Shocking that. I mean the rules are clear and it certainly feels that banks don’t get held to account for blatant and serious disregard to rules. you only have to look at Barclays trust pilot score and there are nothing but complaints about serious breaches. a score of 1.4 is well higher than it would be as a lot would vote 0!! do the fca not monitor these things? Of the claims filed to court against them how many actually get to court snd how many get withdrawn? Any ideas?

Hiya dx, yes will get posted tonight as they are on laptop. fruitsalad, yes that’s my understanding too, they can only exercise their right to set off against a credit balance on an account. Even so they have to take into account your financial situation and what it may be needed for when it’s a credit balance too. they did this some 4 days after they sent a letter saying they were debiting the money and telling me (not the joint holder too) to ensure the money is in the account. They’ve then reported the acccount adverse to CRA about 30 days after they took it into an unauthorised OD. we plan to test this, sharkleys never commented on why the did this or the fact they shouldn’t have?

greetings dx yes issued forms to court now by paper so Barclays are awaiting sealed copies of the forms they say however they were supplied a copy by us as requested.

Hi FruitSalad thanks for the response. To confirm yes no agreed overdraft was ever in place. They were in full knowledge that when they debuted the sum (which we disputed the debt with them and they ignored) that they weee using their right to set off on an account with no credit balance or OD and so were debiting unlawfully

Letter of Claim We issue notice of intent to file a claim against Barclays for the treatment it has imposed on the claimants. We have exhausted the internal complaints procedure and are not satisfied the complaints have been sufficiently addressed. We have claims for breach of your own term on the current account “the terms” as well as unfair treatment under CONC, BCOBS, GDPR Act 2018 and the FCA 2.1 Principles. We believe Barclays are also in breach of an FCA Final Notice which was issued in December 2019 relating to treatment of customers in financial difficulty. We provide under PAPLOC 14 days notice prior to filing our claim to courts.

thanks dx I’ll rewrite this later today. Can I ask out of curiosity what’s the issue with providing too much detail in the LOC or POC. in terms of ADR would that not give the defendant a full picture of the claim and aid any potential resolution pre court? points noted and I’ll simply the letters as advised tho

