Barclays time barred under limitation Act Please help

[looser01]

Hello,

everyone i need help please please guide me as to how i can deal with this on my own with Barclays...

 

filed a claim at a county court by myself on 23 July 2008, and was told by the court to ammend the "particulars of claim" on 22 October 2008 (First N150 was filed on 23 july 2008) "Notice that Acknoledgement of Service Has Been Filed" received on 18 August 2008 stating Defendant (Barclays) filed an Acknowkedgement of Service on 12 August 2008 indicating an intention to defend all of the claim. Received pn 09 October 2008. Notice of Isuue (specified amount) filed on 15 September 2008

 

Ammended particulars as follws: sent on 22 October defended filed defence on 26 November 2008.

 

Im not sure what will happen from now onwards and they are using lot of the CPRr. terminology and since the amount is more then 5k it will be fast track or multiu track?? im worried and tried to get legal help but no one wants to know this case im having with Barclays.

 

 

 

INTIlE COUNTY COURT Claim No: xxxxxxxx

 

BETWEEN

 

 

Claimant

Claimant

-and-

 

BARCLAYS BANK PLC

Defendant

 

 

 

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAiM

 

 

 

1. These Particulars of Claim replace previous Particulars of Claim filed in this matter in their entirety and these Particulars of Claim should be read as if the entire document was underlined in red.

 

2. The Claimant was at all material times the proprietor of shop premises known as xxxxxx

 

3. By an Agreement in writing, the Claimant was authorised by the Defendant to accept payment for all goods and service supplied by the C1aimant to customers by means of any valid financial service card (including any debit or credit card) approved by the Defendant.

 

4. On the 31 ~ January 2002 the Claimant received payment from a customer, a Mr xxxxxxxxx, ("The Customer") for goods sold in the total sum of £xxxxx.xx by means of a debit card, such card being included in the type of cards the Claimant was authorised by the Defendant to receive payment by.

5. Prior to releasing the goods to the customer, the Claimant contacted the Defendant to obtain authorisation for the transaction in view of the amount involved.

 

6. The Defendant via a telephone call between the Claimant and an authorised representative of the Defendant, authorised the transaction. Accordingly, the Claimant released the goods to the Defendant.

 

7. Subsequently, the Defendant indicated to the Claimant it believed the debit card used by the customer not to be a genuine card and indicated that they would be withholding payment to the Claimant. The Defendant advised the Claimant they were investigating the matter.

 

8. Despite having been requested to do so, the Defendant has failed to provide any evidence to the Claimant that the debit card used by the Customer was not genuine.

 

9. The Defendant fmally confirmed to the Claimant’s then solicitors that the Claimant’s claim would not be met by letter dated 20th August 2002 at which point the claimant's cause of action against the Defendant arose

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:

 

(a) The sum of xxxxxxxx

(b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1994

© Costs

 

 

I believe that the facts stated in this Particulars of Claim are true.

Dated day of 22 OCTOBER 2008

 

 

Signed

xxxxxxxxxxxx

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Barclays defence received on 26 November 2008

 

In the County Court Claim No. xxxxxxxxx

Between:

Claimant

 

 

And~Barclays Bank PLC T/A Barclaycard

Defendant

Defence

1. Save for any admissions made herein, the Claim is denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof, for the reasons set out in this Defence.

 

 

2. The Defendant will contend that, notwithstanding the document dated 22nd October 2008, entitled ‘Particulars of Claim’, the Claimant has failed to identify and/or state a valid cause of action, or to state all the facts necessary to ground a valid cause of action, to establish legal liability for the sum Claimed. Accordingly, the Defendant repeats its request that the Claim be struck out, pursuant to CPRr 3.4 (a), (b) and/or ©, as the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the Claim and as an abuse of the Court’s process. In the alternative the Defendant requests that there be summary judgment in favour of the Defendant, pursuant to CPRr 24.2 as the Claimant has no prospect of succeeding on the Claim.

