Jump to content

Firefly100

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. I have a bank charges re-claim case which was put on hold pending the OFT high court case. I attended court back in August 2007 when my case was stayed and the judge informed me I could append any new charges made since filing the claim to my existing claim. During this time I moved house. My husband and I both wrote to Barclays informing them of the new address and my husband continued to get statements but mine stopped as despite the fact that the change of address letters were in the same envelope they did not update my details. Anyway, thanks to this mess up I missed about 8 months statements (Feb 07 - Sept 07) and during this time I think I was charged around £400 in charges... I want to get the paperwork for this together so all my paperwork is in order ready for when the stay is (hopefully) lifted from my re-claim case... Firstly I went into the branch to try to get copy statements for this 8 months and despite their telling me these would be sent out they have not arrived. I therefore wrote to Barclays back on 1st April 2008 requesting the copies be sent out. They still did not arrive. I wrote again on 23rd July using an official template asking for a list of all the charges for this period and enclosing a cheque for £10 quoting the 40 day deadline. I did not get a response. On 1st October I emailed the Information Commissioner to complain about the fact that I had not had a response for over 40 days. I attached copies of my letters. It is now 21st October and I have still not had a response either from Barclays or from the Information Commissioner. I emailed the Information Commissioner again this morning to try to chase them but am starting to feel like I am hitting my head against a brick wall with all of this. I would really welcome some ideas from you as to what I can do next to get hold of the statements. Thanks everyone.
  2. OK - so I went to my allocation hearing this morning at Kingston upon Thames County Court. There were quite a number of bank charge cases being heard for different banks and Abbey went in first which meant we didn't actually get in until gone 11.00 even tough the hearing was set for 10.30... Barclay's rep Marianne Butler was talking to all Barclays's claimants before the hearing informing us she was going to be asking for a stay and handing out paper copies of the legal argument for this. I told Ms Butler that I had already written to the court and Barclays objecting to the proposed application for a stay - (letter in previous post plus statement on human rights etc I'd printed off from this site) - Miss Butler said she hadn't seen this so quickly scanned the copy I had brought for me to refer to in court and said she was familiar with this letter... Anyhoo, we all trooped in - different judge from last time - not so smiley - rather like a posh Neil Fox! - there wasn't enough places for everyone to sit so a number of claimants had to stand. The judge asked Ms Butler to state Barclay's position - she said that they were seeking a stay pending the outcome of the test case - she was aware that no formal application had been made but that everyone now had a copy of the skeleton argument for this. The judge asked Ms Butler to outline the merits of a stay and she said a stay would ensure an expeditious and timely resolution of all issues - she asserted that it also did not make sense to have lots of identical cases being heard with different judges all over the country and all the costs incurred with that. She stated that as this morning's cases were allocation hearings we would probably not get a date until October, if the bank lost they would appeal and this court process would probably take us to the end of January anyway which was when the test case was to be heard so more timely all round if things were stayed until then. She said the claimants would be "protected and not prejudiced" by the stay and that although it was inconvenient for us to have to wait it would be no quicker to go ahead without a stay just wasteful in time and resources. The judge said he wished to allay the fears of claimants that further bank charges applied in the interim would not be claimable in the future - he assured us that if the banks lose the OFT case we will be able to amend our claims to include all new charges applied to accounts - these can be post-dated on the claim form. He also said we should keep a record of costs as these can be determined at the end of the hearing. We were then asked if any of us wished to speak to raise objections against the claim. I asked the judge if he had read my letter and the statement I had supplied outlinging my objections to the stay and he said he had. I tried to talk about the delay being longer if we waited for the OFT case as appeals for this might last 2 years etc and also tried to talk through some of the other arguments in the statement including asking why the banks were suddenley defending their principles now when from all my research on this site and other readings had intimated to me that the banks have only won one case anyway and in all other cases had settled - the judge said that not all cases lost by claimants had been published so basically ignored this tack. I did ask about the fact that Barclays had not followed the correct court procedure in submitting the corrct form to apply for a stay together with a £65 cheque but this was discounted also. In the end I gave up objecting to the stay and asked that if the stay was granted, would the judge consider stopping the banks imposing any further charges on accounts until the test case was decided. The judge asked Miss Butler what she thought about this one and she said it would be prejudicial to the banks as they were legally entitled to these charges until proved otherwise so I lost this argument too. It was blatently obvious that nothing I could say was going to sway the judge not to grant the stay - he had already made up his mind that he was going to grant the stay before we even came into the room. In this sense I felt very patronised as we were obviously all just being allowed a say if we wanted one for the record but that a decision had already been made so it was all a pointless exercise and the whole trip to court was another waste of our time and expense. A couple of other claimants also had a say but to no avail. Finally the judge asked a gentleman who was representing several claimants if he had anything to say regarding the stay and he answered no as he was already aware of the judge's opinion from the earlier Abbey hearing that morning - confirmed it all really - what a total waste of everyone's time in turning up at court at all. So the judge ordered the stay on all cases and asserted his belief that this would create a "level playingfield" for all cases. So basically, the court have my money in fees, Barclays have my money in charges and continue to keep making the charges every month and I now have to wait for possibly 2 years waiting to see if I can get any of this money back - the whole way things are panning out seems just so unfair on the consumer! Not sure to apply for stay to be lifted or just drift for a bit keeping tabs on the new charges until after the test case..