Thanks DX, you're right I was struggling and thanks to your help I'm getting my head round it more. I will rewrite the LOC and have now hope fully completed the POC (section 4 has been expanded) if you can check this. In terms of the final point and redress, does this have to be specific figures or just outline as we have done? the letter regarding the overdraft i was just confused in that they threaten to report the debt to the CRA but they have already done this in January without warning us about it. My understanding was that on disputing a "debt" on reasonable grounds (as we did when we questioned them re debiting the sum) they have a duty to put the debt on hold and investigate this, coming back to us with their finding before taking any action? They showed no forbearance and didn't give any opportunity or time to repay or resolve any debt before reporting the account to CRA. ................................ 1. Claimants have held a joint basic current account with the defendant since 19 March 2019. 2. On 23rd November 2022 the defendant made a credit payment into the current account for £512 which took the account balance to £512.The claimant was informed in writing by the defendant on 25th November 2022 that the payment was a refund payment after their investigation team had completed their review of disputed transactions. 3.The claimants had raised its initial dispute over transactions on 6th September 2022 and after the defendant reviewed some of these transactions, they refunded the sum of £953 back to the account and in a letter dated 22nd September 2022 confirmed around 30 transactions as fraudulent. 4. On 16th December the defendant re debited the sum of £512 following a letter dated 7th December 2022 claiming this was now a "temporary refund" which was against its previous advice of it being a refund payment and held the claimants liable for the transactions. The defendant provided the claimants no evidence or rationale behind why they held the claimants liable for these transactions as they have a duty to do. Despite requesting this the defendants provided nothing at all to support its claims of we were liable, and they failed to speak to the merchants who took the payments to confirm the payments. The merchants in question are not legitimately operational companies, they are overseas merchants who took the payments in USD, and the defendant had already confirmed payments from the same merchants as fraudulent and refunded these transactions in the case they confirmed as fraudulent on September 22nd. 5. The defendant breached their terms and conditions (Barclays & You & Barclays Overdraft lending commitments) when they debited a sum of £512 and took the account into an unauthorised overdraft. 6. On 19th December 2019 the defendant was issued a Final Notice by the FCA for “breaching Principles 6 and 3 of the Authority’s Principles for Businesses and CONC 6.7.2R, 7.2.1R and 7.3.4R from its Consumer Credit sourcebook by failing to show forbearance and due consideration to business and retail customers when they fell into arrears or experienced financial difficulties. Barclays failed to treat customers who fell into arrears fairly in a number of ways: Customer Contact, Customer Circumstances and Forbearance”. 7. The defendant breached the terms of a final notice issued by the Financial Conduct Authority on 19 December 2019 when subjecting the claimants to treatment which it was previously sanctioned for in that notice. 8. The defendant has breached Principles 2.1, BCOBS, CONC, Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 77, GDPR Act 2018 & the Financial Conduct Authority terms "Unauthorised payments from your account". 9. The claimants exhausted the defendants’ internal complaints procedure & referred the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service in February 2023. The FOS only investigated part of the claimant’s complaint specifically the disputed transactions & their investigation into these. The FOS did not consider any matters relating to the refund payment, their handling of this or the consequences of the defendants’ actions on the claimants. The FOS ruled in the claimants favour on 28th April 2023. Comments from the FOS confirmed an inconsistent investigation which was not investigated properly by “confused staff” who provide no evidence or rationale for any decisions. The FOS also requested further evidence from the defendant relating to debit card details around 28th July 2023. The defendant has failed to provide this (and other) information to the FOS to continue their investigation. 10. The defendant has caused financial hardship & credit problems for claimants as a result of their actions. The credit issues began in January 2023 & have had severe consequences on the claimants’ lives. 11. The defendant failed to act on instructions from the FOS in their outcome on 28 April which asked them to rework the claimants credit files. The defendant did not comment or action this. 12. The defendant has acted unlawfully towards the claimants and the claimants seek compensation including non-material damages and exemplary damages. The damage to claimant’s credit scores is of significant concern particularly as both claimants are company directors, and their businesses rely on healthy credit to operate. The damages continue to increase due to the delays of the defendant and claimants’ level of redress is continuing to rise daily. 13. The defendant provided inaccurate data to the FOS (file titled “investigation notes”) in February/March 2023. This file was later supplied to the claimants after redaction by the defendant however it contained information which was different to that it originally supplied the FOS. The defendant unlawfully denied the FOS the opportunity to comment on details of the original file when the claimants asked the FOS, it was claimed Barclays warned them with a confidentially clause. The claimants proved no confidentially claim could be upheld on the data and the FOS confirmed the data and claims made to us was inaccurate and that data has been manipulated by the defendant to support their submission. 14. The claimants seek financial compensation for the outstanding disputed transactions which have not been refunded as well as to cover damages to the claimant’s credit scores and ability to obtain credit for the period from January 2023. This is to cover increases in borrowing rates, refusal of credit and any debts as a result of non-payment of the outstanding disputed amounts which should have been refunded in September 2022. We seek compensation to cover the claimants for the following 6 years. Claimants also seek compensation that reflects distress and inconvenience and will look to seek exemplary and punitive damages.

