Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi there. So I am currently being scammed by a hire company that I have used previously in the past. I had rented a car from them some time ago but it seems they are using my details fraudulently now. It is not really much of a hire company, more like a small family outfit with just a guy and his son with a small office who rent a few cars out. I have received a letter from police regarding a hit and run on a car I have never rented. Spoke to the hire company and it seems they are doing dodgy stuff on the side.   I had no involvement in the incident, nor did I hire the vehicle involved in this incident. The hire company passed my details on to the police when they were requested for information despite the fact that I did not hire that vehicle from them. I believe that they had kept my details from a previous time I had hired a vehicle from them in 2020. I believe they used this to information from a previous hire agreement to fraudulently pass liability on to me.   They have since sent me a pdf of the hire agreement they had with another person on the dates of the incident and have told me that this was the person who actually hired the vehicle. Additionally the pdf they sent me was not signed by either the hirer or the hire company so I am a bit suspicious they plan to pass this along to someone else in the same way they've done to me. I have just filled out a response to the police letter filling in the info section that I was not the driver and putting the information that the hire company gave me of the "correct" details of the person who hired the vehicle. I have also included a hand written letter explaining the situation that this was probably fraud by the company and that I was not involved in the incident nor was I the person renting the vehicle. I just sent the response to the police a few days ago regarding this.   Additionally, and probably even more surprising given the fraudulent activities these guys are undertaking, they have sent me a MCOL claim for +£10k for this accident they are trying to pin on me. They have included cost of premium, insurance, repairs and time off the road. Absurd seeing as I did not hire the vehicle from them. Hopefully the police issue is sorted out with the info I sent them, although I do worry that they won't accept the hire agreement the company sent me as it was not signed by the hirer or the company, but that is a question for later when they respond. Regarding the MCOL claim, I do not know what I should do. The son at the hire company (who is the guy who sent me the copy of the hire other hire agreement) is ignoring me and the dad at the front desk is claiming he does not have information on what his son may or may not be involved in. This is all becoming stressful. I am not sure whether I should counter claim, defend or can just inform MCOL that this is a fraudulent claim that I should never have been dragged into. Any advice is welcomed. Thanks.
    • New Zealand is bringing in a law to force its financial firms to report on climate-related risks. View the full article
    • Hi   I agree with the above post.   Could you clarify is your building a mix of council & leaseholders or leaseholders only?   The Major Works Charges you mention they have added you are entitled to ask them for clarification on exactly what these works are, when they are going to be carried out, by which company and for a breakdown of their costs for these Major Works.   As you mention as an example your windows you need to have a good read of your Leasehold Agreement to see who is responsible for what maintenance. As an example only your leasehold may have a clause that the leaseholder is responsible for the maintenance of the windows again eample only so have a good read of your lease.   If their are other Leaseholders as mentioned in a previous post it may be worth talking to other leaseholders about setting up a Residents Association as this would be another way to challenge the Management Company as long as they recognise your Residents Association.   Couple of links for you:   https://www.lease-advice.org/faq/how-do-i-form-a-residents-association/   https://www.fpra.org.uk/  
    • urm thats interesting there should have been a windscreen ticket  as they've waited more than 28 days to send the NTK...well spotted.     NTK.pdf
  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

Peter Rabbit V Barclays**success**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5020 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

Latest Update.

 

MCOL showed that Barclays have defended my clain and today received info through the post advising of transfer to Kendal County Court, N149 AQ and copy of defence.

 

It appears to be pretty standard and similar to everybody elses I have seen.

 

3. Defence

 

1. The particulars of Claim do not provide details of the precise charges alleged to have been unlawful, or the date thereof. To the extent it is alleged that the claimant incurred bank charges on his account for unauthorised borrowings (wether upaid fees or returned cheques, "Paid Referral Fees" or any other such fees), the Defendant puts the claimant to strict proof of each charge and the date thereof.

 

2.The Defendant is entitled to charge the Claimant for unauthorised borrowings by reason of its standard terms and conditions. The Clkaimant accepted the same when the account was opened, including (in particular but without limitation) the following terms and conditions (which are summarised):

a. The Defendant's right to cahrge "Paid Referral Fee" where the Defendant pays an amount (either by compulsion or election) which causes the account to become overdrawn - £30 per item (previously £25)

b. The Defendant's right to cahrge administrative fee if any cheque, standing order or direct debit cannot be paid because of insufficient cleared funs in the account - £35 per item (previously £30).

c. The Defendant's entitlement, if the Claimant becomes overdrawn without an overdraft limit, to charge interest at unauthorised borrowing rate on the excess balance.

