Welshcakes V Woolwich

[welshcakes]

I rang bank yesterday, explained everything very politely and was told that due to the back log, they aim to get my statements to me by next week.

 

As I expected really, nothing concrete, bit vague and no one prepared to push a few buttone to get my charges printed off by end of day.

 

I'm responding to Litigation's offer of settlement with my own letter which accepts on condition of receiving list of charges and that only upon clearance of cheque will I discontinue action.

 

I've also stated that my offer to settle for the amount is only valid for a week from date of letter after which my costs get updated to reflect the ongoing cots to me of pursuing matter (another £28.70).

 

Find it ironic that all they had to do was send the charge list. To date, they have wasted so much time on composing and sending letters plus of course costs that could so easily have been avoided.

 

I am happy to go to court over this. I am happy to have a judgement placed against them and to have all my costs reimbursed. The reason I am responding in writing to their offer is that they sent the letter headed (Without Prejudice) which means I cannot use it as evidence - I can however use my response letter which refers to their offer to settle all my out of pocket costs. That way, the judge aware that they have acknowledged my out of pocket expenses as valid, just in case they turn round at hearing at object to paying them.

[welshcakes]

OK, run into a delay problem with Barclays and my efforts to acquire my list of charges.

 

As many of you know, I sent a SAR back in Nov 2006 and have recently got to the point of taking them to court for non compliance with DPA.

 

I have in the last few days received a list of charges but they have chosen to send a list that only cover 24th July 2001 onwards - what they appear to have done is take one of my most recent communications (dated 13th June 2007) as the start point of the 6 years.

 

I know for a fact that there are charges in the Nov 2000 - 24 July 2001 and since these are within the 6 yr limit of my original SAR, I believe I have every legal right to have at least have them included in the list of transactions.

 

On Saturday I emailed stating that without this portion of list, the bank continued to be in breach of DPA. The email I have received today from Woolwich Customer Care states that;

 

"....I would advise that under the Statute of Limitations, we currently hold data for 6 years. Our records show no charges prior to 24 July 2001..."

 

I do not believe this to be a statement of fact (am avoiding out of politeness from calling in a bare face ***).

 

Can I just confirm that this is not true, that Barclays/Woolwich are able to provide my list of charges from Nov 2000 onwards and that the Statute of Limitations has no bearing on their access to such account information or to them making it available to me.

 

Thank you

[welshcakes]

Well, today's post has brought another joke letter (I'm sure must be a compulsory Clown Training department in B's).

 

In response to my acceptance of full monetary settlement of this claim ON condition that they send through my list of transactions as per my ORIGINAL S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) which I sent back in Nov 2006 - that is to say charges from at least November 2000 onwards, I have received a letter from OpenPlan Woolwich;

 

Dear XXXXX

 

As requested by our Head Office, I have today arranged for the sum of £xx.xx to be credited to your Classic current account in full and final settlement. I trust this now concludes the matter.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

Steve Cowland

Customer Relations Advisor

Woolwich Telephony

Curstomer Relations Team

 

For gawd's sake, not only have they completely ignored my letter but they are miraculously going to credit an account that was closed back in March 2003!!!

 

Ah well, my costs have gone up now and this letter will make an excellent addition to my bundle to demonstrate that Barclays t/a Woolwich cannot be relied upon to follow simple instruction or be aware of the state of my accounts. I'm hoping the judge will Strike them out as part of my POC was for them to comply with supplying the transaction list.

 

Amazingly, if they would just supply the list, I'll happily accept their settlement and discontinue but they just don't get it!

[welshcakes]

OK

 

As I have several claims against Barclays T/A The Woolwich, I've opened another thread for my joint account issue (which has the other two claims, i for Data Protection Act breach and a follow on one for charges refund based on an estimated SOC).

 

I'll use this thread purely to handle my Sole account claim.

 

Today I have received a copy of Defence forwarded by Cardiff County Court.

 

First 3 Defence Points:

 

1. The Defendant is entitled to charge the Claimant for unauthorised borrowing by reason of its standard terms and conditions. The charges constitute payments the Claimant agreed to make by reason of the terms and conditions of the Claimant's account and were consideration for the Defendant advancing credit to the Claimant, which the Defendant was under no obligation to advance. The Defendant was entitled to impose such charges and interet when the Claimant incurred the overdraft. The Claimant accepted the same when the account was opened.

 

2. The standard terms and conditions included (in particular but without limitation) and the following trems and conditions (which are summarised):

a. The Defendant's right to charge administrative costs if any cheque, standing order or direct debit cannot be paid because of lack of cleared funds in the account - £30 per item (previously £27.50).

b. The Defendant's right to charge administrative costs if the Defendant was compelled to pay any items which caused the account to be overdrawn - £30 per item (previously £27.50)

c. The Defendant's right to charge unauthorised overdraft fees - £3 per day.

d. The Defendant's entitilement to refuse any debit transaction or debit card transaction where there were insufficient cleared funds in the account and to debit from the Claimant's account any charges, interest or other money which bacame payable by the Claimant to the Defendant in relation to the account.

e. The Defendant's entitilement, if the Claimant went overdrawn without an overdraft limit or exceeded her overdraft limit, to charge interest at the unauthorised borrowing rate on the excess balance.

f. The Defendant's entitlement, if a cheque or other item paid to the account was returned unpaid, to debit the account with the amount of that item together with any interest paid by the Defendant on it.

 

3. The Defendant's standard terms and conditions give the Claimant a fair and transparent view of those terms and the charges applicable for unauthorised borrowing (including where the Claimant exceeds her authorised overdraft limit).

 

Interestingly, all the charges (barr approx £2.51 interest) are for items of returned cheques, refused DDs etc - there was never any overdraft (authorised or unauthorised) and therefore no O/D or UO/D fees applied to my account.

 

It seems to me that this Defence isn't tailored at all to my Claim and is just another of the new standard responses, as it mainly deals with overdrafts and being overdrawn which doesn't apply to the activity on my account.

 

Anything I should be concerned about with these points?

[feater]

Thought I'd check on your claim... I think they are just covering all their T&C's.. but it is definately something you could use for wasted costs order... Shows that they didn't treat your claim as individual but just used a template defence...