 

 

3. Furthermore, without prejudice to the foregoing and/or in the alternative, the Defendant will contend that the Claimant has failed to comply with paragraph 1 of the Order dated 9th October 2008, in that he failed to serve the Defendant. with a copy of his Particulars of Claim. Furthermore, the Claimant purported to file a Particulars of Claim with the name and address of a Messrs xxxxxxx, Solicitors, which firm has denied to the Defendant preparing or signing the Particulars of Claim document. The Defendant therefore files this Defence entirely as a protective measure and without prejudice to its contention that the Claim is now struck out.

 

4. Without prejudice to the foregoing and/or in the alternative, the Defendant will contend that the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant as the Claimant’s Claim is time barred under the Limitation Act 1985. The Defendant will contend that the Claimant’s cause of action accrued more than 6 years prior to the issue of this Claim and that the relevant date for the Claimant’s cause of action was at any time between the date of the transaction being entered into by the Claimant and the notification of him of the transaction being disputed, or the date of termination of the agreement, or the letter to the Claimant from the Defendant, dated 9th May 2002, advising him that the transaction funds would not be returned to him, all of which dates were well before the date of issue of this Claim.

 

5. Paragraph 1 is admitted.

 

6. No admissions are made as regards paragraph 2 and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

 

7. As regards paragraph 3, it is admitted that the Claimant entered into an agreement entitled the ‘Merchant Card Facility’ agreement (‘the agreement’) with the Defendant, containing the terms and conditions of the contractual relationship between the parties. The agreement was given the number xxxxxxx and amongst others, the agreement allowed the Defendant to use a card facility, through which payments could be made using a credit or debit card, by use of an electronic device supplied by the Defendant, known as the card terminal. The agreement also gave the Defendant the right to charge back transactions in the circumstances set out in condition 4 of the agreement and allowed the Defendant to withdraw the facility and terminate the agreement, in accordance with condition 1 6.

 

8. Save that it is admitted that the Defendant entered a transaction into the Barclaycard card terminal at his premises, no admissions are made as regards paragraph 4. The Defendant will contend that according to it records, on the 28th January 2002, the Claimant entered a transaction on the card terminal for the sum of £xx,xxx.00. The Defendant will contend that the signature on the payment receipt slip, is in the name of Mr xxxxx and the copy invoice supplied by the Claimant states that the payment was allegedly for the purchase of goods.

 

9. Paragraph 5 is denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof. The Defendant will contend that it has no record of a call from the Claimant to request authorisation or otherwise of the transaction. Furthermore, if which is denied, the Claimant had called and received authorisation from the Defendant, the Defendant will contend that it was still entitled to make the charge back that it made on or around February 2002. The Defendant will refer to its terms and conditions for their full terms and effect.

 

10. Paragraph 6 is denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof. The Defendant repeats paragraph 8 herein. The Defendant will contend that if, which is not admitted, the Claimant released goods as alleged, then the Claimant did so at his own risk and that in particular he did so without reliance upon any statement by the Defendant.

 

11. Paragraph 7 is admitted. The Defendant will contend that it was alerted to the fact that the transaction entered by the Claimant, was an unusual transaction, in that it was of an unusually high amount and upon investigation, that the card used in the transaction was a counterfeit card and that the genuine cardholder disputed any knowledge of the transaction referred to in paragraph 8 herein.

 

1 2. No admissions are made as regards paragraph 8 and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

 

 

13. Save that it is admitted that the Claimant wrote to the Claimant on 20th August 2002, paragraph 9 is denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof. The Defendant repeats paragraph 4 herein.

 

14. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of £xx.xxx.xx or interest or costs as alleged or at all. The Defendant repeats paragraphs 1 to 13 herein.

 

 

 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I am duly authorised to sign this Defence on behalf of the Defendant.

 

Dated: 24 November 2008

Level 29,

1 Churchill Place,

London,

E14 5HP.

 

Edited November 28, 2008 by looser01
font too large

[silverfox1961]

This needs bumping as I don't know how to alert a mod

[looser01]

please explain sorry to bother you again

[silverfox1961]

Sorry should have said.

I know nothing about court cases but i saw that you had been missed so i replied which bumps your post up so that others can see it on the first page. so many posts come in that earlier ones get dropped down to the second page or further. I think you need help quite urgently so that's why i did it

 

fox

[looser01]

Thanks Fox

 

my first time/new thread so im learning too, and yes i need help urgently on this case, doing lots of research on the net about the CPRrules and doing my head at the mo..

