Barclaycard v MandMs son in law

[MandM]

Well it would appear that Barclays have managed to put in an acknowledgement of service, even though according to them they had not received the claim from the court obviously trying to buy some more time ( didn't work).

 

They filed on 15th and apparently they are indicating that they are intending to defend all of the claim. ( yeah right)

 

Will see what happens on the 1st.

 

Mrs M

Edited October 25, 2010 by MandM
error

[MandM]

HI Slick.

 

My son in law got a letter today from a solicitor called Simmons & Simmons informing him that they were acting for Barclaycard and enclosed A NOTICE OF CHANGE OF SOLICITOR.

 

How does this affect us now, they should have had their defence in yesterday and we were going to give them an extra day for argument sake and ring tomorrow and see if they have put in the defence.

 

Is this a ploy to get them more time or do we still go for judgement if they have not put in a defence.

 

Mrs M

[slick132]

Hi Mrs M,

 

Unfortunately, it's down to the court whether they accept anything filed late and they tend to cut the law firms a lot of slack.

 

See what happens over the next few days.

 

Do you know who was representing Barclays before S&S or was it just Barclays Litigation Team.

 

8)

[MandM]

HI Slick.

 

I think it was their litigation team.

 

Has anyone heard of these solicitors.

 

Spoke to the court today and the lady there told me that the file was out at the moment which would mean someone was working on it.

She said she could not see if a defence was filed but the fact it was out could mean they are either doing the defence forms to send to us or they may just be adding the Notice of solicitor change.

 

She said to give them a ring around Tuesday and if they have still not filed a defence then go for judgment.

 

Mr M thinks they are running the smoke screens.

 

Will get back on as soon as I hear anything.

 

 

Mrs M

[slick132]

Simmons & Simmons seem to be handling Barclays cases which get to the court stage these days.

 

I'd not be surprised if they try and get extra time to defend on the basis of their recent appointment to the case.

 

Time'll tell !

 

8-)

[MandM]

Thanks Slick.

 

Will let you know what happens on Tuesday.

 

 

Mrs M

[MandM]

HI Slick.

 

Spoke to the lady at the court and they have had no defence from them so she has advised me to put in the form for judgement.

 

I will put that in tomorrow and see what they come back with.

 

I reckon they will try and get a stay on the change of solicitor. I am hoping the judge says get lost as it is only for a small amount and they have gone past the date to file a defence by 7 days.

 

Mrs M

[slick132]

Personally, I'd leave it another week.

 

You may find they've already taken some action to defend and it'll turn up in the post.

 

If they DON'T defend, they'll be in a weaker position by being further past the deadline.

 

Just MHO.

 

8)

[MandM]

Hi Slick

 

Sorry did not get your post till just now as I have been at Mums all night, and my son in law had already taken the judgement down this morning. The lady at the court said they had still not received anything so we will wait and see what happens now. She did also say it was par for the course with most of these.

 

Mrs M

[MandM]

Hi Slick.

 

Well what a surprise got following letter and N244 this morning.

 

 

 

As you will see by the letter they have changed the date at the top, the original date was 2nd which just happened to be the date the defence was supposed to be in. So they knew on the 2nd that they were going to go for extension, thus making a joke out of the courts. The contact email address and telephone number they could have quite easily got from Barclaycard

 

 

 

 

 

 

The claim form was served on them on 1st they pretended to the court that they had not received it so the court sent them a copy but according to the court as far as they were concerned the date of service was the 1st. ( lying through their teeth)

 

As for the comment about not being able to contact the claimant apart from his postal address why would they want to contact at all and further more they could have got his telephone or email info from Barclays.

 

these people must think we are idiots.

 

I liked the comment " The claimant is a litigant in person" I hope the Judge reads that a thinks, well at least he got his stuff in at the right time.

 

Will see what happens now with the Order for Judgement .

 

 

Mrs M

[MandM]

Hi sorry just realised for some reason the letter above got deleted from photobucket so am putting it up here.

 

 

No word yet from the court.

 

Mrs M

[slick132]

Noted. Give them your email addy if you want, but not your phone number.

 

Just my opinion. 8-)

[MandM]

Hi Slick

 

Well surprise surprise they got the extension. So it is a wait till december now.

 

The only good news is I suppose they can't go for a stay now they have been given the extra time.

 

Mrs M

[MandM]

Hi Slick and everyone, Happy New Year.

 

Sorry have not been on for a while what with the snow and family health problems.

 

Will update now on the case.

 

Simmons have put in an application to strike out. The hearing is on Tuesday.

 

 

I am not sure what they are going on about. Particulars of claim below.

 

 

I think they may be referring to the part about the full refund, my mistake what I should have said was a full refund of the premiums was offered. I did put in the next paragraph the fact they were not allowing for the interest at the contractual rate etc.