 

3. The Defendant's standard terms and conditions give the Claimant a fair and transparent view of those terms and charges applicable for unauthorised borrowings (including where the account is overdrawn without an overdraft limit or where the Claimant exceeds his authorised overdraft limit).

 

4. If and to the extent it is the Claimant's case that the failure to make necessary payments and / or failure to remain within authorised overdraft limits failure to arrange an authorised overdraft constituted a breach of the terms applying to the account and that the contractual entitlement to debit cahrges from the Claimant's accounts constitues a liquidated damages clause, the same is denied. The charges constitute payments the Claimant agreed to make by reason of the terms and conditions of his account are were consideration for the Defendant advancing credit to the Claimant, which the Defendant was under no obligation to advance. The Defendant was entitled to impose such charges and interest when the Claimant incurred the overdraft.

 

5. Accordingly, it is denied that the legal principles relating to liquidated damages clauses and penalty charges are relevant or applicable to the facts set out above. Further or alternatively it is denied that any such charges constitute unlawful penalty charges or are in breach of the Unfair Terms in the Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 or are in breach of the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 (or any other provision), or are unreasonable within the meaning of Section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (or indeed any other provision)

 

6. Therefore, it is denied that the charges were unlawfully debited from the account.

 

7. If and to the extent the Claimant incurred charges on his account, this was caused by the Claimant having gone into overdraft without having agreed with the Defendant an authorised overdraft facility or to increase the overdraft facility and / or his failure to make payments to bring the balance of the account back into credit.

 

8. It is averred that the said charges and interest are and remain lawful and enforceable and the Defendant was entitled to debit the same. Accordingly, the Claimant is not entitled to a declaration by the Court as to the enforcibility of the said charges.

 

9. The Defendant denies that it is liable to the Claimant for the sums claimed and interest as fleaded by the Claimant at all. In the alternative, which is denied, if the said charges amount to sums payable on breach of contract, it is averred that the charges asserted by the Claimant to have been applied to the account prior to 15 November 2000 would not be recoverable for reason of exhaustion of time in bringing contractual claims from the date of accural, pursuant to the Limitations Act 1980.

 

10. In the alternative, and without prejudice to paragraph 6 above, if (which is denied) the said charges and interest or any part thereof are unlawful or unenforceable as alledged by the Claimant or at all, the Defendant has nonetheless suffered loss and damage as a consequence of the Claimant's breach of contract in allowing the account to go into unauthorised overdraft. Accordingly, in the event that the Defendant is unable to reley on its express entitlement to enforce the charges as set out at paragraphs 2 and 3 above, it will seek to recover tho the extent necessary such loss and damage as it actually suffered, which will not necessarily be limited to the value of the said charges, and the Defendant seeks to set off such sums against any liability owed hereunder to the Claimant.

 

Well they have had a full list of the charges etc (4 times infact including one direct to the Litigation and disputes Dept. None of the charges apply before 15 Nov 2000.

 

The only thing that worries me is the last paragraph sonds rather threatening.

 

Peter

PETER RABBIT V BARCLAYS Settled in Full 05 March 2007

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi - Just a quick update.

 

I have completed AQ N149 along the latest thinking and attached Draft Order for Directions and payment.

 

I will hand deliver to County Court tomorrow (last date for filing is 06/01) so everything still on schedule.

 

Happy New Year!

 

Peter

PETER RABBIT V BARCLAYS Settled in Full 05 March 2007

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just back from dropping off AQ at local county court.

 

I spoke to court manager and he said "ahhhhhhhhhhh a bank charges claim" so he obviously was aware of them!

 

Anyway, local court has only one similar case but told me that judges and courts are well aware of banks tactics of paying out at the last minute and that I had nothing to worry about! lol

 

He said I would recieve an Order of Direction from the Judge and then turned the page and discovered I had attached a draft order. He laughed and said "Oh you obviously already know what happens!"

 

So Saturday will me see the day spent photocopying statements etc etc!

 

Peter

PETER RABBIT V BARCLAYS Settled in Full 05 March 2007

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A letter from Barclays today - ah what will this be?