[LilyLou]

bump

[silverfox1961]

bumping again

[Michael Browne]

The problem is that since you have left it so late to issue a claim, Barclays have a good chance of it being Statute Barred.

 

Basically it will depend on which letter, that of 9th May 2002 or that of 20th August, the court will accept as cause for action. What did these 2 letters say.

 

Apart from that have you any documentary evidence eg phone bills that you phoned for authorisation.

 

Plus they will be relying on their T&C's in relation to fraudulent transactions and chargebacks.

[looser01]

Hi Michael, thank you for looking at my thread and getting back to me

 

1. the letter dates 9th May 2002 from Barclaycard merchant services says about the transaction took place and their terms and condition (which i am aware of, if the fradulant or counterfiet card used they have right to chargeback and refund the money to the genuine customer). I also cooperated with their investigator in supplying the relavant information, the operator's number and name who spoke to the customer for varification of Identity etc, then the transaction was authorised by the operator, i made sure i even mentioned to the operator that this is a code 10 for more thorough checks at theire end.

 

2. The 20th August 2002 letter from Barclaycard merchant services states that " the card has been confirmed as counterfeit by the cardholder to his card issuer. This is their investigation but there is no such proof sent to me such as a disclaimer letter from customer or similar evidence to prove as the card was counterfeit or fradulant transaction took place.

 

3. further letter from Barclays for DPA request made on 6 July 2006 for set of statement send to, they were unable to locate any record of the business Account?? (this account is none existance and destroyed it seems strange too) this letter relates to the same business account where the direct debit were set up for all the transactions from Barclays MRM department, this is a breach of DPA?? please advice...

 

i have print out of the faxes by date / time, and names i spoke to their MRM department also more corespondent as this was ongoig for sevaral month's by their fraud investigator. Final letter i received from Barclays dated 24 September 2002 stating the breach of the merchant agreement, and last paragrapg saying if i want to issue legal proceedings, it sould be served to Barclays Bank plc.

 

As for fradulant transaction and chargeback they have not provided me any evidence as to the genuine card holder has disputed the amount and the method he or she used so far.

 

Can you advice further on the defence they have put on to defend the claim / and all the terminology in all their 14 points they have made, no doubt the court will ask me for the hearing soon and i need to get prepared for this as i am on my own and scared too.

 

Thanks again

 

 

 

2

[looser01]

Thanks

fox

[looser01]

Thank you

Lily Lou for bumping

great

[slick132]

Hi Looser,

 

I thought it was the Limitations Act 1980, and not 1985 which you say Barclays quoted back at you.

 

Even if a judge is satisfied that your claim is not time barred, he's not going to be impressed that you've left it nearly 6 years to bring a claim against Barclays.

 

I would be wary of spending further money on court fees on this case.

 

Can I ask roughly how much your claim is for.

[MARTIN3030]

Limitations act IS 1980.

Is there anything you can defend on using Section 32c ?

The "Mistake"

You cant really use section 32 A or B-unless you can prove fraud.

[caro]

I've moved things round a bit to make it easier to follow, and my responses are in red. Hope it helps.

 

filed a claim at a county court by myself on 23 July 2008, and was told by the court to ammend the "particulars of claim" on 22 October 2008 (First N150 was filed on 23 july 200 "Notice that Acknoledgement of Service Has Been Filed" received on 18 August 2008 stating Defendant (Barclays) filed an Acknowkedgement of Service on 12 August 2008 indicating an intention to defend all of the claim. Received pn 09 October 2008. Notice of Isuue (specified amount) filed on 15 September 2008

Ammended particulars as follws: sent on 22 October defended filed defence on 26 November 2008.

Im not sure what will happen from now onwards and they are using lot of the CPRr. terminology and since the amount is more then 5k it will be fast track or multiu track?? im worried and tried to get legal help but no one wants to know this case im having with Barclays.

INTIlE COUNTY COURT Claim No: xxxxxxxx

BETWEEN

Claimant

Claimant

-and-

BARCLAYS BANK PLC

Defendant

PARTICULARS OF CLAiM

1. These Particulars of Claim replace previous Particulars of Claim filed in this matter in their entirety and these Particulars of Claim should be read as if the entire document was underlined in red.

