morgan stanley or barclaycard ***DELIGHTED**

[slick132]

No, don't include the whole Act.

Just s.32 and any others that are relevant to your assertion that Barclays (t/a Barclaycard) concealed the true nature of their charges - a fact which you only realised in MMYYYY (whenever you realised this through CAG). You should also include in the Bundle any Case Law which backs up your assertion. If I can find any examples of Case Law, I'll come back.

Include in the correspondence section any letters, etc relevant to your charges claim.

[skintboy69]

Yo Brindles.

Check your messages.

T.

[brindles]

Thanks skintboy,consider them checked.

[skintboy69]

and?????????????????????? ??????????

Cheers, T.

[brindles]

and how????lol

Can any one help me with terms and conditions for a morgan stanely card

[brindles]

Hi,

I have terms and conditions for morgan stanely for 2001,well some of them as these were sent to me by barclays in answer to my CCA request along with an application form.

Thanks for the help skintboy, saved me hours

[brindles]

Hi again,

I also have a copy of the terms and conditions for backyard around the same date kindly supplied by skintboy.

Should I place both copies of T+C in my court bundle, as the Morgan Stanley T+C are a bit vague.

Thanks.

[slick132]

Hi Brindles,

I'd include the T&C's closest to the date you opened the a/c but, if you're in any doubt, include both.

[brindles]

Hi slick,
both included to be on the safe side.

I have completed printing the court bundle x3..
All I need to do is a bit about the limitations act.
what is the best way to seperate/present this as a court bundle as it looks untidy as a pile of papers.

Thanks all.

[slick132]

Get a couple of lever arch files - the big ones with higher capacity - Viking Economy Lever Arch Files Black A4 by Viking Direct One for court and one for the bank.

s.32 Limitation Act 1980 is here - Limitation Act 1980 (c. 5

I've asked for help with related case law.

[MARTIN3030]

It essential to have section 32c in your Pocs if you are relying on it and if BC have issues with it then seek a hearing to determine.
The case law for this is
Kleinwort Benson -v- Lincoln City Council & Others


Its a watertight arguement-plain and simple.
I would personally suggest that you read digest and understand it

[Spamalot]

Hiya, sorry to but in.. I have/had an old MSDW card from late 1999 and B/c have sent me a microfiche copy of the application form and I have copied out the T&C which were supposedly attached if it's any help..

Wouldn't mind you looking at my App form as well to see if it's similar to yours.

Spamalot V Barclaycard/MSDW/Goldfish.

Thanks Spam.

[brindles]

Hi,

I need to clarify something for my court bundle.

I am claiming my charges and the interest on my charges at 26.80% on top of this s.69 interest at 8%.

Do I need to include sempra metals in my court bundle as I believe my claim is not for full restitution.
If not sempra metals is there any other case law i could include to back up my claim.

thanks.

[MARTIN3030]

s69 should be claimed as in the alternative.
The case law that you should include is listed in the bundles info thread.

[steven4064]

If you are claiming s69 interest, you do not need Sempra. Sction 69 is your basic entitlement under the County Courts Act 1984; Sempra would be what you wold use if you were going to claim compound interest in restitution on top of charges-plus-interest-on-charges instead of s69 interest.

As Martin says, if you did claim interest in restitution, you should think about putting s69 as an alternative.

[brindles]

Hi,
thanks to every one for all the advice this weekend.

Thank you Steven,
I do understand the interest and i have a good idea of what I an doing.
It was a simple question and you have given the answer..Thats all I needed.
Sorry if I came across more confused on the issue than I am.

Thank you Slick, You have been fantastic.
I used the following threads you refered me to, I had read them before but in all the stress of the court bundle(just taking a breather,me and my printer lol,but all in hand,panic over) I forgot to refer to them.

here are the links as a reminder to myself.
mackerel vs barclaycard! ***WON***

Alphageek Vs Barclaycard ***WON***

and then there is this,

Morgan Stanley CCA- received Barclaycard terms in response**WON, THEN WON AGAIN!!!**

thanks spamalot,
I had alredy got then though.

Thanks shadow,

Thanks skintboy, I know you said leave out sempra but as it was in the bundle, I had to ask. I understand the restitution argument and sempra(see links above lol) I understand my own claim as well, but as it was in the bundle thought maybe I missing a possible link somewhere. I just had to ask

again thanks to every one.

[brindles]

Hi,

just to let you know I have handed in my court bundle and gave a copy to Barclay's.

Thanks to everyone for all the help to make this possible.

[slick132]

Well done - just have to see how BC respond.

But I doubt it'll be a well-prepared, fully paginated bundle.

[brindles]

Hi,
received a letter from barclays litigation wich includes a email adress. the contents are without prejudice.

Basically they do not understand my calculation. But looking at other threads I understand this is a bog standard responce.

They say the onus is on me to prove my claim? lol. Thought I had sent all the proof needed now its down to them to defend. oh yea sorry, they dont have a defence.

Should I just respond(by email) thanking them for the letter and refering them to my POC and document bundle. Then they will have my email and negotiations will be easier.

Or should I once again give them a step by step instruction on the calculations.

Should I mark my responce without prejudice.

As they have marked there letter without pejudice, How does that affect my responces. what I mean is. How could someone show a court there responce if what is being responded to is without prejudice.

Would it be best for me to now continue without prejudice.

I just dont understand how one can show a court that you have tried to negotiate if its all done without prejudice.

I know its wrong but i feel like ignoring there letter, after all who is going to know and just let them sweat a bit.


Thanks evryone.

[the_shadow]

Originally Posted by brindles

Hi,

Should I just respond(by email) thanking them for the letter and refering them to my POC and document bundle. Then they will have my email and negotiations will be easier.

Or should I once again give them a step by step instruction on the calculations.

Should I mark my responce without prejudice.

As they have marked there letter without pejudice, How does that affect my responces. what I mean is. How could someone show a court there responce if what is being responded to is without prejudice.

Would it be best for me to now continue without prejudice.

These are just my thoughts on this...

If you have previously explained your calculations then its up to them to prove different. You could send them a short email referring to the letter showing your interest calculations and asking them to provide their "workings out" so to speak or rather to disprove your interest calculations.

Marking things with without prejudice just means they are not admitting any part of the claim but willing to discuss. As you are the claimant I dont see any point in using "without prejudice" on any responses you make to them you have nothing to admit.

S.