BARCLAYCARD Round 2 ***WON***

[slick132]

Hi Skinty,

Your computer's fine - the site has problems displaying that particular phrase.

There's nothing to be gained by you complaining to the court about this even though it seems very unfair.

A judge has considered, I assume, a request from BC for an extension to comply with the court directions and the request was agreed to.

You can use this time to continue to negotiate with BC. Have you sent off the rejection letter to BC.

You should do so, but I wouldn't mention at all BC's request and the court's agreement thereto.

[noomill060]

;;

[pawnbrokers]

skint, red your rant and loved it - been there done that, the court system is set up for professionals and if you belong to the club believe me they do act differently than if you dont - but then you must also realise that the legal guys are much better versed in what can and will be allowed than us novices. as the others have said dont give up - hark at me i gave up on some of my claims 2 years ago but im back on the track and you and the sigte are inspiring - so chin up and hope yu aint got a hangover -pb

[skintboy69]

Hi guys. Thanks for all the comments.

Pawnbrokers: I was actually very temperate; a couple of glasses and an early night. Fight the good fight Dude.

Slick: Yes. the letter went this A.M. pretty well as you advised and no mention of the court situation. I accept what's happened but I suppose I half hoped that BC had shot themselves in the foot by not complying with the court directions on time.

Noomill: Thanks for the input. This is what I have assumed. I'm glad to see it confirmed.

If (or when) this goes to court I'll be seconded by my prospective son in law who has recently been appointed Solicitor Advocate.

This isn't his area, but he knows how the system works.

Keep the faith.

T.

[skintboy69]

Greetings Dudes. I've been reading icelandviking's thread with interest. It's amazing that there seems to be no uniform approach by BC to our various claims. Their reaction seems to depend on how they feel on the day.

Anyway, back to business. Icelandviking mentions a 'hearing fee' of £75.
Mine is set for 8th June and there has been no mention of a fee.

Maybe they feel guilty about the way it's been run so far and they're giving me a freebie.

Cheers, T.

[slick132]

Hi Skinty,

If ANYONE has a more recent Witness Statement (Statement of Evidence) than this one, I hope they'll link you to it. In the meantime, I found this - New strategy for Allocation Questionnaires

It links to Peter Rabbit's thread which was cited at the time as a good example, but it is old. But MAKE SURE you adapt it carefully for your own case.

Also, see that it looks right compared to other more recent examples used for other credit card cases.

[skintboy69]

I haven't been on line for a few days, but have spent my time reading through all the paperwork I've accumulated over this claim and trying to get my head around the witness statement. There isn't a great deal of time left.

A couple of things I need to know:

Do I open the statement with 'I am a Litigant in person' or just crack straight on?

Should I pay a hearing fee??

Is it worth while at this stage making a counter offer to BC???

Any input would, as ever, be most appreciated.

Cheers, T.

[slick132]

Hi Skint,

I'm still looking for a more recent and more relevant Witness Statement (you'll have seen that the Peter Rabbit WS was for a 2007 bank charges claim). Will link here if I find an example.

The court will tell you when a fee is payable. If in any doubt that you should pay something now, you can always call the court to confirm.

Keep a dialogue going with BC asking them to reconsider your SOC and to settle, to avoid further wasting of the court's valuable time.

[skintboy69]

Hi Slick. I've seen Peter Rabbit's statement and it seems to be a good starting point. A lot of the stuff (with a few tweeks) can be made to fit.

I assume that since BC wangled an extention until Saturday - what a strange day, the courts are closed - that I can add a few extra bits and send them as an addition to my bundle.

Also, I don't have any terms and conditions. Is that an issue?? I suppose BC will send them in their bundle if they want to refer to them in court.

Cheers, T.

[slick132]

Re the Peter Rabbit WS, please remember that was for bank charges and not a CCard case.

You should try and source a set of BC T&C's for when you opened the a/c or for the start of your claim. You cannot rely on anything from BC. We have yet to see if they produce any evidence at all, let alone a full court bundle.

[skintboy69]

I take your point Slick, but isn't the case law concerning 'penalties in contract' the same in both cases? From what I've read on the forums, that appears to be the case. Also, in Peter's case, as in my own, Barclays haven't actually said in their defence on what basis their charges are held to be enforcable, only that they are applied in line with their terms and conditions. They don't say whether they are a pre-estimate of costs or a 'service charge' or a donation to the biscuit fund.
(I favour the latter).