5. Paragraph 1 is admitted.

So far so good, they agree with your first paragraph

 

 

2. The Claimant was at all material times the proprietor of shop premises known as xxxxxx

6. No admissions are made as regards paragraph 2 and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

Do you have documents that prove that you owned the shop at these times. If so, you’ll need to include them in your court bundle to back up your claim.

 

3. By an Agreement in writing, the Claimant was authorised by the Defendant to accept payment for all goods and service supplied by the C1aimant to customers by means of any valid financial service card (including any debit or credit card) approved by the Defendant.

7. As regards paragraph 3, it is admitted that the Claimant entered into an agreement entitled the ‘Merchant Card Facility’ agreement (‘the agreement’) with the Defendant, containing the terms and conditions of the contractual relationship between the parties. The agreement was given the number xxxxxxx and amongst others, the agreement allowed the Defendant to use a card facility, through which payments could be made using a credit or debit card, by use of an electronic device supplied by the Defendant, known as the card terminal. The agreement also gave the Defendant the right to charge back transactions in the circumstances set out in condition 4 of the agreement and allowed the Defendant to withdraw the facility and terminate the agreement, in accordance with condition 1 6.

Do you agree with what they say? Do you have a copy of the terms and conditions? If not I suggest that you ask the defendants (via their solicitors) for a copy to support their statement.

 

4. On the 31 ~ January 2002 the Claimant received payment from a customer, a Mr xxxxxxxxx, ("The Customer") for goods sold in the total sum of £xxxxx.xx by means of a debit card, such card being included in the type of cards the Claimant was authorised by the Defendant to receive payment by.

8. Save that it is admitted that the Defendant entered a transaction into the Barclaycard card terminal at his premises, no admissions are made as regards paragraph 4. The Defendant will contend that according to it records, on the 28th January 2002, the Claimant entered a transaction on the card terminal for the sum of £xx,xxx.00. The Defendant will contend that the signature on the payment receipt slip, is in the name of Mr xxxxx and the copy invoice supplied by the Claimant states that the payment was allegedly for the purchase of goods.

I assume that this should say the “Claimant entered a transaction….” Otherwise they’re basically saying there was a transaction, but they only have your word what it was for.

 

5. Prior to releasing the goods to the customer, the Claimant contacted the Defendant to obtain authorisation for the transaction in view of the amount involved.

9. Paragraph 5 is denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof. The Defendant will contend that it has no record of a call from the Claimant to request authorisation or otherwise of the transaction. Furthermore, if which is denied, the Claimant had called and received authorisation from the Defendant, the Defendant will contend that it was still entitled to make the charge back that it made on or around February 2002. The Defendant will refer to its terms and conditions for their full terms and effect.a

Do you have telephone records which will confirm that you made a call? Probably an itemised bill. They’re referring to T&C’s again, so you really need to see what these say.

 

6. The Defendant via a telephone call between the Claimant and an authorised representative of the Defendant, authorised the transaction. Accordingly, the Claimant released the goods to the Defendant.

10. Paragraph 6 is denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof. The Defendant repeats paragraph 8 herein. The Defendant will contend that if, which is not admitted, the Claimant released goods as alleged, then the Claimant did so at his own risk and that in particular he did so without reliance upon any statement by the Defendant.

Even if you can prove there was a call, it may be harder to prove the conversation. Do you have any documentation, stating what was said. Was it a typical call of this type or were there question marks over it at the time. Presumably they are saying that at the end of the day, YOU took the decision to release the goods. Did they provide any guarantees that if they missed anything being wrong with the card, or weren’t aware of it at the time, they’d bear the cost of your loss? Back to the contract and T&C’s methinks.

 

 

7. Subsequently, the Defendant indicated to the Claimant it believed the debit card used by the customer not to be a genuine card and indicated that they would be withholding payment to the Claimant. The Defendant advised the Claimant they were investigating the matter.

11. Paragraph 7 is admitted. The Defendant will contend that it was alerted to the fact that the transaction entered by the Claimant, was an unusual transaction, in that it was of an unusually high amount and upon investigation, that the card used in the transaction was a counterfeit card and that the genuine cardholder disputed any knowledge of the transaction referred to in paragraph 8 herein.

