So developments today. I received a call advising me my complaint was being looked at and I should hear back quickly - maybe today but certainly in next 2 weeks. Now received an email which basically saying that as a result of problems at their end the bill was late and qualifies for a write off but this needs authorising and will be confirmed. IF they do refund do I still have good grounds for a case as a result of the distress and inconvenience caused - or would the courts likely view that in a dim light?

Ok BF well they've replied and in essence say they'll correct the error, system failt etc. they don't think not warrants compensation but are sending me a cheque for £20. I've decided I'm not happy so I'm thinking you have a point - I'm issuing against barclaycard, I'll no doubt shortly be doing the same against capital one and HBOS - so in for a penny. I'm going to take this to court as well. Going to cost me a fortune over the next few months but so what - compared to the claims for penalty charges this will be a relatively simple case anyway.

I'll be absolutely honest, the POC was lifted directly from SS. I'll have a go at editing it down for critique

I know Andy and I have to say my initial thought was online and that was reinforced by your info - it's just as slick and others seem keen on postal service so I wanted to get the low down on that option as well. I'm going to do it online though - I think that way will work the best for me. It will be weekend I think before I get the time to sit and go through all the stuff so my aim is to submit via MCOL on Monday. Let the 'fun' commence

Sorry guys I'm new to all this so I know I'm asking basic stuff you are probably tired of answering but reading between the lines the method of issuing (online or by Salford) it seems is largely one of preference - or are there perceived benefits of one over the other? I'm imagining the key benefit of issuing by post is that the POC is complete when received by the defendant whilst issuing online is more convenient and gives you online access to the case?

Brilliant - so I can submit the claim online and send the detailed POC directly to the defendant separately via the post. Do I have to send a copy to the court as well? Not going to lie, I am slightly nervous now

OK - I will review the POC and add in the stuff about the defaults. So I will need to download and complete the N1 form and post to the court with the fee - by 3 copies I take that is 3 copies of the N1, 3 copies of the POC? Is it more expensive to do via Salford than online or doesn't it make much difference?

Hopefully slick/dx etc will pop by at some point and offer some additional guidance. I don't know whether it is worth worrying about the default - it drops of in 14 months anyway and I'd still have other active defaults at that point - would losing this one make much difference?

PS - I did number them on the word doc, not sure why it dropped them when copied/pasted!

Right so Barclays have replied advising once again their response was the final one and I can go to the FOS - no acknowledgement that it was a letter before action. So I now need to proceed - nervous much! So on the claim - I get that I can't submit the above POC online but can I issue online and send full POC separately? I think I'll spend the weekend scanning my documents and getting them in order before I issue the claim - at least I can make sure I've got everything.

Right printed and off to post office shortly to send recorded delivery. I've left it with compound as I feel I am justified, these charges were paid and are clearly unlawful penalty charges. In the end they are not going to try and negotiate up are they!

Right, I've made slight amendments only to the POC to match my claim - Also added a number 12 Does this look about right? POC BArclaycard Claim No [ ] IN THE [xxxxx] county court BETWEEN [L1882] Claimant and -Barclaycard Defendant PARTICULARS OF CLAIM The Claimant entered into an agreement (“The Agreement”) with the Defendant on or around 07/11/2007, whereby the Defendant was to advance credit facilities to the Claimant under a running credit account, Account no XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX ("The Account"). The Agreement essentially consisted of the Defendant providing the Claimant with a credit card (“The Card”) which would allow the Claimant to make purchases and receive cash advances on credit. In return the Defendant was entitled to charge interest at the published rate. The Agreement was a Regulated Agreement for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. At all material times the contract was subject to the Defendant’s standard terms and conditions which could be varied from time to time. Summary Throughout the course of the Agreement, the Defendant has added numerous default charges to the Account for the Claimant’s failure to make the minimum payment on the due date and or for exceeding the credit limit and or if a payment is returned. (Full particulars are set out in schedule 2). The default charges were applied in accordance with the standard terms of The Agreement which were: a) A penalty payable on breach of contract and thus unenforceable: and b) An unfair term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“The Regulations”) and therefore not binding on the Claimant. The Claimant is accordingly entitled to repayment of the sums wrongly added to the Account. The Charges The standard Terms of the Agreement in substance provided as follows: (a) The Defendant would provide the Claimant with the Card. The Claimant was entitled to use the Card to make purchases and receive cash advances up to a credit limit (“the Limit”) set by the Defendant. The Defendant could unilaterally change the Limit by giving the Claimant notice in writing. (b) The Defendant was entitled to charge interest on the purchases and cash advances at the published rate. © The Claimant was to pay the minimum payment of 5% (need to check this!!!) of the amount owed or £5 (whichever was the greatest) by the due date as notified in the monthly statements. (d) The default charges applied are listed in detail in schedule two. Penalty The amount of the Charges exceeded any genuine pre-estimate of the damage which would have been suffered by the Bank in relation to the Claimant’s transgressions. In the premises the Charges were punitive and a penalty and thus unenforceable at common law. The Regulations At all material times the Claimant was a consumer within the Regulations. At all material times the terms of the Agreement providing for the Charges were unfair within regulation 5 of the Regulations in that contrary to the requirement of good faith they caused a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the Claimant. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will refer to the following matters in support of the contention that the terms are to be assessed as unfair as at the time of the conclusion of the Agreement, and of each revision to the Standard Terms. (1)The terms relating to Charges were standard terms; they would not be individually negotiated. (2)The Charges were a penalty for breach of contract. (3)The Charges exceeded the costs which the Bank could have expected to incur in dealing with the exceeding of the credit limit, late payment or returned payment. (4) Accordingly the Charges were a disproportionate charge incurred by the Claimant for their failure to meet their contractual obligation and thus within the ambit of Schedule 2 (1) (e) of the Regulations and indicative of an unfair term. (5) As the Bank knew, the Charges were of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of the Agreement as a whole and would not influence the making of the Agreement. (6) As the Defendant knew, the Claimant had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges. (7) In the premises, the effect of the Charges would be prejudicial to the customer who incurred them, and cause an imbalance in the relations of the parties to the Agreement by subordinating the customer’s interests to those of the Defendant in a way which was inequitable. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will contend that the terms’ imposing the Charges are not core terms under regulation 6 of the Regulations and relies on the following matters. (1) The assessment of fairness does not relate to terms which define the main or core subject matter of the Agreement. (2) The assessment of fairness does not relate to the adequacy of the price or remuneration as against the goods or services supplied in exchange (in other words, whether or not the relevant services were value for money). (3) The Charges are correctly described as default charges by the Defendant in the key information provided to new customers. By reason of the said matters the terms were not binding under regulation 8 of the Regulations. The Defendant wrongly applied Charges to the Account totalling some £383.00 between 18/09/2008 and 22/04/2010 Particulars appear from Schedule 2. 08/04/2015 the Claimant demanded repayment of the sums wrongly applied. The Defendant has not repaid them or any of them. And the Claimant claims; (1) A declaration that the sums totalling £383.00 have wrongly been applied to the Account. Some of these charges are older than the normal 6 years but are claimed by virtue of s32 (1) c Limitations Act 1980 as per Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council. (2) Payment of the said sum of £383.00 and interest in restitution of £946.96 as per Sempra Metals v Inland Revenue Commissioners. (3) Interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount claimed (daily rate of £0.02109%) until judgment or sooner payment. (4) Court costs of [ xxxx]. I believe that the facts stated in these particulars, comprising of x pages, are true. Dated Signed L1882 Following this I presume I will need to provide the documents I intend to rely upon? I don't have the credit agreement as my requests for this have come up blank but I do have statements and other documents that were provided under my SAR. Beyond evidencing the charges and also the terms and conditions what other documents am I likely to need? Any and all advice and opinions gratefully received as always.

