Fingers Vs Barclaycard

[Fingers60]

hi guys

 

thanks for your support here much appreciated

 

yes it is barclays way of scaring lips off ..they want £3200 from me incl vat

 

i applied for disclosure with n244 application and a a few days before the hearing barclays applied for a new date as they were not prepared..between then and the new date it became known the kneale case was being appealed so both parties agreed to a stay

 

so there was no hearing and i doubt that Lovells even prepared for the hearing ...i know that prior to my hearing barclays had already formed their standard defence agaisnt application for disclosure as i saw another caggers skeleton arguments prepared by Lovells for Barclays

 

so yes lovells have pushed some papers back and forth and in my view their costs are not justified

 

we have asked for a breakdown of those costs and are waiting

 

however wehn i get the breakdown i am on my own as i cant afford to pay the lawyer £300 per hour to negitiate on the costs for me i will need to do this myself

 

thanks roger i could live with £500-£700 costs

 

good point on necsssity ...mmm what can i say..i followed the advice on the cag thread which was that you had to prove / demonstrate you had approached barclays a number of times and given them reasonable time to come up with your credit agreement...in terms of necessity...well if they didnt provide it ..none of my limbs would fall off ! but was there necessity in my laymans view yes..i believe it was my right as a consumer to see my credit agreement after asking barclays 18 months for it....but it is clear "the establishment" are not so concerned with consumder rights and more concerned with stability in the banking system ....

 

will report back all when i have the costs

 

best

 

fingers

[Fingers60]

Hi Slick / Shadow + lurkers !

 

Ok so I have their breakdown of costs.

 

I am nervous about posting it up to avoid identifying myself, as even if i blank certain info out they can clearly identify it is me from the exact costs, any thoughts on this?

 

Best

 

Fingers

[the_shadow]

Hi Slick / Shadow + lurkers !

 

Ok so I have their breakdown of costs.

 

I am nervous about posting it up to avoid identifying myself, as even if i blank certain info out they can clearly identify it is me from the exact costs, any thoughts on this?

 

Best

 

Fingers

 

If you want to pm the details to either myself or Slick132 the site team are aware of the thread and can then advise.

 

S.

[Fingers60]

hi Guys

 

One other question, i started the application for disclosure myself and then handed the case over to a lawyer.

I was signed up on a CFA no win no fee basis.

INitially they were not sure whether using 31.16 was the best route to take but then I received this email from them

 

"There has been some progress in the Consumer Credit test cases and in a case decided only last week a Judge ruled that an application for pre-action disclosure is actually now the best way forward.

I have been trying to speak with Counsel in respect of our position as luckily I had not yet withdrawn our application. My opinion is that we should now continue with our application and attend the hearing next week but I am awaiting Counsel to revert back to me with his opinion."

my question is, is there any liability on the solicitors here and would they have insurance that would pay out to cover these costs , just wondereing as i was on a no win no fee cfa

They are quick to reverse park out of the situation!

THoughts?

Fingers

[foolishgirl]

My opinion is that we should now continue with our application and attend the hearing next week but I am awaiting Counsel to revert back to me with his opinion."

 

That sounds pretty clear to me fingers - the Sols are advising you to go ahead unless they hear to the contrary from Counsel. In the absence of advice otherwise, IMO any reasonable person would assume that the hearing was to go ahead & you would be covered under the CFA arrangements; if they did hear to the contrary & didn't advise you of such, IMO that would be negligence on their part & you would have a case against them.

[slick132]

Hi Fingers,

 

I've edited my original post.

 

I misunderstood, thinking your were now awaiting Counsel's opinion.

Edited September 23, 2010 by slick132
edited

[Fingers60]

thought this would make you laugh

 

just had a text from Barclaycard increasing my limit automatically by £2000

 

wonder if they are getting ready to plonk their legal fees on there by right of offset !!!!!!!!

[heypresto1]

Hi Fingers,

Barclaycard or as I once heard them described as Sharklycard, are I would say the worst offender in the S78 stakes.

