Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Bakewell Vs Barclaycard


bakewemr
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6349 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Just a quick one, hope I dont sound to stupid......

 

do I use the same subject access request form letter for Barclaycard that I have used for Barclays???

 

It is essentially the same letter but the identification information is for your credit card not the Bank account.

Barclaycard is pretty much a separate organisation to Barclay's bank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it generally advised to send all correspondance via recorded delivery?????

 

Recorded delivery (signed for) is best as it removes any doubt that the letter was delivered and it is much less likely to get lost. The bank / credit card co may still dispute what was included but at least it is one fewer excuse for them to use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Recorded delivery (signed for) is best as it removes any doubt that the letter was delivered and it is much less likely to get lost. The bank / credit card co may still dispute what was included but at least it is one fewer excuse for them to use.

 

I was advised by the Post Office that Recorded Delivery sent to a PO Box address does not require a signature (not sure why). So, to guarantee a signature, either use Special Delivery (£4) or a non-PO Box address.

 

Andy

Current projects:

 

First Direct

MCOL Filed 24/9/06

£3116.60 including 8% interest

Offer from DG £1618.30, 3/10/06. Accepted as Partial Payment Only - pursuing remaining ££££

Offer for £3236.60 (full amount, plus court charges) from DG 10/10/06.

Accepted, crossed out confidentiality clause, funds cleared. Thanks to all for help and support.

Barclaycard

MCOL Filed 4/10/06

£1370.22 including 8% interest

Payment of £216 (:lol:) received. Settlement politely declined...

Allocation Questionnaire received 8/11/06

 

Smile

Prelim sent 23/09/06

LBA sent 27/10/06

£2435

Payed in full, just before MCOL, 17/11/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Recieved a letter back from Barclaycard basically saying I cant have any statement befoe 2004 because its difficult for them to lay their hands on, can anyone advise me of my response?

 

Dear Mr Bakewell

 

Further to your request for personal data held by Barclaycard, please find enclosed a copy of the relevant information from May 2004.

Statements held prior to May 2004 are stored on microfiche. Statements are copied onto the microfiche in date order and more than one customer statement may be held on an individual film of microfiche. These statements are not stored by reference to account number of customer name and are not "readily accessible" within the meaning of the Data Protection Act. These statements are therefore not retained in a relevant filing system and therefore do not fall within the class of documents to be produced pursuant to a subject access request They can be obtained from our Customer Services Dept at a cost of £3 per statement.

 

Furthermore, we are unable to provide a computer print out of transactions on your account to date. Our computer systems do not permit us to print such historic data. Neither do our computer systems allow us to search for and identify individual charges applied to an account It is therefore not possible to provide you with a print out of such charges. I would also add that Barclaycard did not introduce default charges on its accounts until mid-2001. The statements that have been provided to you contain the information that we currently have recorded relating to charges on your account.

This information is complete in respect of the above account relationship with you at the time of extraction.

 

Should you have any further questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact me. If my reply does not meet with your expectations you may ultimately be eligible to refer to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

If I have not heard from you within 8 weeks from the date of this letter, I will close my file in accordance with usual practice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Half the world and his wife (well not quite perhaps) have received this letter.

They are relying on an interpretation of "readily accessible" in the Data Protection act.

 

From The Data Protection Act 1998

"relevant filing system" means any set of information relating to individuals to the extent that, although the information is not processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose, the set is structured, either by reference to individuals or by reference to criteria relating to individuals, in such a way that specific information relating to a particular individual is readily accessible.

 

Their interpretation is that the data is not "readily accessible" and so far as I know it has not yet been tested either by the Information commissioner or in court. They are trying to put you off and/or delay everything and they will try this at every stage.

 

Do not be deterred.

 

My view is that they are deliberately misinterpreting “readily accessible” to try to put obstacles in the way. If the information is sufficiently accessible to supply it to you at £3 per statement then it is readily accessible enough for the purposes of the Data Protection Act. This has not yet been tested in court but if large numbers of us complain then it will be taken more seriously.

 

If you wish to challenge them here is a suggested paragraph to include in your letter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am perfectly satisfied that if the statements are readily accessible enough for you to offer them to me at a cost of £3 per statement then they are READILY ACCESSIBLE enough for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998. If the information requested in my letter of xx/xx/xxxx is not supplied by yy/yy/yyyy, being the statutory 40 days from the date of the request letter, I shall lodge a complaint against you with the Information Commissioner for breach of the provisions of the Data Protection Act.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You may care to change the style to suit you own and remember to insert the date of the Data Protection Act Subject Access Letter (xx/xx/xxxx) and the "time up" date (yy/yy/yyyy).

Link to post
Share on other sites

People, need some assurances on the reply I am about to make to Barclaycard, feel free to use this letter if it is of use. Can anyone that has gone through the microfile babble bulls**t let me know if I am covering my bases with this letter below?????

 

Any help is much appreciated as always............

 

 

Dear Carl,

ACCOUNT NUMBER: **** **** **** ****

I am writing to you to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 05/09/2006 outlining that you could only provide me copy statements covering transactions from May 2004 on my account, because any earlier information has been archived onto microfiche. I also acknowledge receipt of the information you forwarded.

My request was for a complete list of transactions and charges relating to my account – in short, a list of charges with dates and amounts – alternatively, a complete set of account statements for that period would be acceptable. This should be retrievable from your accounting systems, and easy for you to produce. I will accept a computer print out of these transactions.

