Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Documents arrived today dated 27th March.  This is a cc taken out a long time ago (2008) and they don't seem to have been able to provide a copy of a CCA agreement, just reams of print outs of lines of texts from old bank statements, default notices etc.   
    • Documents finally arrived today from PRA group.  New day have sent me lots of paperwork, copies of default letters and statements, print out of what looks like a CCA that would have been completed on online, IP address as signature.  This debt is not too old, so possible this is the true copy of agreement ?  Not sure what my defence would be beyond irresponsible lending. 
    • pers i wouldn't.. all you need to know is in the posts of that thread....that being section 127(3) of the CCA refers. if under a CCA return, the 'creditor' claims its a recon, it must not contain any details like a sig, tickbox, or typed name (whether you signed physically or by online tickbox) 1. those are not necessary in a recon, so why inc them? (faked??) 2, it cant thus be a recon!!, it must be a copy of the 'original' from the original creditor, not from a debt buyers filing cabinet. they shouldn't not be 'mixing' some original docs from the OC with crap from their filing cabinet, claiming its ALL a recon! because some of it is faked. just remember there are far more docs like NOA and a DN that are as equally important to a court claim of 'this debt is enforceable'. never rely solely upon the dodgy agreement argument.
    • India has thousands of small gold refineries which are facing more competition from big players.View the full article
  • 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

BARCLAYCARD **WON** Charges repaid with compound int't and DN removed**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3467 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

Hi SMU,

 

I see Shelley is already helping you here and you seem to have it all under control.

 

Update your spreadsheet before using the latest interest figures on your PoC's and the N1 claim form.

 

Make sure you're 100% happy that you have everything right before you file the claim.

 

If you can't find the answers you need, ASK ! :-D

 

:-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Thats a good idea with the costs spreadsheet, i'll write one of them out.

 

Their interest rate varied, 19%, 21% and 1% when i was on a payment plan with them. Ive used 24.9% as if i understand it correctly i would be claiming back money they have made from having my money.

 

 

I think i've got my claim written out properly now if you or slick could double check it -

 

 

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

 

1. The Claimant entered intoan agreement (“The Agreement”) with the Defendant on or around xxxxxx,whereby the Defendant was to advance credit facilities to the Claimant under arunning credit account, Account no - xxxxxxxxxx ("TheAccount").

 

2. The Agreement essentiallyconsisted of the Defendant providing the Claimant with a credit card (“TheCard”) which would allow the Claimant to make purchases and receive cashadvances on credit. In return the Defendant was entitled to charge interest atthe published rate.

 

3. The Agreement was aRegulated Agreement for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

4. At all material times thecontract was subject to the Defendant’s standard terms and conditions whichcould be varied from time to time.

 

 

Summary

 

5. Throughout the course ofthe Agreement, the Defendant has added numerous default charges to the Accountfor the Claimant’s failure to make the minimum payment on the due date and orfor exceeding the credit limit and or if a payment is returned. (Full particularsare set out in schedule 2).

 

6. The default charges wereapplied in accordance with the standard terms of The Agreement which were:

a). A penalty payable onbreach of contract and thus unenforceable: and

b) An unfair term under theUnfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“The Regulations”) andtherefore not binding on the Claimant.

 

 

7. The Claimant isaccordingly entitled to repayment of the sums wrongly added to the Account.

 

 

 

The Charges

 

 

8. The standard Terms of theAgreement in substance provided as follows:

(a) The Defendant wouldprovide the Claimant with the Card. The Claimant was entitled to use the Cardto make purchases and receive cash advances up to a credit limit (“the Limit”)set by the Defendant. The Defendant could unilaterally change the Limit by givingthe Claimant notice in writing.

(b) The Defendant wasentitled to charge interest on the purchases and cash advances at the publishedrate.

© The Claimant was to paythe minimum payment of 2.5 % of the amount owed or £5 (whichever was thegreatest) by the due date as notified in the monthly statements.

(d) In addition the Defendantwas entitled to charge default fees (“the Charges”) where the Claimant exceededthe Limit, did not pay on the due date or had a payment returned. The Chargeswere £24 for each transgression between March 2003 and December 2005, and £12 betweenJanuary 2006 and October 2009.

 

Penalty

 

9. The Charges were payableon breach of contract by the Claimant.

 

10. The amount of the Chargesexceeded any genuine pre-estimate of the damage which would have been sufferedby the Bank in relation to the Claimant’s transgressions.

 

11. In the premises theCharges were punitive and a penalty and thus unenforceable at common law.

 

The Regulations

 

 

12. At all material times theClaimant was a consumer within the Regulations.

 

13. At all material times theterms of the Agreement providing for the Charges were unfair within regulation5 of the Regulations in that contrary to the requirement of good faith theycaused a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to thedetriment of the Claimant.

 

14. Without prejudice to theburden of proof, the Claimant will refer to the following matters in support ofthe contention that the terms are to be assessed as unfair as at the time ofthe conclusion of the Agreement, and of each revision to the Standard Terms.

(1)The terms relating toCharges were standard terms; they would not be individually negotiated.

(2)The Charges were a penaltyfor breach of contract.

(3)The Charges exceeded thecosts which the Bank could have expected to incur in dealing with the exceedingof the credit limit, late payment or returned payment.

(4) Accordingly the Chargeswere a disproportionate charge incurred by the Claimant for their failure tomeet their contractual obligation and thus within the ambit of Schedule 2 (1)(e) of the Regulations and indicative of an unfair term.

(5) As the Bank knew, theCharges were of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of theAgreement as a whole and would not influence the making of the Agreement.

(6) As the Defendant knew,the Claimant had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges.