 

The same letter of partial offer they sent me on 8 November - word for word exactly the same and for the same amount! The only difference is that it is written by a different Customer Relations Manager - odd how two different people could write exactly the same letter - unless of course they are just churning out standard letters (surely they wouldnt do that - or would they!).

 

My suspision is that after I submitted MCOL I sent Litigations Dept an up to date statement of charges etc and they have just treated it as a new complaint. Anyway it proves that they are not even looking at our account details before issuing partial offers since if they were they would know that they already had a claim issued against them which they have defended and that they had already made the same offer in November which was rejected.

 

Well I think I will write to my new Customer Relations Manager a little letter in response drawing her attention to the current situation and asking for an improved offer and cost of MCOL and AQ.

 

Peter

PETER RABBIT V BARCLAYS Settled in Full 05 March 2007

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest News - Handed in AQ and Draft Directions as per New AQ Strategy thread on 3rd Jan (deadline 6th Jan)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/53570-new-strategy-allocation-questionaires.html#post482191

 

Just recieved Notice of Allocation to Small Claims Track and directions exactly as suggested as above. So this is good news. Quite impressed that District Judge Rhodes turned this round as quickly as he did,

 

I now need to provide:

 

a) Schedule of Charges - easy already have this

b) Copies of statments - will have these after a long evening with a photocopier!

c) Statement of evidence - its here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/57707-draft-order-allocation-questionnaires.html#post450746

d)Copies of decided cases and legal materials - its here - Basic Court Bundle http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/33060-basic-court-bundle.html

 

So well pleased with the situation just going to have to spend a bit of time over the weekend getting it all together. I have to submit all the above by 29th Jan

 

Peter

PETER RABBIT V BARCLAYS Settled in Full 05 March 2007

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

 

Thanks for the feedback re. the order for directions, its good to hear that most judges seem to be agreeing them. Excellent news.:)

 

With regards to the statement thats most suitible, looking at the defence I think you need to go predominantly with the pre-estimate one, but add a paragraph or two to cover the service charge arguement, as it is strongly hinted at in paragraph 5. Its difficult with this defence becouse they don't actually plead specifically or in detail as to why the charges are not a penalty, only that they were debited in accordance with the T&C's.

 

I'd go with this, obviously amend as required -

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE

 

 

- The claimant submits that the charges levied to his bank account, as set out in the enclosed schedule, are, notwithstanding the defence of the defendant, default penalty charges imposed because of and relating directly to breaches of contract, both explicit and implied, on the part of the claimant. As a contractual penalty, the charges are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Unfair Contracts (Terms) Act 1977, and the common law.

 

- It is admitted that the Defendants charges were levied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the account in question. However, it is submitted that the Defendants charges are not related to or intended to represent any actual loss arising from a breach of contract, but instead unduly and extravagantly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

 

- The breaches of contract in this case relate to exceeding overdraft limits, and having insufficient funds available to pay a direct debit or a standing order. Add an example of a charge incurred due to going over by a small amount, for example -On one occasion in June 2006, a direct debit payment was returned due to insufficient funds in my account. The shortfall was only one pound and nineteen pence.I was then penalised for this breach by way of a charge of £**. The claimant holds this charge and indeed every other charge in question, to be punitive in nature, and wholly disproportionate.

 

- The law states that a contractual party cannot profit from a breach and the charge for a loss suffered from a breach of contract should be the amount necessary to put both parties in the same position before the breach occurred. This means that Liquidated damages should be charged. This is backed up by case law – Robinson Vs Harman 1848.

 

- It is settled law that the charge for loss or damage arising from a breach of contract must be proportionate to the loss incurred.

 

- Lord Dunedin stated in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co 1915 -

“the sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could have been suffered from the breach” and;

The essence of a penalty is a payment of money stipulated as in terrorem of the offending part; the essence of liquidated damages is a genuine covenanted pre-estimate of damage

 

- Further, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, schedule 2 (1) includes to define an example of an unfair clause as;

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

 

- It is not disputed that the Defendant is entitled to recover its damages following the claimant’s breach of contract, and it is entitled to include a liquidated damages clause.

- In order to ascertain whether the Defendant’s charges are an unenforceable penalty or are liquidated damages, the true costs incurred by the Defendant need to be thoroughly examined to establish whether or not the banks charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of its likely loss incurred by my contractual breaches.