  3. OK - went to Kingston County Court this morning where all cases at the allocation hearing for Barclays were stayed - I believe the cases for Abbey National which were heard before us were also stayed - didn't seem to matter what argument we put to the judge - he'd made his mind up that a stay was the best decision for everyone before the hearing even took place - seemed just an exercise in letting us have our say but that nothing we could say was going to change his opinion anyway.. Reasons judge gave for stay were that the test case was going to create a level playing field for all the cases and put a stop to the inconsistencies in findings at the many different county courts across the country. He also asserted his belief that a stay pending the results of the OFT test case would actually mean a more timely resolution to the cases that proceeding... we were also advised that if the the banks lost the OFT case we could amend our claims to include all charges added subsequent to the date we issued our claims. Full account of this mornings proceedings will be in my thread at the Barclays forum once I've typed it up - I guess this means though that the list needs to be updated to say Kingston upon Thames are now staying cases!
  4. OK - to be proactive I am considering sending the following letter together with the "Stay objections statement" to the judge for my file - would be great for some feedback on whether people think this is a good idea or whether I should just wait until the hearing (if it doesn't get cancelled!) Dear Sir or Madam, Claim Number: XXXXXXXXX Claimant: XXXXXXXXXX Defendant: Barclays Bank Plc At my allocation hearing on 25th July 2007 the defendant, Barclays, stated they had not had time to look fully at my case due to the large volume of cases at present. The judge suggested we adjourn the hearing until 30th August 2007 at 10.30 a.m. to give the defendant more time and being reasonable I accepted this as being fair. Subsequent to this decision and the judge on 27th July 2007 issuing a Notice of Adjourned Hearing for 30th August, I have now received correspondence from the defendant dated 7th August 2007 (attached) informing me of their intention to apply for a stay on my case pending the resolution of the OFT case. This conflicts with the directions we were given by the judge back on the 25th July to continue to work towards a settlement out of court and otherwise return to court on the 30th August 2007 at 10.30. I have been endeavouring to resolve this case for months – initial correspondence in this regard commenced back in February 2007. I have been pro-active in endeavouring to settle this case outside of a court and have always complied with all necessary steps in a timely and efficient manner. I have also already been to court on 25th July 2007 to try to settle. At this time the defendant stated in my case they had received from me all the particulars of claim they required to deal with my case but, given their large workload, they had not had time to deal with it yet – hence the adjournment. I had been intending to write again to the defendant next week to endeavour to negotiate a settlement before the next court hearing and if this failed, to attend on 30th July to endeavour to settle in court. In my mind this led me to believe this situation could be resolved before the end of the month – until I received this latest correspondence from the defendant re their intention to apply for a stay. I would like to register that, given the above history, I beliieve a stay on my case at this stage in time would be unfair. I have attached herewith for the judge’s attention a statement detailing why I feel a stay would not be fair in my circumstances especially since I have tried to settle this case out of court since February 2007 and have already been to court to settle the matter once. I would ask that the judge consider this statement when dealing with the application for a stay which the defendant has said they will be making. Yours faithfully
  5. Congratulations Sarah! and thanks for relaying all the details. I'm off back to court myself on 30th August and am pretty certain bank will ask for a stay so good to have some info on what to expect beforehand.
  6. Thanks saintly! I'll ignore the letter then and continue as usual. I've printed off the "stay objections statement" from http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....ml#post1046820 ready to take to court with me on the 30th and will email Barclays again re settling out of court next week.
  7. So.. the judge adjourned my hearing to 30th August at 10.30. Since then I have received a letter from Barclays which seems a pretty standard looking one basically explaining that due to the OFT case they have "asked the Financial Services Authority "FSA" to suspend the normal timetable for dealing with bank charges complaints and the FSA has agreed to this request subject to conditions that protect your rights". I am not sure whether there is a template which I can use to write back and say I intend to go to court on the 30th irrespective of the OFT case as my case has been going on since Feb and I want a timely resolution, Has anyone else received a similar letter? If so what did you respond with? Thanks for all help and ideas!
  8. So I went to court today - account in my thread - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclays-bank/86937-firefly100-barclays.html they basically need more time to deal with my case due to a large back log so I've another allocation hearing set for 30th August... but interestingly, although Barclays said they had received my schedule of charges there were numerous cases this morning where Barclays said they hadn't received adequate particulars of claim e.g. schedule of charges, bank account numbers etc - the claimants in all the cases I witnessed all said that these had been supplied numerous times - same as you space so maybe this is a tactic of Barclays to buy more time...
