Thread: David v BarclaysGoliath ***WON***

As long as you modify the letters / particulars to refer to both accounts (and obviously as long as they're both in your name) you can deal with them together.

Can anyone advise if it's best to treat the two accounts as completely separate claims, or just lump them together?

Once again I walk in 'Advoc8's' footsteps, he always beats me with his well informed info.
As stated it is okay to 'bundle' accounts together, I have done it with mine.
Barclays will respond referring to only one, watch this, any replies make sure you always refer to all accounts involved, I simply put them as the main heading [Re: A/c xxxxxxxxx & xxxxxxxxx]

Well, surprise, surprise, no response to initial request.

And they stuffed me for more charges in the meantime (no surprise !)

So lba went yesterday, with suitably amended claim and schedule.

Best to all,

David.

Transcript of a recent Radio 4 'Moneybox' programme.

I first posted this a while back, but got the formatting all wrong. Just looked at it again today, and decided to fix it. Hope this works ok

Can anyone tell me why my signature shows when I preview a post, but not when I view the thread normally?

Am I doing something stupid, or is that the way it's supposed to work?:-?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...s/07_01_27.txt , Cheers, D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------STUDIO: As we’ve reported on Money Box before, customers trying to reclaim bank penalty charges which may be illegal are having to go to the courts to get them back. But although the banks force them into court, they then don’t defend the action and pay up before a judgement is reached. Now Money Box has learned that some judges are losing patience with the banks’ approach. Bob Howard reports.

HOWARD: I’m outside Brentford county court in West London, one of 220 throughout England and Wales. So far this year, this court alone has seen seven cases listed involving customers trying to reclaim charges from their banks. All of them were settled before the hearings. Now a judge in Lincoln has issued an order to at least one bank, threatening to throw its case out before it’s even due to be heard unless it can prove it intends to contest the case in court.

ORDER: 'The court of its own notion is considering striking the defence out as an abusive process on the basis that it has settled all previous claims of this nature. If the defendant objects to this course of action, it is to file at court within fourteen days a schedule setting out a list of all claims it has pursued to trial and all claims it has settled.'

HOWARD: The words of Judge Toombs. He told Money Box he couldn’t speak about “ongoing cases”, but it’s believed he’s made at least six of these orders. So far it seems the banks have decided to pay out rather than have to list all the claims against them and their outcome. Marc Gander from the Consumer Action Group website says the orders are “significant”.

GANDER: This judge seems to be giving the banks either between 7 to 14 days basically to explain themselves and to demonstrate that they are going to be serious litigants or the case will be struck out. The people who claim are led basically a song and dance through the procedural obstacles of small claims litigation, which can take anything between 3 to 4 months, but finally this judge is putting a stop to it.

HOWARD: Karen is one of the bank customers who’s benefited from one of Judge Toombs’ orders. She went to court to reclaim £250 in charges which Lloyds TSB put on her credit card account.

KAREN: It means a heck of a lot because the judge is finally standing up to the banks and the banks’ solicitors and saying come on, stop wasting our time – either pay up at the beginning or let’s have somebody in court and bring your defence into court. If this judge’s order is going to make the banks think twice about taking it as far before they actually settle or in fact turn up in court and answer to a case, then that will be wonderful.

HOWARD: Peter Cable from Newark in Nottinghamshire has received the same order, also against Lloyds TSB. He’s claiming back £2,400. He hopes other judges will follow suit.

CABLE: I think it would be a wake up call for the banks. It would certainly make the banks realise that they have to treat this issue seriously and it’s not just an annoying instance that they hope will go away. I believe this is now an attempt to call their bluff and say are you serious, in which case we’ll deal with it; if not, don’t waste our time.

HOWARD: The banks have always insisted that their charges are both lawful and fair. Lloyds TSB says it has now settled Karen and Peter’s claims, but in a statement it questioned the judge’s right to threaten to strike out its defence.

STATEMENT: The judge made his order without a hearing, so we were not given a chance to make representations. We believe that the order was legally flawed. We judge cases on an individual basis and in this case made a decision to settle. Had we not settled, we would have applied to set the order aside.

HOWARD: Judge Toombs’ actions have certainly caught the attention of other district judges as they decide how best to deal with the thousands of bank charge cases reaching their courts. Judge Paul Collins speaks on behalf of county court judges in London.

COLLINS: It’s obviously in the interests of consumers that there should be clear guidance as to how these cases are to be dealt with. Nobody can approve of the situation which exists at the moment, which leaves so many people in the dark as to what the banks’ real intentions are going to be, and I think I’m speaking for all judges who deal with these cases when I say it would be very desirable to have a test case to see whether or not the arguments being put forward by the banks are sustainable or not. And the present position must be a matter of frustration to judges and I agree with them.

HOWARD: Judge Collins has tried to hasten a ruling by referring his bank charge cases to a higher court. Yet again, they’ve all been settled before they could be heard. Here at Brentford County Court, the great bank charge claims bonanza goes on with another five cases already listed for next month.

STUDIO: Thanks, Bob.---------------

Been reading Bankfodder's opinions on claiming back beyond 6 years.

The main argument seems to be that if the Banks acted deceitfully in denying the right to claim back charges, then the 6-year limit would be inapplicable.

Sounds good to me! I had some MAJOR problems in the years before 2001, and I shudder to think how much I lost in charges.

Anyway, my original DPA request only resulted in 6 years worth of info, so this is going to Barclays today:

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


letter before action
Section 7 – Data Protection Act 1998

Dear Sir/Madam

Accounts: xxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx.

I am in receipt of the documents that you have supplied in response to my Data Protection Act information request dated 25/01/07. I believe the disclosure of personal data to be incomplete in that you have not supplied information covering the period from the opening of the accounts to January 2001.
My Request clearly asked for documents relating to 'my banking history with your organisation', not just the last 6 year period.

Accordingly, I must tell you that you have not yet complied with your obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998.
I must insist that you supply the information I have requested, or supply me with a valid reason why you cannot do so.

The time for compliance with my request has now expired. If you do not comply fully with my Subject access request within 7 days of receipt of this letter, I shall be forced to apply to the county court for an order to enforce compliance, together with damages at the discretion of the court.

Yours faithfully,

Oneofakind.
-----------------------------------------------

Will let you know what happens.....

Meanwhile, it's MCOL time next week!

D.

Can anyone answer this for me?

If I don't get a settlement in the next 10 days, next stop is court claim.
I'm not in work at the moment, and may well qualify for reduced or waived court fees. To claim relief on fees, I have to send the relevant form to the court with my actual claim.

Question is: is there a facility to claim fee relief through a MCOL claim ? Or will I have to claim in person?

I was planning to use MCOL for convenience, but wouldn't like to get right to the 'submit claim' page and find I've wasted my time.

Bump?

Never thought of it that way, Caz.

thanks.