Sweeney v Barclays

[Tools]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

Also CCA aspects to consider as that does apply to sole traders and small partnerships.

In what way does the CCA apply ed and why the difference with sole tarders and small partnerships compared to LTD etc?

[ed.]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

OD's are covered and ergo charges - I'm still looking at the 06 Act to see if anything has materially changed, but their are a number of examples in the initial 74 text dealing with OD's. Goes into the old extortionate bargain provisions but should now be covered under the unfair relationships element.

Steve Whiting had a good couple of articles on them centering around default notices and the like aswell.

I'll dig them out and stick them in a different thread in here later tonight if I get chance, to save taking this one to far off subject. If I don't, remember to give me a kick via PM cause I probably will forget!

Both CCA's only knock out Ltd, everything else is covered:

74 - Definitions

“individual” includes a partnership or other unincorporated body of persons not consisting entirely of bodies corporate"

06 -

1 Definition of “individual”
In section 189(1) of the 1974 Act (definitions) for the definition of “individual” substitute—
“‘individual’ includes—
(a) a partnership consisting of two or three persons not all of whom are bodies corporate; and
(b) an unincorporated body of persons which does not consist entirely of bodies corporate and is not a partnership;”.

[grey nomad27]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

I think I'm following the plot !!! but where does all this leave people like myself (s/o trad .... ) who have a claim with Barclays on hold ? I have until Wednesday 6th to reply to their threatening letter - withdraw or not !!!! I had one account which I can prove was used for personal use as well as business. I provided Barclays and the Court a detailed schedule of charges which showed the charge, how many and the date they were applied.
I feel annoyed if I have to back off given how Barclays gave me the runaround at the beginning. There are cases on MSE off business's succeeding in getting refunds.

[Amethyst]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

There are, people are still being paid out. A positive i guess is this case they 'won'did cost them a bloody fortune and they came out with minimal costs (in their terms)

Its still unclear whether a charge can be considered as incurred 'outside the course of business' or not when it is within a business account as they are in the contract between business and business. I do think it raises enough doubt as to whether UTCCR applies though if you can prove charges that were incurred on purely personal transactions (eg life insurance DD) that kind of thing and enough doubt to not strike the claim as having no merit until that argument is decided upon.

[grey nomad27]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

My account was s/o trad .... I was charged a monthly maintenance account fee, automated and standard entry fees and interest. On top of that I would receive account control fees (£12 ea which rose to £20ea) for a letter telling me I was overdrawn, up to 7 a month. I was then charged an overdraft letter fee (£40ea) for telling me that a cheque had been returned. Then to add injury to insult I was charged £27.50 for the cheque to be returned. Sometimes this occurred on a cheque value of £10 !! Nice profit for the bank !

My case was that the charges were disproportionately high in comparision to their cost and under the law of penalties the charges were an unlawful extravagant penalty. I asked for the true cost of the charges but nothing was ever forthcoming.

I have to get a reply back to Barclays by tomorrow .... I will be writing to the Court asking for the stay to continue on the grounds that my account was run as a personel account as well as business account and as yet a decision on this type of account has yet to be made in the HIgh Court.
I will respond to Barclays telling them I will not be intimindated by their letter, that I have read the full transcript of the Sweeney case and it is not relevant to my case and that again point out my account was run as a personal and business account. As such I shall offer them to settle half my claim.
Wish me luck !!

[Paule]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

1. Business Direct Tariff (november 2001)
2. Small Business Tariff (may 2002)
3. Free Automated Transactions Tariff and standard business tariff (December 2002) version 1
4. Free Automated Transactions Tariff and standard business tariff (December 2002) version 2
5. Terms & Conditions (May 2002)

Think those are the ones need looking at...could you scan the relevant parts in? Think thats clauses 7.1 and 7.4 and surrounding parts as mentioned in the witness statement.

Thanks babe xxxxxxx

I will get start getting them scanned and up on the site probably tonight

PKea

[Paule]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

Business T&Cs posted on this thread

Legal Beagles

PKea

[Paule]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

Annex G1 to the OFTs Joint Reply and defence to counterclaims

[Paule]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

And that concludes the scanning from Manchester, the rest of the bundle is transcripts of the Test Case Judgements

PKea

[Amethyst]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

Thanks Peeky, you're a star, some reading to do today then