So they agree that they contacted you later. Do you still have copies of the correspondence and the dates?

 

8. Despite having been requested to do so, the Defendant has failed to provide any evidence to the Claimant that the debit card used by the Customer was not genuine.

12. No admissions are made as regards paragraph 8 and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

Have you got copies of any letters you may have sent asking for this information, and better still, proof of posting.

 

9. The Defendant fmally confirmed to the Claimant’s then solicitors that the Claimant’s claim would not be met by letter dated 20th August 2002 at which point the claimant's cause of action against the Defendant arose

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:

(a) The sum of xxxxxxxx

(b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1994

© Costs

13. Save that it is admitted that the Claimant wrote to the Claimant on 20th August 2002, paragraph 9 is denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof. The Defendant repeats paragraph 4 herein.

So they agree they wrote to you at this point, but you entered your original claim within 6 years of 20/8/02. You could contend that as a litigant in person you made errors in your original POC, and that was within 6 years of your cause of action. (Just spotted you’ve already said that).

 

4. Without prejudice to the foregoing and/or in the alternative, the Defendant will contend that the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant as the Claimant’s Claim is time barred under the Limitation Act 1985. The Defendant will contend that the Claimant’s cause of action accrued more than 6 years prior to the issue of this Claim and that the relevant date for the Claimant’s cause of action was at any time between the date of the transaction being entered into by the Claimant and the notification of him of the transaction being disputed, or the date of termination of the agreement, or the letter to the Claimant from the Defendant, dated 9th May 2002, advising him that the transaction funds would not be returned to him, all of which dates were well before the date of issue of this Claim.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:

(a) The sum of xxxxxxxx

(b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1994

© Costs

 

14. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of £xx.xxx.xx or interest or costs as alleged or at all. The Defendant repeats paragraphs 1 to 13 herein.

 

 

I believe that the facts stated in this Particulars of Claim are true.

Dated day of 22 OCTOBER 2008

Signed

xxxxxxxxxxxx

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barclays defence received on 26 November 2008

In the County Court Claim No. xxxxxxxxx

Between:

Claimant

And~Barclays Bank PLC T/A Barclaycard

Defendant

Defence

1. Save for any admissions made herein, the Claim is denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof, for the reasons set out in this Defence.

2. The Defendant will contend that, notwithstanding the document dated 22nd October 2008, entitled ‘Particulars of Claim’, the Claimant has failed to identify and/or state a valid cause of action, or to state all the facts necessary to ground a valid cause of action, to establish legal liability for the sum Claimed. Accordingly, the Defendant repeats its request that the Claim be struck out, pursuant to CPRr 3.4 (a), (b) and/or ©, as the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the Claim and as an abuse of the Court’s process.

 

Link to CPR

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part03.htm#IDACLA1B

 

In the alternative the Defendant requests that there be summary judgment in favour of the Defendant, pursuant to CPRr 24.2 as the Claimant has no prospect of succeeding on the Claim.

Link to CPR

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part24.htm#IDA1CHR

 

3. Furthermore, without prejudice to the foregoing and/or in the alternative, the Defendant will contend that the Claimant has failed to comply with paragraph 1 of the Order dated 9th October 2008, in that he failed to serve the Defendant. with a copy of his Particulars of Claim. Furthermore, the Claimant purported to file a Particulars of Claim with the name and address of a Messrs xxxxxxx, Solicitors, which firm has denied to the Defendant preparing or signing the Particulars of Claim document. The Defendant therefore files this Defence entirely as a protective measure and without prejudice to its contention that the Claim is now struck out.

Assuming that this is correct, I suggest that you apologise unreservedly for this error on your part, pleading that as a litigant in person, you are not used to court matters.

 

4. Without prejudice to the foregoing and/or in the alternative, the Defendant will contend that the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant as the Claimant’s Claim is time barred under the Limitation Act 1985. The Defendant will contend that the Claimant’s cause of action accrued more than 6 years prior to the issue of this Claim and that the relevant date for the Claimant’s cause of action was at any time between the date of the transaction being entered into by the Claimant and the notification of him of the transaction being disputed, or the date of termination of the agreement, or the letter to the Claimant from the Defendant, dated 9th May 2002, advising him that the transaction funds would not be returned to him, all of which dates were well before the date of issue of this Claim.

