and there is that case (HL i think) which says that the amount in a default notice should not be mainly re charges etc.

that aside, your poc seems was too much for a poc. hindsight.

it was said that 12£ would be generally seen as ok, but not to default on. as above.

imho, if things aren't looking favourable, maybe try for a settlement prior without costs against.

My bottom line is the removal of the default - everything else is for bargaining with.

trying to recall the case for you re an accuracy in the default notice sum,...

For what it's worth, BC have historically defended such claims all the way but then settled before a final hearing, agreeing to refunds of penalty fees, compound restitutionary int't and default removal.

The sol's have not necessarily caved in easily but they have generally settled in an acceptable manner when the claimant has remained determined and not showed signs of wanting too settle too quickly.

Backed up by *WON* or *Probably WON* cases in the the Barclays Successes Forum.

trying to recall the case for you re an accuracy in the default notice sum,...

Are you thinking of McGuffick V RBS judgement Ford ?

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2009/2386.html

For what it's worth, BC have historically defended such claims all the way but then settled before a final hearing, agreeing to refunds of penalty fees, compound restitutionary int't and default removal.

 

The sol's have not necessarily caved in easily but they have generally settled in an acceptable manner when the claimant has remained determined and not showed signs of wanting too settle too quickly.

 

Backed up by *WON* or *Probably WON* cases in the the Barclays Successes Forum.

 

Yes.

And despite the witness statement, BC still have a case to answer to.

Part of their duty when reporting to CRA's is to do so in a timely manner. They added default fees to the account for 3 or more consecutive months on 3 separate occasions dating from December 2013. On one of those occasions they applied charges for 6 consecutive months and on another, 13 consecutive months, prior to registering a default. In other words, the default could - and should - have been registered much earlier (e.g. Jan, Feb, Mar or Apr 2014, or Oct 2014, or Feb 2015 etc etc, rather than April 2016). Frankly, that stinks.

That's assuming the default should have been registered in the first place.

I last spent on the card in July 2014, at which point my balance was at or within my credit limit (£150).

From that point on, I paid a total of £292.33 into the account.

The charges alone from that same point on were £408, so I think it is fair to say the default balance consists substantially if not entirely of default charges, thus the default should not have been registered.

Are you thinking of McGuffick V RBS judgement Ford ?

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2009/2386.html

remembered it now; the old Woodchester Lease v Swayne CA if that is useful as well?

Hi John,

Can you answer the following Q's :-

1. What is the current status of the agreement at the moment - is it live or terminated.

2. Are you currently paying anything.

3. Is there an outstanding balance.

Doesn't matter if these Q's have been asked and answered before - give the answers now to help us help you further.

Ahhh the notorious delayed default from BC again, almost as common as adding interest to your BC each month

In my case against them they had delayed the default by 5 yrs so effectively screwing me for 11 yrs.

Sols said they could not do anything about it,

rubbish, stuck to your guns, they will not go into a court to defend this despite all their pomp and ceremony.

Once you have a hearing date i fully expect that this will be resolved.

Look at all the “successes” in the BC forum, most have no ending other than they were won because BC will insist that its hushed with a Tomlin Order, i updated the final outcome before signing any such order to provide a completed thread.

Keep going john the end is nigh.

Hi John,

 

Can you answer the following Q's :-

 

1. What is the current status of the agreement at the moment - is it live or terminated.

 

2. Are you currently paying anything.

 

3. Is there an outstanding balance.

 

Doesn't matter if these Q's have been asked and answered before - give the answers now to help us help you further.

 

1) Don't know.

2) No. I never pay after a default - what's the point?

3) £129

Court date for BC Sol's summary judgement application has been set for Friday 26th January.

So you should be filling a WS in response to their application for SJ noting your objections/reasons.....it must be filed and served not less than 7 days pre hearing

Well guys, looks like it's T.O. time...

Well, nearly. There's no mention of default removal, and I'm required to withdraw and release the claim "and/or any other matter" (like PBA fees I was about to reclaim?) whilst "any other indebtedness" I have or may have remains unaffected.

Hmmm.

Default markers will not be removed...they are not connected to the court claim....and will fall off your files after the 6th anniversary

Default markers will not be removed...they are not connected to the court claim....and will fall off your files after the 6th anniversary

Removal of the default is part of my PoC.

If the default charges responsible for the default are being refunded, how can there be any basis for the default to remain?

Ah okay.....

Removal of the default is part of my PoC.

 

If the default charges responsible for the default are being refunded, how can there be any basis for the default to remain?

Exactly how i handled mine johnhn

Eventually they will agree to this if you stick to your guns and you must ensure its included in any draft order.

The situation has taken a turn. Whether it's for the worse I'm not sure but it's weird and uncomfortable.

To recap:

12th January - received offer of settlement from sol's. All charges plus restitutionary interest.

15th January - rejected offer by email as no default removal, but said I would accept offer if it was revised to include this.

18th January - received email stating I have not responded to the offer and need to sign and return the TO by 4pm 23rd January. I reply referring their attention to my email of 15th January.

22nd January - emailed sol's for acknowledgement of receipt of my emails.

23rd January - received email from sol's acknowledging receipt of my emails. "We are taking further instructions from our Client in respect of your emails." Arrive home from work at 6.30pm to find letter from sol's dated 18th January but postmarked 22nd January stating I have not responded to the offer and need to sign and return the TO by 4pm 23rd January...

25th January - received email from defendant's barrister attaching his skeleton argument for tomorrow's hearing...

Are BC likely to take this right to the wire or am I sitting opposite their barrister in court tomorrow?

Still struggling to reconcile their standpoint that my claim "has no real prospect of success" with their offer to repay all charges + restitutionary interest though...

Also, the offer letter gives me until December 18th 2018 to accept - how does that work with an application hearing tomorrow for strike out/summary judgement?

Obviously a typo ...2017

Obviously a typo ...2017

So they wanted me to agree an offer made in January 2018 by December 2017?

Either that or if they fail tomorrow the offer does stand till 2018 ?

sorry cant carry the link without permission from admin removed above post

sorry cant carry the link without permission from admin removed above post

Oops. Sorry

Off to court in 3 hours...

I wonder how keen BC are not to have a court find against their default charges.

Their Sol's claim for costs is £2733.00.

My entire claim is less than half of that.

Their skeleton argument cites OFT v Abbey National 2009 [uKSC] and says

"There is no material difference between fees for current accounts and those for credit cards and so the court is invited to adopt the same approach here in respect of credit card fees".

Really?