Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.
    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Barclaycard & Microfiche - they are wrong - OFFICIAL


JLW61
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2324 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Just got the same response from ICO. Claiming that the banks told them 6 years is "industry standard".

 

Not good that the banks are basically now telling the ICO what to say - so what's the point of ICO!?

 

With the backlog of caseloads they had at the end of the year it was inevitable a "cleansing" excercise of cases would take place I feel.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I wouldnt recommend going to the ICO, I did - and after nearly 12 months of waiting the ICO said 'probably Bsrclaycard not have data of more than 6 years - complaint closed'.

 

Final LBA to Barclaycard resulted in them saying send us a tenner, they have already had the £10 fee - so its off to the Small Claims Court to get disclosure.

 

Sorry noomill060 - should have done this over 6 months ago like you told me to.

 

Beachy

 

 

You live and learn, beachy

 

NOW GO GET 'EM-

 

TAKE NO PRISONERS!! icon10.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 4 months later...

Hi Guys

 

I am currently in the process of trying to get information relating to my MSDW account that was taken over by Barclaycard. So far I have had very little success. Can anyone tell me if they have been successful in getting information over 6 years old?

 

Cheers

 

FMC

Abbey National SAR sent 15/03/2010

RBS SAR sent 15/03/2010

Cahoot SAR sent 22/03/2010

Northern Rock SAR sent 22/03/2010

EGG SAR sent 22/03/2010

Morgan Stanley SAR sent 22/03/2010

MBNA SAR sent 22/03/2010

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi FMC,

 

BC will say they have destroyed data over 6 years old, whether for a BC a/c or MSDW, Goldfish, etc.

 

You may get some info if you take court action but it's by no means guaranteed. See the thread for "Webby v BC" started by Webmaster - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?206050-Webby-v-Barclaycard-**WON-with-CCI-and-Older-Charges**

 

:)

Edited by slick132
added webby's link

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

**IMPORTANT UPDATE**

 

Big Congrats to Kate999 who has just succeeded in getting BC to (promise to) provide statements or data back to 1998.

 

After my N1 was submitted I was advised they would be defending the claim in full!

 

Received a call yesterday advising I would receive a copy of all my statements from 1998 till the account closed, and I would have them later this week.

 

Great result - really happy!

 

She took court action for disclosure of the data. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?286215-Barclays-want-to-start-court-action-help-please!&p=3402197&viewfull=1#post3402197

 

Excellent result which should be rewarded with a claim for charges plus compound interest in restitution.

 

8-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

***Big Congrats*** to user Shelley, who has just got BC to produce full statement data from Jan 2002 after an Application to court for disclosure using the DP Act - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?342110-Another-Barclaycard-PPI-charges-claim&p=3893105&viewfull=1#post3893105

 

Well done and this should encourage others to seek older data using court action if BC say it's no longer available.

 

:whoo:

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

sticky closed

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2324 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...