Have to say, I've spent some time reading the POC mentioned but doing it whilst referring to the legislation mentioned and it made much more sense - I think the use of the term 'in the premises' and my lack of understanding of what that meant didn't help . I think I full understand it. Those POC will be pretty much the same for both this and my BC one so I'll post a copy onto that thread so it can be checked for glaring errors or omissions. On this one - can I have opinions on whether to just go straight in with an LBA or should is do the letter as an initial approach and when they decline send an LBA?

I know there is a lot of help out there Sabre - I would not have come this far if there wasn't! Just sometimes when you get to the legal end some of the terminology can become bewildering - but I'll get there in the end.

Cheers slick. I am willing to go to court if needed and I've no doubt they will defend, which is why I want to make sure I understand all the salient points before I start this process. I've gone a different route on the PPI and other charges based upon some advice I've had. I though it might be interesting to see how this route works. Once I've heard back from them on this I'll do a thread and let you all know where I'm at - it could still end up legal. I'm not sure whether to wait for the outcome on that or start this independently. I've read the sempra case and think I understand it, well to some extent and that is why I think I've a case for compound as there is little doubt the charges at £20 were a penalty. Main thing that worries me with the court thing is reading the POC from sabre's BC thread I'm not sure I understood it so IF it went to court I don't know as I could argue it effectively before a judge!

In the end I see this as the long game anyway. The longer they mess about the more threatograms I get then the more weight they add to my case when it's brought for the enduring stress and worry they are causing me.

Cheers DX - I'll see if I can get slick to offer a view. I just want to get it right - but would also like to maximise what I get off the shysters - partly because they deserve it!

Sorry I should also point out that most of these charges are at a level that has already been ruled "unlawful" which I thought may give more credence to the argument - especially as I have actually paid these and been denied use of those funds since that time?

I'm not disagreeing - on these issues I'm clueless, new to all this so I'm trying to get to what is right in law but also to understand that big question, why. I know on my Barclays one I've gone for 'until' now on compound, wondering if I should have only gone until account closure - though I note you say BArclays often do pay out before court on that basis. I guess we are trying to avoid actually getting into court here?

Just on this DX - I've noticed on other threads people using SempraMetals v Inland Revenue Commissioners as a basis for compounding to date - why would the same principle not apply in this instance?

Well that makes a significant difference to how much they owe me - Ok So I now have that figure but I guess I will need to reword the letter so that as well as showing the amended amounts it references stat interest rather than restitutionary interest?

Been to the post office - PO has not yet been cashed! I'm guessing this means they are, to an extent, in the clear?

Fortunately I do keep the stubs - and have realised I have this one to hand as it was bought individually.

Ok I'll try and get that - I will have to find the post office receipt for the PO's (wish I'd sent a cheque now, so much easier!) and then ask for the encashment date as I didn't record the numbers sent with each request - didn't even realise you could check when they had been cashed.

Can you do that? I bought and sent a couple at the same time I think. I sent the letter recorded so can prove (in theory at least) delivery date.