I do have current terms and I'll dig back in the archive. You never know, I might still have the originals somewhere under a foot of dead spiders.

Cheers, T.

[slick132]

Hi Skint,

The Peter Rabbit WS was written before the OFT test case ruling which spoiled the "penalty" element, on which basis users were reclaiming bank charges.

But the "penalty" element still applies to CCard claims.

The other WS which you may have already found is here - http://www.consumerforums.com/resour...ness-statement-

Again, it's drafted for use in a bank charges case and will need to be carefully adapted.

That's the best I can come up with just now.

Let us know if you get a response from BLT.

[skintboy69]

Hi Slick.

Still nothing of any kind from BC. I'm going to e-mail them in the morning. Their offer letter had names and contact details, so I'll see if they respond to that.

I rifled through my drawers earlier (if you'll pardon the expression) and found the terms and conditions for April 2003 - close enough I think.

The charges are mentioned twice:

General: We will charge you for any losses or costs we have to pay if you break this agreement.

Tariff of Charges: we may charge the following additional charges to compensate us for additional costs we incur if you break the BC conditions.


The wording in the general section implies to me a liquidated loss clause, whilst that in the tariff implies a penalty???????????

What do you think??

Cheers, T.

[slick132]

Hi Skinty,

TBH, it's immaterial as the Credit Card charges have been established as unlawful penalty charges.

The T&C's should do nicely for your bundle.

[skintboy69]

Hi Slick. The 'bundles' were delivered to both BC and the court 13th May, in line with the court's original order, but I'll send some other stuff attached to my witness statement.

I e-mailed BC today. They replied and attached an 8 page document which was more or less:

'We've already told you our position. Halliday is a valid authority. We have credited your account with the amount in our offer + 5 extra day's interest. We believe this 'extinguishes' your claim. Where did you get the 29.9% rate of interest you are claiming and on what basis are you claiming an EXTRA 14.9%??

I don't believe they have even looked at my bundle - or my account details - if they can't find where the 29.9% comes from.

I'll e-mail them again tomorrow and also phone the court to see if they have received anything like a bundle or witness statement from them.

Have you any other suggestions??

Cheers, T.

[slick132]

Hi Skinty,

Personally, I would simply email BC back saying,

" I disagree with your views and am happy for the court to decide on my case.

If you wish to discuss settlement on the terms which I have set out to you, please let me know."

I suspect your enquiry to court will suggest no Bundle has been Filed by BC.

[skintboy69]

Well, BC slipped in a sly one. They e-mailed me their witness statement and bundle-ette on Friday at 4.57pm. I only picked it up today.

The content seems a bit thin: copies of their last 2 letters with a refrerence to Halliday, a copy of my account application - not bad. it's from 2002, terms and conditions and a few copy statements. I feel cheated. They got a couple of hundred pages off me.

Keep the faith.

T.

[slick132]

Hi Skinty,

If past cases are anything to go by, they WILL negotiate before the final hearing, or maybe even a Preliminary Hearing.

Doesn't sound like their bundle gives them a lot to rely on.

Keep revising re the basis of your claim and how you can counter their assertions about Halliday.

[brindles]

Originally Posted by skintboy69

Hi Slick.

I rifled through my drawers earlier (if you'll pardon the expression) and found the terms and conditions for April 2003 - close enough I think.

The charges are mentioned twice:

General: We will charge you for any losses or costs we have to pay if you break this agreement.

Tariff of Charges: we may charge the following additional charges to compensate us for additional costs we incur if you break the BC conditions.


The wording in the general section implies to me a liquidated loss clause, whilst that in the tariff implies a penalty???????????

What do you think??

Cheers, T.

Hi skintboy, could you please let me have a copy of the terms and conditions as I need them for my own court bundle.
Thanks and here is a link to my thread.
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...rclaycard.html

It will be a life saver if you can help.

[skintboy69]

Greetings all.

This is a final update. My claim against BC has been settled. Unfortunately I can not provide any details but I am pleased with the outcome.

I would encourage you all to press on with your claims.

Fight the good fight Dudes.

Cheers, T.