 

- On numerous occasions, the Claimant has requested that the Defendant justify its charges by providing details of the costs incurred as a result of my contractual breaches. Each time those requests were rebutted or ignored.

 

- In a recent study undertaken in Australia, (Nicole Rich, “Unfair fees: a report into penalty fees charged by Australian Banks”) it was estimated that the cost to an Australian Bank of a customers direct debit refusal was estimated to be in the region of 54 cents. By reviewing the banks’ charges against the above figure, the study estimated that banks could be charging between 64 to 92 times what it costs them to process a direct debit refusal. The study’s key findings stated that in its opinion the Australian Bank’s cheque and direct debit return charges were likely to be penalties at law.

 

- Further, in an American study (Consumer Federation of America “Bounced Cheques: Billion Dollar profits II”) it was estimated that the American banks’ cost to process a returned direct debit payment was between US$0.48 and US$0.65.

 

- The Defendant, or indeed any of the UK banks, has never published any information to support how their charges are calculated, or what their actual costs associated with such breaches are, or what revenue they derive from such charges.

 

- For their recent BBC2 documentary “The Money Programme”, the BBC appointed a commission of former senior banking industry figures and business academics to attempt to ascertain the actual costs to the UK banks of processing a customer’s breach of contract. They concluded that the absolute maximum conceivable cost that could be incurred by a direct debit refusal or overdraft excess is £2.50, and of a returned cheque £4.50. They did state however, that the actual cost is likely to be much less than this. The commission also estimated that the UK banks collectively derive as much as £4.5billion in profit a year from their charging regimes.

 

- It is submitted that the Defendants charges are applied by an automated and computer driven process. It is therefore impossible to envisage how the Defendant can incur costs of £** by carrying out a completely automated and computer driven process. This process consists of a computer system ‘bouncing’ the direct debit, and sending out a computer generated letter. Note that the letter received notifying of a charge is identical in every instance, and if multiple breaches occurred on the same day, a separate letter will be sent in each instance.

 

- In a telephone conversation with the personal banking department of Lloyds TSB on May 24th 2006, a member of staff actually told me directly that the charges were imposed automatically. A transcript of this conversation is provided. I made a Data Protection Act 1998 right of subject access request to the Defendant for a recording of this conversation. Unfortunately it “could not be located”.

 

- Additionally, I asked the Defendant to provide me evidence of any manual intervention that may have occurred in relation to my account, under a Data Protection Act 1998 right of subject access request. No such information was forthcoming.

 

- The claimant also cites a radio interview in 2004 with Lloyds TSB’s former head of personal banking, Peter McNamara, in which he states the charges are used to fund free banking for all personal customers as a whole.

 

- The claimant cites the statement from the Office of Fair Trading (April 2006), who conducted a thorough investigation into default charges levied by the British financial industry. While the report primarily focused on Credit card issuers, the OFT stated that the principle of their findings would also apply to Bank account charges. They ruled that default charges at the current level were unfair within their interpretation of the UTCCR’s.

 

- On 22nd May 2006, the house of commons passed an early day motion which welcomed the OFT's statement that default charges should be proportionate to the actual loss incurred. The house discribed such default charges as "exorbitant" and "excessive".

 

- Further, under the UTCCR:

5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

 

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

 

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

 

Schedule 2 also includes such clauses (to define examples of unfair clauses) as:

 

(i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;

 

(j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;

 

(m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract.

 

- The defendant is a multi-national corporation. The term regarding charges was inserted unilaterally in contract. The contract was pre and mass produced and I had no opportunity to negotiate the clause, or indeed any of the contract.

 

- The cost of Lloyds charges have increased twice during the period in which my account was held, neither time was I given the opportunity to negotiate, or even notified of this increase. This means the bank has unilaterally altered the terms of my account contract to my detriment, and to their advantage.

- As pleaded above, the Claimant believes the charges levied to his account to be disproportionate contractual penalties. The Claimant will vehemently refute any contention that they are legitimate contractual service charges which are as such not required to be a pre-estimate of loss incurred on the part of the Defendent. The Claiment believes any such contention to be an attempt by the Defendent to 'cloak' its penalties, in order that it circumvent the statutory and common law provisions which prohibit contractual penalty charges with view to profit.