I assume you have a copy of the August 2002 letter still.

 

 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I am duly authorised to sign this Defence on behalf of the Defendant.

Dated: 24 November 2008

Level 29,

1 Churchill Place,

London,

E14 5HP.

Going through this, I can now see the crux of the matter. Nowhere in your POC have you said why you think the card company should pay you for your loss. Was there something in the contract with you that leads you to believe they should compensate you for your loss? If so, it needs to be in your POC that they failed to abide by their side of the contract.

Bear in mind that this is a fast track claim, so I’m assuming you’re claiming in excess of £5k, and this means that if you don’t get this right, you would not only fail to get your money back, but could be liable to pay the defendants costs. Are you sure enough of your claim that you are willing to take that risk. Why do you think they should pay for the goods that you gave to the card fraudster?

Were you covered by any kind of insurance to cover losses of this kind?

Edited November 29, 2008 by caro
tidying post

[looser01]

Hi, Slik132

 

Barclays are using Limitation Act 1985, as per the 6 years time limit for statute barred, i have had correspondent from them well within the 6 year to prove to the Judge that they were exausting this claim and not providing me any evidence or proof, in the end they are the one wrote to me - if i should wish to issue legal procedding i have to go and do it at my county court which i did, once again them not providing me details or data kept in thier computers or files as they are stating in their defence this alone is a breach of DPA 1998 as well, can i not bring this to Judge's attentions? and ask the judge to make judgement on my favour?.

 

i have enough paperwork for judge to consider that they tried to hammer me so i forget or give up in the end as many of us have done due to lack of legal experiences and confidents etc etc, i feel im hard done by Barclays and would like to prove my point that even i may have left it too late, i am within the 6 years limit to bring this case as a matter of principal and have some justice done on my favour.

 

Furthermore i have a letter dated July 2006 for requesting statement for the business account which they have closed and can not find it in their system, can i not argue to Judge to consider the fact that Barclays were intimidating me by not co-operating to resolve the dispute before court action.

 

The claim is around 15k for this one claim.

 

hope this helps and let me know your views on this one.

 

Regards

looser01 !!

[caro]

I believe that requests under the Data Protection Act apply to individuals and not companies, so I don't think you could get them on that one.

 

I repeat, why do you think that they are legally required to pay the money back to you?

 

I am on your side, but you need to make that clear to the court or I can imagine the case being struck out.

[looser01]

I've moved things round a bit to make it easier to follow, and my responses are in red. Hope it helps.

 

 

Going through this, I can now see the crux of the matter. Nowhere in your POC have you said why you think the card company should pay you for your loss. Was there something in the contract with you that leads you to believe they should compensate you for your loss? If so, it needs to be in your POC that they failed to abide by their side of the contract.

Bear in mind that this is a fast track claim, so I’m assuming you’re claiming in excess of £5k, and this means that if you don’t get this right, you would not only fail to get your money back, but could be liable to pay the defendants costs. Are you sure enough of your claim that you are willing to take that risk. Why do you think they should pay for the goods that you gave to the card fraudster?

Were you covered by any kind of insurance to cover losses of this kind?

 

Hi, Caro

 

Thank you

For going thoroughly with their defence, your right i should have said on my POC that "they failed to abide their side of the contract" - but the paragraph 7 is admited as you can see, they have failed to provide me no evidence as to the transaction was fradulant or counterfeit card was used and i got done!!! (as per T&C no probs) if that was the case i would have forgotten about it.

 

Due to transaction was a high value and as a matter of principal and a shop owner i made Code 10 manual telephone call for authorisation at Barclays merchant services, then the operator varified the details with the customer for identity etc etc checks, and then the telephone call was given back to me and the authorisation code was issued, what this means i followed their "T&C" as a shop owner and agreement of their trading terms - and therefore they are legaly binded to pay the money which they diid as other transaction on the day were paid in a normal manner in my business account. When they retrieved the money i raised questiuon and have operators names and time with print out from the fax machines telephone call.

