They're not winning, of that you can be sure, you would have heard if they had.
I think that either
1) people are getting their money back with confidentiality attached
2) people are getting their money back, and can't be bothered telling us
3) people are not getting their money back
yet, because Barclays are holding on to our money for as long as they possibly can, hoping that some will give up after getting cold feet. Sound familiar?
Let's look at this rationally for one moment:
Possibilities for winning:
1) Bank pays up at 1st letter
2) bank pays up at 2nd letter
3) bank pays up at claim issuing stage
4) before acknowledgement of service
5) after acknowldegement of service
6) before lodging a defense
7) after lodging a defense

at
allocation questionnaire time
9) after
allocation questionnaire, but before hearing,
10) any time between hearing date set and actual hearing
11) on court steps.... Or
12) bank goes in hearing, gets trounced.
Possibilities for losing:
1) bank goes in hearing, you lose.
2) Er, that's it.
What do you lose? Your court fees, and you never get money back to which you had kissed goodbye a long, long time ago anyway.
[Ruthlessly stolen from Bookworm's earlier response elsewhere]