1. Claimants have held a joint basic current account with the defendant since 19 March 2019. 2. On 23rd November 2022 the defendant made a credit payment into the current account for £512 which took the account balance to £512.The claimant was informed in writing by the defendant on 25th November 2022 that the payment was a refund payment after their investigation team had completed their review of disputed transactions. 3.The claimants had raised its initial dispute over transactions on 6th September 2022 and after the defendant reviewed some of these transactions, they refunded the sum of £953 back to the account and in a letter dated 22nd September 2022 confirmed around 30 transactions as fraudulent. 4. On 16th December the defendant re debited the sum of £512 following a letter dated 7th December 2022 claiming this was now a "temporary refund" which was against its previous advice of it being a refund payment. 5. The defendant breached their terms and conditions (Barclays & You & Barclays Overdraft lending commitments) when they debited a sum of £512 and took the account into an unauthorised overdraft. 6. On 19th December 2019 the defendant was issued a Final Notice by the FCA for “breaching Principles 6 and 3 of the Authority’s Principles for Businesses and CONC 6.7.2R, 7.2.1R and 7.3.4R from its Consumer Credit sourcebook by failing to show forbearance and due consideration to business and retail customers when they fell into arrears or experienced financial difficulties. Barclays failed to treat customers who fell into arrears fairly in a number of ways: Customer Contact, Customer Circumstances and Forbearance”. 7. The defendant breached the terms of a final notice issued by the Financial Conduct Authority on 19 December 2019 when subjecting the claimants to treatment which it was previously sanctioned for in that notice. 8. The defendant has breached Principles 2.1, BCOBS, CONC, Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 77, GDPR Act 2018 & the Financial Conduct Authority terms "Unauthorised payments from your account". 9. The claimants exhausted the defendants’ internal complaints procedure & referred the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service in February 2023. The FOS only investigated part of the claimant’s complaint specifically the disputed transactions & their investigation into these. The FOS did not consider any matters relating to the refund payment, their handling of this or the consequences of the defendants’ actions on the claimants. The FOS ruled in the claimants favour on 28th April 2023. Comments from the FOS confirmed an inconsistent investigation which was not investigated properly by “confused staff” who provide no evidence or rationale for any decisions. The FOS also requested further evidence from the defendant relating to debit card details around 28th July 2023. The defendant has failed to provide this (and other) information to the FOS to continue their investigation. 10. The defendant has caused financial hardship & credit problems for claimants as a result of their actions. The credit issues began in January 2023 & have had severe consequences on the claimants’ lives. 11. The defendant failed to act on instructions from the FOS in their outcome on 28 April which asked them to rework the claimants credit files. The defendant did not comment or action this. 12. The defendant has acted unlawfully towards the claimants and the claimants seek compensation including non-material damages and exemplary damages. The damage to claimant’s credit scores is of significant concern particularly as both claimants are company directors, and their businesses rely on healthy credit to operate. The damages continue to increase due to the delays of the defendant and claimants’ level of redress is continuing to rise daily. 13. The defendant provided inaccurate data to the FOS (file titled “investigation notes”) in February/March 2023. This file was later supplied to the claimants after redaction by the defendant however it contained information which was different to that it originally supplied the FOS. The defendant unlawfully denied the FOS the opportunity to comment on details of the original file when the claimants asked the FOS, it was claimed Barclays warned them with a confidentially clause. The claimants proved no confidentially claim could be upheld on the data and the FOS confirmed the data and claims made to us was inaccurate and that data has been manipulated by the defendant to support their submission. 14. The claimants seek financial compensation for the outstanding disputed transactions which have not been refunded as well as to cover damages to the claimants credit scores and ability to obtain credit for the period from January 2023. This is to cover increases in borrowing rates, refusal of credit and any debts as a result of non-payment of the outstanding disputed amounts which should have been refunded in September 2022. We seek compensation to cover the claimants for the following 6 years. Claimants also seek compensation that reflects distress and inconvenience and will look to seek exemplary and punitive damages.

1. Claimants have held a joint basic current account with the defendant since 19 March 2019. 2. On 23rd November 2022 the defendant made a credit payment into the current account for £512 which took the account balance to £512.The claimant was informed in writing by the defendant on 25th November 2022 that the payment was a refund payment after their investigation team had completed their review of disputed transactions. 3. On 16th December the defendant re debited the sum of £512 following a letter dated 7th December 2022 claiming this was now a "temporary refund" which was against its previous advice of it being a refund payment. 4. The defendant breached their terms and conditions (Barclays & You & Barclays Overdraft lending commitments) when they debited a sum of £512 and took the account into an unauthorised overdraft. 5. The defendant breached the terms of a final notice issued by the Financial Conduct Authority on 19 December 2019 when subjecting the claimants to treatment which it was previously sanctioned for. 6. The defendant has breached Principles 2.1, BCOBS, CONC, Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 77, GDPR Act 2018 & the Financial Conduct Authority terms "Unauthorised payments from your account". 7. The claimants exhausted the defendants’ internal complaints procedure & referred the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service in February 2023. 8. The FOS only investigated part of the claimant’s complaint specifically the disputed transactions & their investigation into these. The FOS did not consider any matters relating to the refund payment, their handling of this or the consequences of the defendants’ actions on the claimants. 9.The FOS ruled in the claimants favour on 28th April 2023. Comments from the FOS confirmed an inconsistent investigation which was not investigated properly by “confused staff” who provide no evidence or rationale for any decisions. 10. The FOS also requested further evidence from the defendant relating to debit card details around 28th July 2023. The defendant has failed to provide this (and other) information to the FOS to continue their investigation. 11. The defendant has caused financial hardship & credit problems for claimants as a result of their actions. The credit issues began in January 2023 & have had severe consequences on the claimants’ lives. 12. The defendant failed to act on instructions from the FOS in their outcome on 28 April which asked them to rework the claimants credit files. The defendant did not comment or action this. 13. The defendant has acted unlawfully towards the claimants and the claimants seek compensation including non-material damages and exemplary damages. The damage to claimant’s credit scores is of significant concern particularly as both claimants are company directors, and their businesses rely on healthy credit to operate. The damages continue to increase due to the delays of the defendant and claimants’ level of redress is continuing to rise daily. 14. The defendant provided inaccurate data to the FOS (file titled “investigation notes”) in February/March 2023. This file was later supplied to the claimants after redaction by the defendant however it contained information which was different to that it originally supplied the FOS. The defendant unlawfully denied the FOS the opportunity to comment on details of the original file when the claimants asked the FOS, it was claimed Barclays warned them with a confidentially clause. The claimants proved no confidentially claim could be upheld on the data and the FOS confirmed the data and claims made to us was inaccurate and that data has been manipulated by the defendant to support their submission.

