. Leisureplay 2004

 

6. The claimant contends that the defendant, in it's fiduciary capacity, has concealed the true nature of said charges over recent years.

 

7. Accordingly the claimant claims from the Defendant a sum equivalent to £60 unlawfully debited to the Claimant’s account in the period 02 December 1998 to 01 February 2001. The sums are detailed in the attached schedule A.

 

8. The claimant claims interest pursuant to s69 of

the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 02/12/98 to

01/06/06 of £31.98 and also interest at the same rate up to the date

of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.048 .

 

9. The Claimant further claims the court fee of £30.

 

10. I believe that the facts stated in these particulars of claim are true.

"

 

I am a little fearful that they will apply for the claim to be struck out immediately before it has even got to court, citing the statutes of limitations act. I am hoping that point 6. in the particulars of claim will stop this.

 

At the end of the day, it is going to cost them money to defend this. All I stand to lose is £30 (I don't even think there is a cost for allocation questionnaire for the amount I am claiming).

 

FP

[funkyparott]

Barclays last day for refunding their charges was yesterday.

 

I was litereally just about to pop down to the county court to file my claim papers, and guess who phones up?

 

Barclay's very apologetic for not realising their had been charges to my back account going all the way back to 98!

 

I told them unless they gave me all the money back within the next 20 mins to my account I was serving papers. I politely informed them it would cost them more than £60 for them to instruct their solicitors to defend this action.

 

I was given an immediate refund over the phone for £60. No attempts to stall.

 

I am a little dissapointment that I didn't get the chance to go to court. I really wanted to try out the Statute of Limitations Arguement against them in court.

 

I have accepted their offer so long as it is in my account today. I could't justify serving the papers after their offer - because this would have been seen as unreasonable by the judge. Just wish I didn't pick up the phone - then I could have claimed an extra £30 in interest under the County Courts Act !!

 

 

 

Parrot.

[Bookworm]

 

Don't forget the survey!

 

Bank charges refund

 

and maybe this?

 

Bank charges donation

[funkyparott]

This topic was closed on 09 March 2019.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group