Thread: Barclays claim win against Business account claimant in Salford

Apparantly 20th.March.
Barclays claim they won with costs,on producing the judgement from October 2008 which ruled that charges were not unfair under common law.

No further info on the case.

Sweeney v Barclays - Claim Number 8QT39435 - Salford county court - District Judge Relph - General Form of Judgment or Order dated 20th March 2009 and stamped 6th April - £1000 costs awarded against Claimant and claim dismissed.

This is the order

It is ordered that-

1. The claim is dismissed.

2. The Court finding that in the light of the Defendants communications dated 11th Feb, 5th March and 6th March the Claimant has been unreasonable in pursuing the claim before the court having specifically sought to have the original stay lifted.

3. The Court summarily assessed the Defendants Costs at £1000 inclusive being the notional costs of the Defendant on a proportionate basis ( no allowance or claim for counsels costs or travel having been made) payable within 28 days.''

If anyone has further details on this case please post them as it could help a lot of Barclays Business claimants.

Thanks YB I have been trying to find out myself.
It looks like the claimant is not active on any of the pop reclaim forums-I have asked on a couple already,having been made aware of this by Barclays in their skeleton.
Despite them saying that they would send me a copy of the Judgement they never did.
Still....we can see it now.

We have yet to learn the full circumstances of the case-whether Barclays observed all the Court protocols,what the POCS were from the claimant etc.
The fact that Barclays were awarded costs,appears to suggest the claimant was not very well prepared nor gave a successful arguement that costs should be refused.I would love to know the full facts.

Will let you know asap more details.

Martin. If you keep an eye on LB in the OFT forum That Salford Business Claim -... we have more details. (link won't work)

I think I am banned from there YB !!

I have asked and no you are not banned.

Also as a side note......the £1000 costs seems considerably less that they submitted in my case.
Its around £1800-and was delivered to me less than 1 hour before the hearing.
Those costs have been reserved pending the trial outcome.
It did not faze me but I can understand how intimidating this can be for many claimants.
Barclays do not play by the book-they are the most devious and intimidating bunch I have come across.

Originally Posted by yourbank

I have asked and no you are not banned.

Ive never registered there it was just an assumption YB.
Is registration required to view the details you speak of ?

I am of the opinion that there should be a concerted effort by all those involved to try and address these issues.
There has got to be an alternative strat and case put forward that can support a claim.Its obvious that this will need focus more outside terms and conditions,and probably more focus on other areas which can allow a judge to assess the whole picture.
Its interesting to see that only Barclays appear to be going for these strike outs en mass.
Given that the Sweeney case was only small claims,it cannot be seen as any precedent-but this appears to be their line of defence together with Smiths Judgements.

I am aware of other Banks still settling Business claims,which makes me wonder if they are aware of something which could be brought to the fore,that no one has yet identified.
It is very important therefore IMHO that work on defeating Barclays submissions should be shared and discussed and exchanged.
Naturally out of sight from Barclays.

I agree with you Martin, and I know those on LB do, they are trying to get the information into some form of order before posting on here, if they are allowed to do so, otherwise you are welcome over there.

The full court bundles and documents should be with them this evening.

The costs requested were £10,000 and the judge awarded £1,000.

Yes the thread requires registration to read in full. I have checked and there is no issue with you registering.

Originally Posted by MARTIN3030

It is very important therefore IMHO that work on defeating Barclays submissions should be shared and discussed and exchanged.
Naturally out of sight from Barclays.

We have "guests" !!

Well if they know we know they might stop threatening people.

I am aware of the guests PM.

Barclays skeleton arguement is supported by the whole transcripts of the Test case from its start to the Judgements of January/February 2009.

I have spent in excess of 100 hours reading through it-and also reconciling some of Smiths observations with other things that can be seen as highly relevant in any reply.
Its painstaking and slow but I remain convinced that there has to be a counter arguement somewhere.
There is lots of work going on behind the scenes here too.
Barclays reliance on their Salford victory alone or Smiths rulings,cannot in themselves should not allow Barclays to remain so confident.

Barclays may be big,but they should not underestimate the will nor the endevours by a great deal of people,to defeat their submissions or calls for strike outs.

Martin - copying a post to you she has posted on penalty charges .

Pete/Martin we now have the full bundle from Salford case. Are getting it scanned and up slowly....re Barclays watching - yes they know people will be working on it, not sure if these documents should be in public or not, they're in VIP at the moment. I would assume the bundle docs are very similar to those they used in Martins case so he should already have most of them. It is basically the argument of the read over from personal accounts, although the salford case they did pick was a very weak one with poor POCs and templates. Plus the claimant had already successfully applied for a stay lift so half the work was already done for them. I don't really want to hang about and wait to hear of more having the same happen, so we have written a stalling letter which i would appreciate both of yours input in.

In ET's witness statement they list the Barclays terms and demonstrate that the business ones are the same and I personally can't see how a judge can make a different ruling on temrs that are the same,with regards common law penalties.

So we are stuck on unfairness, but under what?


Once they are all scanned in and organised I'll try put a list in the public registered forum of all the documents then if anyone needs to see something who doesnt have VIP access they can pm me.

Only way i can think to keep them away from prying eyes but available to the people who are working on kyboshing barclays.

We need to be clear on that I agree.
Putting something together that will stop Barclays from getting these stays lifted so they can then go on to seek strike outs is obviously well needed.
At the same time,if they have advance info on just what course of action the claimant will be taking,then it will be counter productive and to all intents and purposes will assist them futher in their own stance.
The Salford case within itself is insufficient for them to expect a Judge to agree with an application to lift the stay.However given that they seem to be of the opinion that it should be a consideration,its not unreasonable therefore to be citing individual cases that have tried to strike out,but have failed-it can work both ways-and so it should.
There needs to be an understanding from the beginning by all concerned that Barclays are ruthlessly throwing everything at this because they realise the implications if they dont win-so claimants should not understimate them.I would say that they make Eversheds and Cobbetts look tame,I have very little respect for their methods or tactics-but every respect in acknowledging that they are extremely well resourced and are up for this one good style.

Its one area we are looking at Skippy.

Anything further?