 

As for their comment about statutory duty would be time barred blah blah, not sure where they think they are going with this.

 

Mr M put a letter into the court before xmas advising that he would be accompanying my son in law as a LAY REPRESENTATIVE, which the lady at the court said was allowed. the court telephoned him this morning and said the judge was not allowing it. WHY?

 

Wrote to Simmons again before Xmas giving them a contact number and reiterating the fact that this account is live and as such their clients would have full knowledge of his contact details.

 

Got a letter back from Simmons today saying" they have tried on a number of occasions to contact him on the contact details supplied by their clients, but these attempts have been unsuccessful. WHAT A LOAD OF BULL,

 

Have told him to call Barclays and ask what contact details they have for him on their files.

 

Any advice would be appreciated.

 

Thanks Mrs M

[slick132]

Hi Mrs M,

 

See here about representation in court - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?100066-Can-someone-else-represent-you-in-court&p=938013&viewfull=1#post938013 Read through to see post #16.

 

Are you going to attend the Strike Out application. If so, you should at least take:-

 

1. Your SOC showing the calcs for compound interest.

 

2. References to the case law which you rely on to claim this.

 

3. A copy of the relevant section (s.32) of the Limitation Act 1980 which you rely on to claim charges earlier than the normal 6 years.

 

If YS doesn't want to talk to S&S sol'rs, he could always authorise them to discuss matters with you, as his representative.

 

8-)

Edited January 8, 2011 by slick132
added

[MandM]

Thanks Slick.

 

My son in law called Barclays today and asked them to verify what contact details they had for him, surprise surprise they had his landline, mobile and email address. I have told him to ring Simmons tomorrow and ask what contact details they were given by Barclays. Would just like to know who has bent the truth them or Barclays.

 

Mr M said thank you for the above, he is not sure what the case law is on this as we are only asking for the interest on the premiums.

 

We have looked at the s32 and we feel that we can use the part c) that says "the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake" using their own words "that they could find no evidence that the PPI was sold in accordance with their standard practice". Not sure if we could prove a) or b) even though we all know that that is how they play their game.

 

Had a look at the Lay Representative comments and they were what we had already read in the booklet you advised me to buy, not sure why the judge would not allow it but Mr M will have a chat with the usher on Tuesday.

 

He is going to write up a statement for my son in law to read out if it gets that far and as he is allowed to be with him at the hearing then hopefully he wont feel so worried.

 

Mrs M

[MandM]

Hi all,

 

Had our day in court and it didn't work out too well. I thought i'd put up the reasons behind this as a help for others looking at a similar set of circumstances.

 

This was an application by BC to have the claim struck out.

 

My SiL was very anxious about speaking in court. Despite our efforts to allow me (Mr M) to speak on his behalf the court would not allow it, although they did allow me to attend the hearing (for moral support only).

 

The DJ was a very nice chap who tried hard to make my SiL feel at ease. Although BC made various claims within their S/O application as to why the claim should be struck out, the DJ didn't agree with any of them! Apart from the bit about it being statute barred!!!! The DJ was quite convinced that the relevant date was the date when the agreement was entered into i.e. 2001. Therefore, in his opinion, it was statute barred from 2007. BC's Sols actually went to the trouble of sending a barrister rather than the usual office post boy so it was a tough argument to try and win for my SiL who was a LiP and very very nervous.

 

I'd already prepared him for the possibility of losing as it's always a possibility, but we weren't ready for what happened next.

 

As the S/O application was being heard so early BC had never submitted a defence. Therefore, AQ stage was never reached and the case had not yet been allocated to a track. So, as the DJ had by that point made up his mind to strike out the claim we got onto the subject of costs. Without a track we were exposed to their full costs and the barrister handed the DJ their schedule which he claimed had been sent to the court and my SiL and it was close to £3.5k. Came as a bit of a shock to say the least!

 

We argued that we had never received this schedule and as the court had never seen it either before that point the DJ had to agree with us that this was a bit of a surprise and he was therefore unhappy awarding the costs. The DJ and the barrister argued the toss and eventually the DJ decided that £500 costs was enough and that was his final word!

 

So, a close call as the damage could have been a lot worse but managed to limit it to just £500 (with time to pay).

 

We are fully aware that there are arguments against PPI being statute barred but my SiL found the whole experience very draining and has decided after todays events not to pursue the claim further.

 

But a word of warning to all is to beware of the costs issue. You might think you're on SCT with the protection that that affords you, but if you're pre-AQ then you're not and the costs can be horrendous. We got out by the skin of our teeth - others might not!

 

Finally, a big thanks to all that have had an input into this thread and a extra big thanks to Slick for all of the time that you've taken.

 

Better luck next time.

 

M

[slick132]

Hi Mr M,

 

Thanks for posting up this report and I'm sorry to see how it went for you.