Thanks dx, i really do appreciate your time and don't mean to frustrate you. So the MCOL process then, is that different to simply printing off the N1 form and submitting this to the courts and third party?

i apologise dx I'm no expert you and the terminology is sometimes confusing! letter of claim says to me that its the letter you issue advising the other party of your intent to claim, which has been issued already. the attached is from the MCOL application which states you cant make the claim using the service if more than one person is claiming and there are two of us? mcol (2).pdf

Hi dx, we cant use MCOL as there are 2 of us claiming (both account holders). The letter of claim being the POC I take it?

Hi dx, apologies for the delay in coming back to you just had a bit of time away on R&R. So to update a little, Barclays solicitor had asked we didn't submit any forms to court until we received a formal letter of response from their client which arrived last week. This was without any knowledge of the specifics of any claim we would be bringing against them. In short their response (9 pages written by their legal rep) is in no way different to what barclays have stated to us previously in correspondence to us. Its clear also from the response that Barclays have given a very select and inaccurate version of events and have negated to tell them a lot of key information. They have stated that we have to substantiate our losses etc and they claim no breach of contract has taken place. We have written back as requested and outlined exactly what breaches we bring claim on and confirmed a lot of the details and examples of wrongdoing which Barclays haven't disclosed to them. Is it worth uploading the response from their solicitor and our reply for you to look over? Seems the timescales for cases getting to court are upwards of 52 weeks, is there any way to expedite this as as its been a year of credit damage and financial hardship up to now, another year is likely to ruin both claimants further. Can we issue a statutory demand for payment via the SD1 form or is there another way to get a case heard and resolved quickly? Thanks

Thanks HB I’ll amend that, I thought you were referring to the apostrophe not the double use of the word I’ll wait to see what dx comes back with

1. Claimants have held a basic current account with the defendant since 19 March 2019. 2. On 22nd November 2022 the defendant made a credit payment into the current account for £512 which took the account balance to £512.The claimant was informed in writing by the defendant on 25th November 2022 that the payment was a refund payment after their investigation team had completed their review. 3. On 16th December the defendant re debited the sum of £512 after a letter dated 7th December 2022 claiming this was now a "temporary refund" which was against its previous statement of it being a refund payment. 4. The defendant breached the terms and conditions set under the bank account (Barclays and You & Barclays Overdraft lending commitments) when they debited a sum of £512 and took the account into an unauthorised overdrawn state. 5. The defendant breached the terms of a final notice issued by the financial conduct authority on 19 December 2019 when subjecting the claimants to treatment for which it was sanctioned for'. 6. The defendant had breached further principles and guidebooks set by the financial conduct authority in its treatment of the claimants. These are: Principles 2.1, BCOBS, CONC, Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 77 & GDPR Act 2018 7. The defendant has breached the Financial Conduct Authority terms of "Unauthorised payments from your account". 8. The claimants exhausted the defendants internal complaints procedure and referred the matter to the FOS February 2023. The FOS ruled in the claimants favour on 30 April 2023. The decision was reviewed after defendants provided information to the FOS, over 4 weeks after it was requested from them, and after seeing the outcome ruling from the FOS. The FOS then requested further evidence from the defendant relating to debit card details after 28th July 2023 after the claimant raised concerns, the defendant failed to provide this information to the FOS. 9. The defendant has caused financial hardship and credit problems for claimants as a result of their actions. 10. The defendant has acted unlawfully towards the claimants.