I know from personal experience that they just don't do what they should. They think they are above the law and the Courts seem to allow them to walk over them. I have to add that the FOS is next to useless and the best action I took was to file a county court claim against them. That stops them gets their attention and they have to respond each step of the way.

The old S78 claims are pretty dead now after the defining Carey Case last December but what it did say in Carey was that if the terms and conditions were not part of the agreement and you will need to read it to be more specific then the contract is unenforceable. So while Carey is help to the bank in one sense it torpedoes them in another.

 

Good luck if you need Carey I have seen links to the case all over these blogs. Perhaps you could search "Carey".

 

Gabrielle

[Bigdebtor]

HP1

 

It's not a good idea to sign off posts with your own name. You've only got 3 posts to date - so you should go back and remove your name from them all - in case you need to seek help or discuss tactics regarding your own situation in future.

 

NO sense in giving the opposition prior warning of what you plan to do to them?

 

BD

[slick132]

Hi Fingers,

 

wonder if they are getting ready to plonk their legal fees on there by right of offset !

I wouldn't put anything past them TBH !!

 

Are you still in touch with your sol'rs and have they suggested anything which may help you to avoid the costs BC are after.

[Fingers60]

Hi Fingers,

 

I wouldn't put anything past them TBH !!

 

Are you still in touch with your sol'rs and have they suggested anything which may help you to avoid the costs BC are after.

 

Hi slick

 

yes but they just want to roll over and have said i should make arrangements to pay them

 

they have suggested I offer a lower amount and see how thye react but if i engage with my sols to negotiate they will charge me £300 per hour for this, i am waiting for an email back to confirm

 

i guess want i am looking for is the general concensus of opinion before i do anything, i believe that given the cases Lovells were working on for barclays before my case (i have had skeleton arguments for hearings agaisnt application for disclosure) they had to do very little work in my case ..prob in reality no more than 2 hours...but it looks like they are trying to charge me as if this was an isolated case and this was all new work for them...in fact i doubt they even prepared for my hearing....can i ask for proof that they prepared so ask for their skeleton arguments ??

 

shadow suggested i could ask for the judge to make a decision on costs but i think in the eyes of the law even if i suggest or can prove that Lovells were fully prepared for this case in terms of their oppostion arguments ...the judge would view this in isolation and just grant them the costs they are looking for?

 

cheers

 

F

[slick132]

Personally, I think you would do better with a judge who would hear why you felt forced to take this action (due to BC's intransigence). And also about this not being an isolated case at all.

 

However, I have sought further input from the Site Team and will report back.

 

[the_shadow]

Hi Fingers,

 

I wish I had some spare time this weekend to read up the solicitors code and ATE/CFA insurance but alas I dont, Sorry!

 

1) I would read back any correspondence from the solicitors to see if at the time they were representing you they had in place both CFA (no win/no fee) and ATE (After the Event) insurances, ATE protects the claimants from costs issues if they lose.

 

Counsel are entitled to withdraw, this I understand but if they were the ones who clearly pushed you towards going down CPR 31 route and they only backed out after the test case then morally if not legally they should be liable fro some of the costs or at least to negotiate on your behalf.

 

2) I doubt whether they have seen the breakdown, it might be worth contacting them and asking their opinion of the costs mentioned and specifically the hourly charge vs qualification of persons involved and asking if the correct people who in their opinion would have been involved in this case have been quoted as actually working on it.

 

S.

[Fingers60]

Hi Fingers,

 

I wish I had some spare time this weekend to read up the solicitors code and ATE/CFA insurance but alas I dont, Sorry!

 

1) I would read back any correspondence from the solicitors to see if at the time they were representing you they had in place both CFA (no win/no fee) and ATE (After the Event) insurances, ATE protects the claimants from costs issues if they lose.

 

Counsel are entitled to withdraw, this I understand but if they were the ones who clearly pushed you towards going down CPR 31 route and they only backed out after the test case then morally if not legally they should be liable fro some of the costs or at least to negotiate on your behalf.