 

I can't see how the judge could determine as he did about the claim being Statute Barred as from 2007. This is nonsense IMHO. However, there is always the risk that the judge on the day will rule based on their opinion and not on law.

 

Clearly, given that the judge was prepared to Strike Out, you were lucky to get away with costs of £500 with the case being, as yet, unallocated.

 

From what you've said, there's no way you want to appeal against the ruling and I can understand that.

 

Lessons learned from this:-

 

1. Always be aware that you're at the mercy of a judge's personal opinions.

 

2. Have adequate case law available to demonstrate and argue specific points on your case.

 

3. Treat a Strike Out Application seriously, particularly when the case is unallocated.

 

4. Be prepared to speak for yourself if the court is minded not to allow someone to assist.

 

This will serve as a useful lesson to those following with similar cases.

[dx100uk]

sorry ..........

 

 

but this is why i always say goto to the FOS

 

though a judge not knowing the correct part of sec 32c is very worrying.

 

but thats the lottery you get if you take a gamble

 

the FOS would of settled this & it would have been legally binding too just like a court ruling.

 

impatience and shorting the 'route' that should be taken were the downfall here.

 

lesson learned.

 

dx

[caro]

Did your SIL use the argument that he only became aware that PPI was an issue in the last 6 years?

 

That is indeed a harsh warning about cases being heard without being allocated a track. Sorry your SIL found out about it the hard way.

[MARTIN3030]

Barclays are VERY aware that s32c can be used,in fact I myself won them on this and they sent a barr for the hearing.

Quite a few other CAG members have won since.

The essential thing is that s32 must be addressed early on with submissions that are easy to understand -because most judges dont.

The precadent in the case of Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council fits the bill perfectly and as far as I know when its been put to a Judge who has taken time to read the summary,then its crystal and theres not really any defence.

Simply throwing it into the ring at a hearing without good prep and submitting it to rely on without doing homework is not a good idea.

[MandM]

Hi all, thanks for the responses.

 

Not at all down hearted about this as the amounts weren't great (once costs were dealt with lol) but could have been a heavy loss all the same.

 

My SiL struggled against the BC barrister and I think that, had I been given the opportunity to argue the SB part on his behalf, the result could have been better - but only 'could'. The BC barr was well prepared and was clearly comfortable with the arguments.

 

Did your SIL use the argument that he only became aware that PPI was an issue in the last 6 years?

Yep. tried that too.

 

M

[MandM]

Barclays are VERY aware that s32c can be used,in fact I myself won them on this and they sent a barr for the hearing.

Quite a few other CAG members have won since.

The essential thing is that s32 must be addressed early on with submissions that are easy to understand -because most judges dont.

The precadent in the case of Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council fits the bill perfectly and as far as I know when its been put to a Judge who has taken time to read the summary,then its crystal and theres not really any defence.

Simply throwing it into the ring at a hearing without good prep and submitting it to rely on without doing homework is not a good idea.

 

Thank you for this Martin3030. Extremely useful indeed for a few others I have looming so much appreciated.

 

M

[MARTIN3030]

Youre welcome

I know Barclays monitor these forums and I am not on their Christmas card list.

Our very own webmaster had a brilliant result with his Barclaycard claim not only with contractual interest,but also using s32.

They paid up without too much of a fight which was brilliant to see.

But Webby did have everything in place from the start and we made sure he did.

Its so rewarding to see results like that because Barclays have shown so much contempt for their customers who have told all about it on this site.

Their business dealings on the global front have also not gone un noticed.

If you did not see the recent grilling of Bob Diamond this week by the commons SC-you missed a good performance.

In my opinion Barclays come way on top when we are talking of the bad banks.

I would not go anywhere near them for anything now.

Diamond gave answers as fast as they came....it reminded me of the CEO of BP when facing the wrath of those US peeps grilling him about the oil spill.

The difference here being that the US will be getting lots of $$$$s from BP.

Barclays of course did not choose to seek any bailout money from the UK Gov or BOE.

Instead they decided to look for a safety net in the Middle East.......

The actions that the BOE were forced to take to stabalise things....were ahem not exactly doing any harm to Barclays.

So they dont have to pay anything back on account of the famous bail out then.

[MandM]

(mrs mand m) hi everyone not been on for a while would like to give and update on this account.

 

obviously when the court case went against us we thought that was the end of it,but NO !!!!!

 

a few weeks ago my son in law got a letter through the door from Barclaycard Cust Relations Dept to say they were admitting they were wrong about the PPI claim and would be sending him a cheque for £1058.

 

this is still less than what we had originally asked for but so what. The cheque turned up a few days later.

 

I have now written to the department to ask them for the £600 solicitors cost he had to pay.

 

Has anyone else had this happen

Edited April 9, 2016 by slick132
spacing makes posts far easier to read