@garygumps, great to see this. More than 2 years after the incident! My advice would be to enforce ASAP, do not delay at any step of the process. These companies are know to file for a given judgement to be stayed and deploy heavy artillery if they get the chance. You can look at some stories in this forum. So make sure the money is in your pocket

@bahbahmanBrilliant! I'm very glad the law was upheld, even if it took long. @Andyorch, thanks for asking. I sent Santander Mexico copies of the relevant Mexican/UK law during this "non-chargeback dispute". The credit has not been reversed as of today, so I want to think that VISA/Santander decided I was in the right.

When is your hearing? Of course they cannot rely on a false contract you never signed, make sure the Judge is aware of that.

Hi dx100uk, yes. I guess you could say it failed to dispense, yes. Slick132, 06/04/2020: ATM retains my cash 07/04/2020: I bring this to the attention of Barclays, they say they will investigate May 2020 & June 2020: Radio silence July 2020: I pressure Barclays, they say they are still looking into it August 2020: Radio silence September 2020: I get fed up and I complaint to the Ombudsman without a final response letter January 2021: My claim is formally acknowledged and lodged into their system / assigned an investigator 11/03/2021: My claim is rejected by the investigator 14/03/2021: I reply to the investigator and tell her that her that she has presented no evidence whatsoever to support her notion that the cash was actually dispensed 17/03/2021: She says she can assure me she has seen convincing evidence but does not elaborate 18/03/2021: I ask an Ombudsman to review this and also for my case file 19/03/2021: Refusal to provide a case file ---- I will then fire off SARs, but I still wonder about my original questions -- whether the SAR really will contain exactly the same information that a vanilla case file and whether this is a strategy to shield the big boys. Is there any point in writing to the Treasury Select?

Hi there, Interesting option, yes. As I said my only concern would be the FOS conveniently leaving out Barclays/FOS communications during a SAR, but I think Barclays cannot do the same. This complaint relates to an ATM (from Barclays) stealing money from me and Barclays being useless in the subsequent processes to recover my money.

Hi there, Have a complaint against Barclays. The case handler already ruled in favour of Barclays (quelle surprise), and I requested an Ombudsman to review this. In the meantime, I also asked her to give me a full copy of my file case, because I think a lot of her reasoning is flimsy. She has refused, saying that I need to make a SAR to have access to that data. Now, in my opinion, this is an act in bad faith, because the SAR can conveniently avoid including communications between the FOS and Barclays, which a genuine copy (with the appropriate deletion of sensitive data) of my case file would contain. Moreover, the Independent Assessor has, historically, said that: In a small number of cases I found that the Ombudsman Service had caused avoidable loss. In mid 2010, when complainants asked for copies of documents held on the Ombudsman Service’s case file, they were often told they needed to make a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act and pay the standard £10 fee. Under the Ombudsman Service’s policy of natural justice and transparency, complainants are entitled to copies of evidence that the Ombudsman would rely on in order to reach a decision and I recommended that the £10 fee should be refunded. (From the 2010/11 IA Report) So... two questions: 1.- Am I right in assuming that this is a deflection tactic to deprive me from key information about my case? This would merit a serious complaint with the IA, and -hell- even my MP if this is being done systematically to shield the banks. 2.- What should I do now? Thanks!!

Hey there... Any luck obtaining the judgement and enforcing it with High Court officers? Very curious on this, as Aeromexico is contesting the chargeback and will likely end up in court. Thanks.

What ever happened to this? any updates? x

Shocking they'd be so lenient. Please keep us posted.

@bahbahman That's very good. In due course, you should ask for High Court Bailiffs. Just make sure -beforehand- that they actually have something to seize in Heathrow. Please keep us posted.

@bahbahman Any updates? Did they file an acknowledgement or service, a full defence, or just ignored the citation?

Good, Aeromexico should pay what is duly owed. If you have questions or need help down the line, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, please do keep us updated! Precedent can be really valuable.

I would wholeheartedly agree with the fact that involving solicitors will cost more than 1,000 pounds. If she cannot start proceedings on her own as a LIP, then she would need to take a more passive (but, alas, long) approach.

I think she's being conned by the "executor", especially due to the ill will between the two. If I were in her position, I would take the executor to court, but different strokes for different folks, I suppose. She could outright apply to remove the executor, see Section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985.

You can draft the letter before action yourself and send it against the individual that's not giving you clear responses. No need to involve solicitors at this stage. I would recommend you do it today, start maintaining a paper trail.