 

- The Claimant refers to the statement from the Office of Fair Trading (April 2006). With regard to the ‘cloaking’ or disguising of penalties, the OFT said this;

 

4.21 The analysis in this statement is in terms of explicit, transparent default fees. Attempts to restructure accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made should be viewed as disguised penalties and equally open to challenge where grounds of unfairness exist. (For example, a charge for ‘agreeing’ or ‘allowing’ a customer to exceed a credit limit is no different from a customers default in exceeding a credit limit.) The UTCCR’s are concerned with the intentions and effects of terms, not just their mechanism”.

 

- However, and without prejudice to the above, in the event that the charges were accepted as being a fee for a service, the claimant submits that they are unreasonable under section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

 

- As set out above, the Defendant’s charges cannot be considered to be liquidated damages, nor contractual service charges. They are not a pre-estimate of, or in any way related to, the Defendant’s loss incurred as a result of the breach of contract. The charges are punitive, and unduly, substantially and extravagantly enrich the Defendant. As such, they are disproportionate contractual penalties and unenforceable at law.

I, the Claimant, believe all facts stated to be true.

 

Signed, dated.

 

 

Documents attached in support of this statement

  • Office of Fair Trading report, April 2006
  • House of commons early day motion, May 2006
  • Automated charge notification letter/s. Include a couple of examples. Preferably use ones where charges have been incurred over ridiculously small shortfalls and if possible, include 2 letters notifying of charges incurred on the same day
  • BBC commission conclusion - BBC NEWS | Business | The Money Programme bank commission
  • Australian Default charges report, Nicole Rich - http://www.clcv.net.au/downloads/Med...20Report .pdf
  • Transcript of telephone communication with Lloyds TSB 'personal banking' department.
  • Data Protection Act Subject Access Request for evidence of manual intervention
  • Transcript of radio interview with Peter McNamara, former head of personal banking, Lloyds TSB.
  • All pre-litigation correspondance between the parties

Good luck with the remainder of your claim, hopefully you won't have much longer to wait for a settlement now!

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just in from preparing all the documents the court have asked for. Quite a weighty document by the time its all copied and printed off but not as big a chore as I had first thought - and it all seems to make sense!

 

Will hand deliver a copy to the court tomorrow and send special delivery to Barclays their copy.

 

Peter

PETER RABBIT V BARCLAYS Settled in Full 05 March 2007

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres a letter to send to the court if they don't comply - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/58011-sc-m-court-bundle.html#post485266. Send the second letter to the court on the day the deadline is up. Do not send the first letter. The terms of the order say that Barclays defence will be struck out in the event they do not comply, so don't warn them, just inform the court.

  • Confused 1

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Goodness Peter, you really are well clued up on all this stuff!!

I am debating which version of the AQ to use, old or new at the moment and can not decide. I'm worried that I will make a mess of the new one as it is so specific, so I am very tempted to go with the old version which seems far more suited to my abilities!! It seems the money will come along, but it may take longer....Gosh, I wish this was all over and the money was in my account NOW!!

Trollsicles x

Ordered Statements: 06/10/06

Statements Received: 11/10/06

Prelim letter posted: 11/10/06

Standard Reply Received: 19/10/06

LBA posted: 25/10/06

MCOL filed 09/11/06

Offer of Part payment letter received 09/11/06

Rejection letter sent to Barclays 13/11/06

Amendments sent to MCOL 21/11/06

Sealed claim received from MCOL 25/01/07

Claim received by Barclays 29/01/07

2 weeks to defend - deadline 13/02/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I'm new on here, but i'va managed to work out that barclays owe me £2200 in charges, Ive sent the LBA letter, but what do i do now? do I wait for the full 14 days to elapse? then what? help??

08/02/07-Prelim letter & SOC sent to Barclays

22/02/07-LBA & updated SOC sent to Barclays

23/02/07-Prelim letter and SOC sent to RBS

05/03/07-Offer letter recd from RBS - full settlement, no conditions. Accepted

08/03/07-Paid in full from RBS:D

12/03/07-Offer from Barclays - less than 1/3 of the full amount, rejection letter sent with updated SOC:mad:

26/03/07-Claim #2 against RBS...Prelim letter and SOC sent (same account, more charges since settling last claim!)

18/05/07- recfd offer from RBS for full amount claimed, accepted!