1. Claimants have held a basic current account with the defendant since 19 March 2019. 2. In December 2022 the defendant made a credit payment into the current account for £512 which took the account balance to £512. 3. The claimant was informed in writing by the defendant that the payment was a refund payment to the claimants. 4. The claimant debited the sue of £512 to take the account balance to £0 on the account. 5. The defendant breached the terms and conditions set under the bank account when they debited a sum of £512 and took the account into an unauthorised overdrawn state. 6. The defendant breached the terms of a final notice issued by the financial conduct authority on 19 December 2019 when subjecting the claimants to treatment for which it was sanctioned for. 7. The defendant had breached further principles and guidebooks set by the financial conduct authority in its treatment of the claimants. 8. The defendant has caused financial hardship and credit problems for claimants as a result of their actions. 9. The defendant has acted unlawfully towards the claimants.

Thanks dx. nowhere near as detailed then just the facts and legal basis in bullet points then. I’ll draft it in the morning. I’m reading claims are taking almost a year to get to hearing at the min. with the damage done, particularly round credit scores, another years worth of damages is going to cripple us, more so when it’s Barclays that’s dragged it out this long up to now. still no response to the LBA yet and forms going in this week, is it just a case of wait wait wait or can you press another way by maybe threatening to increase damages claimed the longer they delay?

1. Breach of PRIN 2.1 - (2) Skill care and diligence 2. Breach of PRIN 2.1 - (6) Customers Interests 3. Breach of PRIN 2.1 - (7) Communications with Clients 4. Breach of PRIN 2.1 - (9) Customers: Relationships of Trust 5. Breach of PRIN 2.1 - (11) Relationships with Regulators 6. Breach of PRIN 2.1 - (12) Customer Duty 7. Breach of BCOBS in their duty under 4.1: 4.1.1 - Providing inaccurate, unclear, and misleading information on many occasions Decisions were made on the back of clear information given by Barclays which they admit was unclear. 4.1.4A – Breach of ”Right to Offset”, did not explain the nature or extent of the firms Right to Offset. Applying this right, with no warning or intent on an account which had no credit balance and no overdraft in place. Provide no information and against FCA rules they did not provide 14 days notice prior to actioning this right. Once exercised they failed to make the consumer aware and provided no information to the consumer. 8. Breach of BCOBS in their duty under 5.1: 5.1.3 – Breach of compliance with obligations under 5.1.1R & Principle 6 Customers Interests by applying the right on the account taking it knowingly into an unauthorised overdraft. Failed to refund the payment despite disputing the debt and advising of financial hardship and stress. Did not justify their decision and ignored requests from consumers on alternative temp actions which would not affect their credit scores. 5.1.4 -Failed to pay any regard to consumers interest and treat us unfairly, this was after repeated emails raising concern about financial hardship, credit scoring damage, stress and blatant refusal to discuss the dispute relating to the debt being caused by Barclays. 5.1.11 – Barclays failed to prove with any data, evidence or information that disputed transactions had been authorised by the consumer. Failed to refund the unauthorised payment to the consumer despite having no suspicion of fraud. 9. Breach of BCOBS in their duty under 6.5: 6.5.2 – Barclays lay false claim that the consumers agreed to a promise to pay on the debt that was being disputed. Consumers were not aware of the credit plan which had been setup by Barclays until a notice letter arrived advising the plan had failed. As the consumers were unaware a credit plan was in place Barclays failed to provide notice to the consumer. 10. Breach of BCOBS in their duty under 7.2: 7.2.1 – Failed to treat consumers in arrears in a fair and appropriate manner. 11. Breach of BCOBS in their duty under 7.3 7.3.2 – Failed to treat consumers fairly and operate with our best interests when dealing with debt and arrears. 7.3.3 – On imposing a payment plan without consumers knowledge the plan failed on the date they set. Barclays failed to act inline with Principle 6 and gave no opportunity to request the consumer to make a payment on the account. The date they set the plan to end and subsequently failed saw them immediately report this to CRA as adverse. 7.3.4 – Barclays did not treat consumers in default and arrears with forbearance or consideration. 7.3.6 – Barclays failed to give consumers in default and areas any reasonable time to pay the debt. Having unlawfully applying the right to offset, they took payment from the account on 16 December. On 22 December Barclays unknowingly setup the payment plan, for which there was no letter sent to confirm any details and Barclays confirm that they cannot provide any evidence of the agreement for. The plan failed as per a letter of 24 January., At no pint between 16 December and 24 January were we contacted by Barclays in relation to the account, debt or payment plan. Mr Matthews the joint account holder who they hold jointly liable for the debt was completely unaware of the account balance and subsequent debt until the payment plan had failed. By which point Barclays had reported the account adverse and gave Mr Matthews no opportunity to pay off the debt before it impacted our credit. 7.3.7 – Barclays provided no information to consumers in arrears relating to free impartial debt advice or refer us to a not for profit debt advice body. 7.3.8 – Barclays contravene CONC 7.3.4 & Principle 6 by not providing an alternative to repay the debt and having not made Mr Matthews aware of the debt or arrears on the account until the account was reported as defaulted, they provided no opportunity for either Mr Matthews or a representative of his to resolve the account issue until it was reported adverse. 12. Breach of BCOBS in their duty under 13.1 13.1.4– No true copy of the credit agreement was provided to the consumer in relation ta payment plan setup by Barclays. 13.1.6 – Failed to comply deem the agreement unenforceable and mislead consumers when they enforced the agreement. 13 Breach of DISP in their duty under 1.1 14 Breach of DISP in their duty under 1.4 15 Breach of DISP in their duty under 1.6 16 Breach of CONC in their duty under 1.1 17 Breach of CONC in their duty under 1.2 18 Breach of CONC in their duty under 1.3 19 Breach of CONC in their duty under 8.2 20 Breach of CONC in their duty under 8.4 21 Breach of CONC in their duty under 8.8 22 Breach of T&Cs under “Barclays and You” – personal customers 23 Breach of T&Cs under “Barclays Overdraft lending commitments” 24 Breach of FCA terms under “Unauthorised payments from your account” 25 Breach of Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 77 26 Breach of statutory duty under the GDPR Act 2018.