I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that if the statements are readily accessible enough for you to offer them to me at a cost of £3 per statement then they are READILY ACCESSIBLE enough for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998. If the information requested in my letter of 30/08/2006 is not supplied by 09/10/2006 being the statutory 40 days from the date of the request letter, I shall lodge a complaint against you with the Information Commissioner and the FSA for breach of the provisions of the Data Protection Act. I am aware that you have been willing and able to provide other customers with a print outs of transaction information covering this period and that any delay tactic will not be tolerated.

 

Also upon further investigation the Data Protection Act does not cover microfiche stored entries is not true, it has been taken out of context. This exemption only applies to medical, educational, and public records. Clearly bank charges are none of these.

 

Yours faithfully,

M.Bakewell

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Passed to my solicitor, will take 30% of claim, and pull Barclaycards trousers down over the microfiche issue.

Can someone give me the links for reporting them to the Information Commissioner and the FSA for breach of the provisions of the Data Protection Act please.

I have seen them on here before but cant remember where.

Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why O why are you giving away 30% of your claim???? Thats almost as big a rip off as the charges themselves.

If I can so this anyone can

Victory over Lloyds £890

Click!

Victory over Vodafone: default removal

click!

Victory over Lloyds PPI claim £2606 click!

Barclaycard lazygoing - £580 + £398 contractual int at 17.7 % click! (Received partial payment £110 21/11/06)

The GF's battle against RBS click! stayed awaiting the end of the world

Link to post
Share on other sites

Time is the biggest factor, simply cant be bothered banging my head against the wall with Barclaycard/Barclays/HSBC. Working 50 hours a week and trying to finish my masters, not a lot of room for anything else in my life at the moment.

 

He has just been successful with my sister-in-law for £1600. I have see some of his letters drafted on behalf of my sister in law and final draft case, he is very VERY good. No offence to the guys running this site but his letters make theirs look average at best.

 

Had the claim sorted and paid out within one month of statements being returned to him.

 

You get what you pay for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance you could post a copy of his letters here???

Here is link to ICO office for complaints

Data Protection Complaints – Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)

 

not sure bout FSA one

 

skb

Victory over Lloyds £890

Click!

Victory over Vodafone: default removal

click!

Victory over Lloyds PPI claim £2606 click!

Barclaycard lazygoing - £580 + £398 contractual int at 17.7 % click! (Received partial payment £110 21/11/06)

The GF's battle against RBS click! stayed awaiting the end of the world

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Copy of letter my solicitor has sent to the Barclays:

The Manager

The bank has charged my aforementioned client numerous fees in respect of unpaid items and unauthorised borrowing since April 2001 amounting to £*** and £*** on account nos. ******** and ******** respectively. I have enclosed copies of the statements of account in which these charges appear for your information.

Having taken specific legal advice on the matter of such charges I would make the following points:

Whilst I accept that where a breach of contract has occurred, such as in this case, the bank is entitled to recover appropriate damages to compensate it for the actual loss incurred. The parties to a contract can agree, as is the case here, that if either party breaches the contract, a certain sum of money is to be paid to the other. If this sum is termed a genuine pre-estimate of the loss as a result of the breach of contract, then it stands as agreed damages and is called liquidated damages.

If the sum agreed however is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, but a penalty, then it is not recoverable as a matter of law. The charges which the Bank has levied on my client clearly fall into this latter category in that they are excessive and therefore not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, but a penalty and therefore, not recoverable in law. If the bank considers these charges to be damages, then please would you provide an analysis which demonstrates that these charges actually do reflect the bank's costs.

There are also several cases in law which prove this argument, three of which I quote below:

Murray v Leisureplay (2004)

Dunlop Tyre Company v New Garage & Motor Co. (1915)

Bridge v Campbell Discount Co. Ltd (1962)

It is also the opinion of The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) that these charges are punitive in nature and furthermore, The 1977 Unfair Terms (contracts) Act requires that all contract terms be reasonable. I don't consider these charges to be reasonable as defined by this act.

As I am sure you are aware, the OFT has already instigated a cap on credit card penalty fees and further to this, announced on 7 September 2006 that it is now is to investigate overdraft charges and it is highly likely that there will be a similar outcome.

This statement from The OFT has far reaching legal implications for the banks who impose these charges and it is now clearer than ever that at the present levels, penalty charges have no legal validity and there can be no that this statement would further strengthen any challenge to recover these fees should one be brought before The Court.

Given the above, I should be obliged if you would arrange to refund the full amount of these fees, being £*** in total by 15 November 2006.

I sincerely hope that you will enter into dialogue with me in this matter and I have enclosed the appropriate form of authority to enable the bank to respond directly to me. Should you wish to discuss this matter with me, please feel free to telephone.

In the meantime, I should be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt.

Yours faithfully,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that bakewell, IMHO its a better and more strongly worded letter. Only wish I hadnt sent my LBA yesterday then I could have used this one. Still think a lot of its strength will come from the fact thats its sent by a solicitor on solicitor headed paper etc and not a regular Joe Blogs. Would be interesting to see what response it illicits when a Joe Blogs like myself sends it in comparison to when its sent by a solicitor!! If you can keep us informed Bakewell of your solicitors progress it would be much appreciated..

 

Any volunteers out there from someone who's about to send off first prelim letter to try this one as a template???

 

SKB

Victory over Lloyds £890

Click!

Victory over Vodafone: default removal

click!

Victory over Lloyds PPI claim £2606 click!

Barclaycard lazygoing - £580 + £398 contractual int at 17.7 % click! (Received partial payment £110 21/11/06)

The GF's battle against RBS click! stayed awaiting the end of the world

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...