25/0507-recd offer from barclays for full amount!!!! yippee!!! acceptance sent

26/0507-recd letter from barclays saying that they have closed my account???? help!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Barclays seem to be moving quite quickly at the moment. Sent prelim letter to my branch 18th Jan and recieved standard complaints response in 8 days and partial settlement letter on 14 days. Stick to your schedule regardless of what they do short of full settlement.

:lol:
Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, thanks mamatemi1, I'll give them until the 20th and then if they havent settled in full, what do i do?

08/02/07-Prelim letter & SOC sent to Barclays

22/02/07-LBA & updated SOC sent to Barclays

23/02/07-Prelim letter and SOC sent to RBS

05/03/07-Offer letter recd from RBS - full settlement, no conditions. Accepted

08/03/07-Paid in full from RBS:D

12/03/07-Offer from Barclays - less than 1/3 of the full amount, rejection letter sent with updated SOC:mad:

26/03/07-Claim #2 against RBS...Prelim letter and SOC sent (same account, more charges since settling last claim!)

18/05/07- recfd offer from RBS for full amount claimed, accepted!

25/0507-recd offer from barclays for full amount!!!! yippee!!! acceptance sent

26/0507-recd letter from barclays saying that they have closed my account???? help!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh, ive just managed to set up my own thread, so anybody with any advice, would be most welcome!

 

Mama Bear Vs Barclays

 

thanks in advance!!

08/02/07-Prelim letter & SOC sent to Barclays

22/02/07-LBA & updated SOC sent to Barclays

23/02/07-Prelim letter and SOC sent to RBS

05/03/07-Offer letter recd from RBS - full settlement, no conditions. Accepted

08/03/07-Paid in full from RBS:D

12/03/07-Offer from Barclays - less than 1/3 of the full amount, rejection letter sent with updated SOC:mad:

26/03/07-Claim #2 against RBS...Prelim letter and SOC sent (same account, more charges since settling last claim!)

18/05/07- recfd offer from RBS for full amount claimed, accepted!

25/0507-recd offer from barclays for full amount!!!! yippee!!! acceptance sent

26/0507-recd letter from barclays saying that they have closed my account???? help!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they don't settle in full, I guess see you in court. I sent my LBA yesterday and I am toying with calling Ms Emma-Jane Besley to up her offer to full settlement so we don't have to go through this rigmarole and she can save herself court costs and 8%! What do you think?Got a heavy cold so feeling a bit lightheaded!

:lol:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Sorry I have not posted for a while but I have been away with work etc etc.

 

Latest news is that last week I recieved a court date of 18 April. This sort of came a bit out of the blue since it arrived before the date Barclays had to respond to the directions issued.

 

Needless to say that Barclays have not responded to the directions and the deadline was yesterday so I am going to deliver the letter of non-compliance letter as suggested by GaryH in post #38 above.

 

Peter

PETER RABBIT V BARCLAYS Settled in Full 05 March 2007

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go Peter, I've slightly amended it now to reflect the specific order - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/53570-new-strategy-allocation-questionaires-14.html#post535117

 

Mr P got settled yesterday, so I doubt yours will be to far away.

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Gary - so Mr P got settled - another victory - what's interesting is that he got settlement more or less on the date Barclays had to submit as per the directions whereas Barclays have missed the deadline issued in my case. This seems rather odd since we were both at the same stage and the same deadlines and his court date was not until June.

 

Thanks for the updated letter of non-compliance I will deliver it by hand in the morning.

 

Happy Days!

 

Peter

PETER RABBIT V BARCLAYS Settled in Full 05 March 2007

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I delivered letter of non-compliance (as suggested by GaryH above) to the court this afternoon. All I can do now is wait and see what my Judge decides. It would be nice to think that I actually see my money soon rather than having to run right up to the court date in April only for them to settle a couple of days before. Also I have unused holiday leave which I will loose at the end of March if I dont take it and I had hope that some of these recovered charges would go towards a well earned break - knowing my luck they will pay out on April 1st!

 

Peter

PETER RABBIT V BARCLAYS Settled in Full 05 March 2007

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the beauty of the new draft directions - if ordered as proposed, as it has been in your case, then the bank simply can't delay for that long. The terms of the order are clear - if the defendent does not comply with the deadline then the defence is struck out without further order. The judge, by merely ordering the directions, has already decided to strike out if the deadline is not complied with. Expect a settlement within a week.

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...