Apologies dx May have been unclear from the last waffle post. we issued that PAPLOC 16 days back, 9 days after we received an email asking we do not issue claim until they respond (stating 3 months is reasonable) day 12 they again wrote to ask we don’t issue until their client responds “we hope to send this as soon as possible” day 14 we received confirmation from the FOS to confirm that the number of pages the bank state to us contained inaccurate data on was not one page, it was 4. bank disclosed doc to fos on investigation, fos confirm multiple pages of doc contain another consumer complaint, reported to ico as inaccurate data, bank “redact” due to send to us via fos 1700 pages to fos and less than 500 to us, fos confirm all pages useful to us completely removed, bank write in complaint outcome stating “a single email of another consumer only was in file”, bank refer us to FOS to confirm his “multiple entries he confirmed were present”, we approach fos and bank have prohibited fos from confirming there were multiple pages stating confidential information, fos eventually confirm with us 4 pages not one contained the info.. the bank have drummed down their breach and reported as a single error to ico knowing the fos were only people who knew and tried to stop them disclosing. Appears they have manipulated or destroyed all the data originally sent to fos leaving just one email. we wrote back to bank yesterday raising this new info from the fos and giving 7 days before now issuing. Their claim was that the other costumers info had been entered in error onto our file and had been noticed and removed from their system. they then say “however this information was still included in the information that was sent to the fos” they say it was an isolated manual error. - quite how it’s deleted and removed off the system and can then find its way back into the file is extraordinary!!

Thanks dx. Yes realised I’d just changed colour so than you!! ok, yes accept it’s excessive but just wanted to ensure full details were outlined. any advice on next?

Hi dx poc sent

Leave as the captain please BF

Sorry dx yes you’re correct, I’d logged in with email and reset password on the wrong one so the post came from wrong user.. LBA is correct

Thanks HB you can remove please

Apologies dx i do verbally waffle. You may say the same over the LBA too paploc.pdf