 

2) I doubt whether they have seen the breakdown, it might be worth contacting them and asking their opinion of the costs mentioned and specifically the hourly charge vs qualification of persons involved and asking if the correct people who in their opinion would have been involved in this case have been quoted as actually working on it.

 

S.

 

thanks slick wait for your feedback

 

thanks Shadow, in answer to your questions

 

1. there was a CFA in place , i started the app for discsloure..they took over before the 1st hearing was scheduled, i am not sure if there was ATE

 

They backed up the advice from PT and said that now it was the correct route

 

2. yes they have seen the breakdown ...but they just want me to pay it but have suggested negotiating ....i cant see them spending hours and hours looking for the angles on my case but it is clear it is all about defending rather than attacking now so....

good point shadow i will ask them to look at the hourly charges...

 

cheers guys

 

F

[slick132]

...... if i engage with my sols to negotiate they will charge me £300 per hour for this ......

You must be very clear with your sol'rs that you do not want them charging you further for any current input. This would be throwing good money after bad.

 

You could make the point that you should get at least some support from them as they encouraged you to proceed with your Application.

[slick132]

Martin on the Site Team wondered if there's anything of use to you from this appeal hearing - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/844.html

 

8-)

[Fingers60]

Martin on the Site Team wondered if there's anything of use to you from this appeal hearing - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/844.html

 

8-)

 

Thanks Slick I will attempt to digest

 

I have heard back from my sols

 

There was no ATE with my app.

 

They advise that they do think the costs are high and an alternative is is to ask for the costs to be detailed assessed. This means incurring further costs.

 

They advise I could still go to Court and ask the Judge to decide on the costs of the Application. The Banks costs will however increase as they will no doubt prepare for the hearing and instruct counsel to attend. The Judge may decide to summarily assess the costs or may decide the costs should be subject to detailed assessment. This second option will incur further costs and you will be ordered to pay whatever the costs draftsmen thinks fit after considering Hogan Lovell's files. So, the costs could go either way.

To continue to act for me they will charge £300 per hour + VAT.

I can see no alternative but to make an offer of what i consider to be reasonable under the circumstances and see what they come back with.

I am fecked either way !

[slick132]

Hi Fingers,

 

Can you confirm the approx balance on the a/c in question.

[Fingers60]

Hi Fingers,

 

Can you confirm the approx balance on the a/c in question.

 

Hi Slick

 

£10k

 

F

[slick132]

Thanks for that.

 

Am I right in saying BC have never, in reply to your CCA request, sent you a copy credit agreement or application form ...............

 

...............and they have only sent you some T&C's.

 

We're still working on this. 8-)

[Fingers60]

Thanks for that.

 

Am I right in saying BC have never, in reply to your CCA request, sent you a copy credit agreement or application form ...............

 

...............and they have only sent you some T&C's.

 

We're still working on this. 8-)

 

correct all CCA requests only ever produced old photocopied t & cs ..never an application form...never a credit agreement

 

and nothing in response to my 2 requests under cpr31.16 as per Pts thread

 

[the_shadow]

As the old t&c's and even the new ones dont contain anything personal to you.. i.e. your name/address then under the Waksman test in Carey they fail to be a complete s78 response so they are in default of this at present imvho.

 

S.

[Fingers60]

As the old t&c's and even the new ones dont contain anything personal to you.. i.e. your name/address then under the Waksman test in Carey they fail to be a complete s78 response so they are in default of this at present imvho.

 

S.

 

Just double checked the file and correct nothing personal to me.

 

They did send me letter stating that "please find enclosed a copy of your credit agrement at the time" but only enclosed non-personalised t & cs no credit agreement. Letter also stated my credit limit, current balance monthly payment etc.

 

So I agree with you on this shadow. They havent provided a re-constituted / re-constructed version of my original agreement so they are in default.

 

Rgds

 

F

[slick132]

Which suggests you had every good reason to make the Application given BC's continued intransigence in replying adequately to your CCA request.

 

They really left you no other route.

[Fingers60]

Which suggests you had every good reason to make the Application given BC's continued intransigence in replying adequately to your CCA request.

 

They really left you no other route.

 

Absolutely 100% ! 8-)