 

As regards to other evidence i have it all to prove it to Judge that the judgement be awarded to me, for them not bringing any evidence and only thire word and T&C

[looser01]

Hi, Caro

 

Thank you

For going thoroughly with their defence, your right i should have said on my POC that "they failed to abide their side of the contract" - but the paragraph 7 is admited as you can see, they have failed to provide me no evidence as to the transaction was fradulant or counterfeit card was used and i got done!!! (as per T&C no probs) if that was the case i would have forgotten about it.

 

Due to transaction was a high value and as a matter of principal and a shop owner i made Code 10 manual telephone call for authorisation at Barclays merchant services, then the operator varified the details with the customer for identity etc etc checks, and then the telephone call was given back to me and the authorisation code was issued, what this means i followed their "T&C" as a shop owner and agreement of their trading terms - and therefore they are legaly binded to pay the money which they diid as other transaction on the day were paid in a normal manner in my business account. When they retrieved the money i raised questiuon and have operators names and time with print out from the fax machines telephone call.

 

As regards to other evidence i have it all to prove it to Judge that the judgement be awarded to me, for them not bringing any evidence and only thire word and T&C

 

Thanks again

[looser01]

Limitations act IS 1980.

Is there anything you can defend on using Section 32c ?

The "Mistake"

You cant really use section 32 A or B-unless you can prove fraud.

 

Thank you Martin

 

Barclays are using Limitation Act 1985 - can i use Limitation Act 1980?/ mistake part of it? or anything else?

 

They agree on para. (7) admitted but no evidence provided, this is again a breach of business banking code of practices ??

 

Again if the card was counterfeit which they admiting and has the evidence then surely they should have provided me photocopy of it, they have failed and no evidence but only thier word & "T&C" ........

 

looser01

[car2403]

Limitations act IS 1980.

Is there anything you can defend on using Section 32c ?

The "Mistake"

You cant really use section 32 A or B-unless you can prove fraud.

 

I'm no expert on this claim material, but would the Misrepresentation Act be of use? If if is, you could avoid the "F" word and claim the bank made Misrepresentations that lead to having a financial loss, it then doesn't matter if they made the statements fraudulently - plus this would switch the burden of proof from the OP to the Bank to prove they didn't.

[caro]

The thing is, even though you may well be able to prove your case in court, you need enough in your POC to show the judge that you really do have a case and that it is worthwhile letting you have a hearing. I'm rather concerned that you've been given one chance to do your POC again and it still may not be robust enough. I'd hate to see you lose even more money than you have already. You're right, they don't deny there was a contract, but they are obviously denying they did anything wrong (well they would wouldn't they:rolleyes:).

 

It is difficult to say whether there has been any misrepresentation without seeing what Barclaycard stated in the first place. Can you post up a copy of the contract and terms and conditions, or at least the relevant part(s) which show how BC have failed to meet their contractual obligations.

[looser01]

I'm no expert on this claim material, but would the Misrepresentation Act be of use? If if is, you could avoid the "F" word and claim the bank made Misrepresentations that lead to having a financial loss, it then doesn't matter if they made the statements fraudulently - plus this would switch the burden of proof from the OP to the Bank to prove they didn't.

 

 

I will look in to this

 

Thanks

[looser01]

Not sure which part of misrepresentation act i may be able to quote to the Judge and how to do wtc, will do some research on this

Thaks again

[looser01]

The thing is, even though you may well be able to prove your case in court, you need enough in your POC to show the judge that you really do have a case and that it is worthwhile letting you have a hearing. I'm rather concerned that you've been given one chance to do your POC again and it still may not be robust enough. I'd hate to see you lose even more money than you have already. You're right, they don't deny there was a contract, but they are obviously denying they did anything wrong (well they would wouldn't they:rolleyes:).

 

It is difficult to say whether there has been any misrepresentation without seeing what Barclaycard stated in the first place. Can you post up a copy of the contract and terms and conditions, or at least the relevant part(s) which show how BC have failed to meet their contractual obligations.

 

 

Thanks again

 

i Have T"&C" and two letters from Barclays.

 

let me post in new post

looser01

[looser01]

Hi,