  9. OK... so I went to court this morning!! The court was chaos - mine was an Allocation Hearing with Other Cases and the court usher was having kittens as she had 250 bank charge cases listed for today alone and was scrolling through 9 pages of claimants names to check everyone in - the cases were not just for Barclays but for lots of other banks too, Abbey, Woolwich, Royal Bank of Scotland, NatWest, Lloyds etc - it was so crowded there was nowhere to sit! At 10.30 the Barclays cases went in to court - about 20 of us - and a Miss Butler who was the counsel representing Barclays (and also Woolwich later in the day)... Although it was not asked for I had most of the papers I would use in my court bundle with me so I knew I would be able to answer anything that came up. The judge asked Miss Butler about how Barclays stood generally now on the whole bank charges issue and she said that the bank was looking at each case on an individual basis - she said that they had only received adequate particulars from a few people and that often claimants had not supplied enough specifics about the charges incurred (bank account numbers and detailed schedule of charges etc. She mentioned that there was an enormous backlog but said it was Barclays' intention to defend all of the cases and that they were seeking directions from the judge to trial... The judge responded that was there any point giving directions to trial if the cases were going to collapse... it was better at this stage to give directions for further particulars to be supplied (information and documents), allow for the bank to respond to these first and if necessary then for Barclays to seek directions to trial. The judge then moved onto looking at the individual cases - often Barclays stated they had not received details of the claims i.e. the schedule of charges, bank account numbers etc. Whilst I was present, most people responded that these details had in fact been supplied to Barclays - often attached to the back of the allocation questionnaire - the judge checked his copies and in the cases I witnessed was able to confirm receipt of these but Barclays still stated they hadn't received this... The judge said that really rather than just attach a schedule of charges to the back of the questionnaire, "the schedule of charges should be referred to in the narrative of the particulars of claim" - note for anyone completing the form in the future! We then got to my case and Barclays said they had received enough information including schedule of charges etc - (I should hope so - I've have sent them to Barclays enough times!!!) - they just had not got round to dealing with my case yet due to the large workload... The judge asked me when I first sent my schedule of charges to Barclays - this was back in March - he said that Barclays had therefore had enough time and really should have been ready for my case today... seeing as Barclays were not ready, the judge then set a re-allocation hearing for the case for 30th August and asked Barclays and I to try to get a resolution before this new date. He also said he would reserve consideration for paying me expenses for attending court today until the next hearing date but I should now mention reclaiming these during my next negotiations with Barclays. I've now today received an email from the Barclays Lit team saying "We are currently dealing with claims on a strict chronological basis, therefore until you have a final hearing date we will be unable to consider your claim. Please make contact once you have the final hearing date." - so have written back saying that given the judge's directions this morning I will await the next correspondence from the court and then contact them again re discussing settlement prior to 30th August hearing - which is not a final hearing date but still a court date and really want to settle this asap. sooo - I'm relieved the hearing this morning is over and now am back to the waiting game...
  10. so.. I've emailed Krysta and said although I look forward to seeing Barclays in court next week I'd rather still settle out of court if possible... so let's see if I get any response. Am feeling a little down about things now as was really hoping for settlement this week.... so weary but trying to fight on.
  11. Space - you are an inspiration! I've just this minute got off the phone from the Lit team who said they're sending a rep to my allocation hearing next week rather than choosing to settle out of court now - so I've copied your email saying you'd still rather settle out of court and have decided to get my bundle together to take to court with me same as you did as surprise ammunition. Was feeling rather scared but your account of the Barclays rep and the judge's beahviour has made me feel far more confident so thanks for that! Wishing you all the best in your continued fight.
  12. OK - so now I'm a little nervous!! - I've just called and spoken to Greg about my "Notice of Allocation Hearing with Other Cases" which is set for next Weds 25th July.... Greg tells me that Barclays are intending to send a representative to court on the 25th. I must attend as well in order to prevent my case from being struck out. Greg says the judge will probably set directions for a full hearing and therefore because Barclays are planning to attend at this stage we can't settle out of court... soo.. looks like I'll be in court on Wednesday - I'm just hoping that because it is a hearing with other cases I won' t be on my own next week.
  13. soo... I emailed Dino again this morning to say it was now one week until my court hearing. I got very excited when I got a reply!!!.... but only to say he was out of the office until Monday 23rd... His out of office sais to contact Greg Thomas - '[email protected]' in his absence - so I did... and.... I really did get a reply!!! Have just got a very nice ansafone message from Greg who very nicely and politely explained that he will be looking at next weeks cases tomorrow and he should be in touch with me by end of play Thursday. He apologised for the lateness of this but said it was due to the large volume of cases they are dealing with. He also said if I hadn't heard from him by end of play Thursday for any reason to ring him and he left me a number for this. Roll on Thursday!!!
  14. OK... so email to Krysta fell on deaf ears... no response at all! As suggested by saintly_1, on Thursday 5th July I emailed Dino to ask who was dealing with my case - again no response. I've emailed Dino again today to point out it is now 2 weeks before my court date and please could he contact me with the name of the person I should be dealing with to discuss settlement out of court. I'll keep emailing until this time next week and then phone them. Is so near am getting impatient now!
×
×
  • Create New...