Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 161 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

Thought I'd Finally Won.. Stay of Execution


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6409 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

This has been hard work from the start, but I thought I had won.!!

After following the "standard route" - letters, statements, had the 50% offer,

etc. etc.

I submitted my claim using Money Claim Online and waited for Barclays to

defend the case as they had indicated they would on their acknowledgement of

service to the court. They had 28 days and didn't!

So the day after the deadline I applied for a default judement online and after a

couple of days received a "notice of judgement entered" in the post.

"This is it !! I thought" ... wait for the money.

I then called the court nearly a week later to see what the next stage would be - honestly

assuming I would be told that Barclays must now pay me within 28 days of the default

judgement. (This was my understanding of the process).

I was actually told they had paid a fee (not sure how much) for a "stay of execution" pending

their application for a set aside.

I don't understand how 5 days after a default judgement was successful (and a CCJ entered

against Barclays) they could pay a fee and lengthen an already deliberately drawn out

process to apply for a set aside.

What reason could they have for the judge not to have defended within the 28 days, then

be granted further time almost a week later? They had after all acknowledged the service

and so can not claim they never had the paperwork...

Does anyone understand set asides?

Does anyone know what will happen next?

Would serving a warrant help at this stage or have I (as I suspect) blown this opportunity?

Link to post
Share on other sites

barclays will have to make an application to the court which will cost them £65, you should apply for any costs you incur in connection with this too.

 

they will be applying to have the judgement set aside on the basis that they feel they are able to defend the claim.

 

they will enter the standard defence that they are entering on all claims. i've had it checked by a solicitor. it is very badly pleaded (especially in view of the fact that they have had it prepared by a barrister!).

 

i've had to enter an allocation questionnaire now which was an extra £100 fee. they were 4 days late entering theirs but i still cannot get judgement entered against them. i think they are now going to take them all to trial. as far as i'm aware, they dont attend court on the day of trial and get judgement in default against them. i do not think they could apply to get judgement set aside twice but you should check this with the court.

 

you can object to their application for your judgement to be set aside. it would be heard before the judge and he would decide.

 

if you need anymore info, let me know.

Me v NatWest £1.5k settled after Disc App

Jo v Barclaycard settled after Disc App

Jo v Cap 1 settled after Disc App

Jo v Abbey Disc App sent to court

Jo v Natwest cag3 let due

Nikkii v Barclays judgement in default against Barclays

Nikkii v B’card directions returned

Nikkii v Natwest settled

Laura v Lloyds – directions & aq sent

Luke v Lloyds – AQ & directions sent to court

Mark v Halifax – settled

Liam v A&L settled

Liam v Lloyds part settled - still going

Vanya v RBOS, CAG 3 let sent

Vanya v RBOS Awaiting statements

Vanya v Virgin issue on 30/03

Carl v Natwest settled

Dean v Barclays – disc app issued

Dean v B’card – disc app issued

Dean v Cap 1 – awaiting statements

(another 5 files that won't fit) busy me!

Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as i'm aware, they dont attend court on the day of trial and get judgement in default against them.

 

No, that's not correct. Barclays' usual method goes like this:

 

  • They always acknowledge with intend to defend in full.
  • They always enter a defence on the last day allowed.
  • They always take it to the wire.
  • They always pay up a couple of weeks or less before the hearing.
  • They always try to argue a reduced and/or confidentiality before paying up 100% if you stand firm.

Any deviation from the above is usually due to the claim slipping under the radar at some point. Well, with that many on the desk, it's hardly surprising. :-D

 

Re: set-aside. Barclays have, on the few occasions where a default was granted, always applied for a set-aside, then approached the claimant and offered to pay in full if claimant doesn't object to the set-aside.

 

If you refuse, it will go to a hearing, not to decide on the penalty charges, on the possibility of Barclays being able to present a defence. As they do, the set-aside will be granted, then a hearing for the charges will be set, and you'll have a few more months' waiting.

 

Hope this clarifies things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Bookworm.

 

It does seem Barclays are taking many of these claims to the wire. But I am not sure they are quite as predictable as you suggest.

 

Barclays aren't always responding just before the end of the deadline, in my case they applied for the stay of execution 4 or 5 days AFTER the time allowed.... and got one. I believe the CCG had actually been issued.

 

Also .. the survey results show Barclays averaging stage 2 !! before paying up..?

 

The Equalizer

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any deviation from the above is usually due to the claim slipping under the radar at some point.

 

Like I said....

 

 

You don't have to believe me, all you have to do is trawl through the Barclays threads for yourself, especially those that have been ongoing for a while. I think you'll find that they ARE that predictable. The defence is bog standard, down to the incomplete ones, and there is even one ongoing where I would have expected them to try to get it struck out, and they still only simply sent the usual defence, even though it is quite irrelevant! :rolleyes:

 

But hey, just read for yourself, if you think I'm mistaken, not a problem! ;-)

 

PS: Stage 2 would be valid for those who settle for part-refund as well. Don't rely on this too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A question I have regarding set-aside is, what's the difference between paying up after a default judgment, and paying another £65 to have it set-aside and asking the claimant not to object to the set aside in return for a full settlement?

 

There must be a huge benefit to Barclays here but what is it?

To follow my case progress, click here to see where I'm at right now.

 

Welshman

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent question, Welshman! Obviously it adds a further delay, and makes it just that little bit more awkward, but I'm sure you're right; there must be a bigger benefit than that.

 

As you say, Welshman, what is it?

 

Anyone?

Victimnomore

By day, quiet unassuming bank customer - but, by night, .. .. .. .. ..

Barclays Case1

14/03/07 **WON** FULL settlement £3358.39

Barclays Case2

08/09/08 Prelim: please give me my £187.91 back.

Halifax Case1

14/03/07 **WON** Refunded £728 (including £54 costs)

Halifax Case2

08/09/08 Prelim: please give me my £268.24 back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't know, is the answer.

 

One thing we have noticed is that where some banks don't sem to care about getting a default against them, and only pay when the bailiffs call, some, and Barclays in particular, seem to think it important to get those defaults removed.

 

But then, you could also ask yourself why take it to the wire, which will cost them more in so many cases, instead of settling earlier? My own Barclays case was for £320. Between costs and interest, it's now nearly £500. Add the work (albeit limited!) that KJ and team have had to put in to deal with me, and you have to wonder...:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think judgements are a bad thing for the banks and would be worth avoiding. As you said Bookworm, Barclays are determined to minimise judgements.

 

I presume that if at the end of the day, if we won't "deal" and they have a judgement against them, they either defend - and as we know they won't win, or they cop the judgement against them. At least they don't win in the end!

 

My claim has gone from something I might have settled for in the early stages for about £1000 to over 1600 with interest, court charges etc.

 

Their loss! If they had returned my calls weeks ago, instead of threatening to retract their 50% joke offer - and promising to respond and not doing they would have been better off. It just demonstrated their real customer service ethic.

 

The Equalizer

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...