(7) In the premises, theeffect of the Charges would be prejudicial to the customer who incurred them,and cause an imbalance in the relations of the parties to the Agreement bysubordinating the customer’s interests to those of the Defendant in a way whichwas inequitable.

 

15. Without prejudice to theburden of proof, the Claimant will contend that the terms imposing the Chargesare not core terms under regulation 6 of the Regulations and relies on thefollowing matters.

(1) The assessment offairness does not relate to terms which define the main or core subject matterof the Agreement.

(2) The assessment offairness does not relate to the adequacy of the price or remuneration asagainst the goods or services supplied in exchange (in other words, whether ornot the relevant services were value for money).

(3) The Charges are correctlydescribed as default charges by the Defendant in the key information providedto new customers.

 

16. By reason of the saidmatters the terms were not binding under regulation 8 of the Regulations.

 

17. The Defendant wronglyapplied Charges to the Account totaling some £640 between xxxxxx and xxxxxxxx. Particulars appear from Schedule 2.

 

18. On 25 October 2012 theClaimant demanded repayment of the sums wrongly applied.

 

19. The Defendant has notrepaid them or any of them.

 

And the Claimant claims

 

(1) A declaration that thesums totaling £640 have wrongly been applied to the Account

 

(2) Payment of the said sum of£640 and interest in restitution of £2561.28 as per the case of Sempra Metals vInland Revenue Commissioners.

 

(3) Interest under section 69of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date ofclaim until judgment or sooner payment.

 

(4) Court costs of £100.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SMU,

 

Don't claim any court cost if you don't have to pay them due to fee remission.

 

You can seek a Wasted Costs Order in due course which can include your time spent researching and actual costs incurred like postage, paper, etc.

 

However, as these are minimal, I'd focus on the substantive issue of the penalty charges and interest in restitution.

 

:-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a good idea with the costs spreadsheet, i'll write one of them out.

 

Their interest rate varied, 19%, 21% and 1% when i was on a payment plan with them. Ive used 24.9% as if i understand it correctly i would be claiming back money they have made from having my money.

 

 

I think i've got my claim written out properly now if you or slick could double check it -

 

 

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

 

1. The Claimant entered intoan agreement (“The Agreement”) with the Defendant on or around xxxxxx,whereby the Defendant was to advance credit facilities to the Claimant under arunning credit account, Account no - xxxxxxxxxx ("TheAccount").

 

2. The Agreement essentiallyconsisted of the Defendant providing the Claimant with a credit card (“TheCard”) which would allow the Claimant to make purchases and receive cashadvances on credit. In return the Defendant was entitled to charge interest atthe published rate.

 

3. The Agreement was aRegulated Agreement for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

4. At all material times thecontract was subject to the Defendant’s standard terms and conditions whichcould be varied from time to time.

 

 

Summary

 

5. Throughout the course ofthe Agreement, the Defendant has added numerous default charges to the Accountfor the Claimant’s failure to make the minimum payment on the due date and orfor exceeding the credit limit and or if a payment is returned. (Full particularsare set out in schedule 2).

 

6. The default charges wereapplied in accordance with the standard terms of The Agreement which were:

a). A penalty payable onbreach of contract and thus unenforceable: and

b) An unfair term under theUnfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“The Regulations”) andtherefore not binding on the Claimant.

 

 

7. The Claimant isaccordingly entitled to repayment of the sums wrongly added to the Account.

 

 

 

The Charges

 

 

8. The standard Terms of theAgreement in substance provided as follows:

(a) The Defendant wouldprovide the Claimant with the Card. The Claimant was entitled to use the Cardto make purchases and receive cash advances up to a credit limit (“the Limit”)set by the Defendant. The Defendant could unilaterally change the Limit by givingthe Claimant notice in writing.

(b) The Defendant wasentitled to charge interest on the purchases and cash advances at the publishedrate.

© The Claimant was to paythe minimum payment of 2.5 % of the amount owed or £5 (whichever was thegreatest) by the due date as notified in the monthly statements.

(d) In addition the Defendantwas entitled to charge default fees (“the Charges”) where the Claimant exceededthe Limit, did not pay on the due date or had a payment returned. The Chargeswere £24 for each transgression between March 2003 and December 2005, and £12 betweenJanuary 2006 and October 2009.

 

Penalty

 

9. The Charges were payableon breach of contract by the Claimant.

 

10. The amount of the Chargesexceeded any genuine pre-estimate of the damage which would have been sufferedby the Bank in relation to the Claimant’s transgressions.

 

11. In the premises theCharges were punitive and a penalty and thus unenforceable at common law.

 

The Regulations

 

 

12. At all material times theClaimant was a consumer within the Regulations.

 

13. At all material times theterms of the Agreement providing for the Charges were unfair within regulation5 of the Regulations in that contrary to the requirement of good faith theycaused a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to thedetriment of the Claimant.

 

14. Without prejudice to theburden of proof, the Claimant will refer to the following matters in support ofthe contention that the terms are to be assessed as unfair as at the time ofthe conclusion of the Agreement, and of each revision to the Standard Terms.

(1)The terms relating toCharges were standard terms; they would not be individually negotiated.

(2)The Charges were a penaltyfor breach of contract.

(3)The Charges exceeded thecosts which the Bank could have expected to incur in dealing with the exceedingof the credit limit, late payment or returned payment.

(4) Accordingly the Chargeswere a disproportionate charge incurred by the Claimant for their failure tomeet their contractual obligation and thus within the ambit of Schedule 2 (1)(e) of the Regulations and indicative of an unfair term.

(5) As the Bank knew, theCharges were of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of theAgreement as a whole and would not influence the making of the Agreement.

(6) As the Defendant knew,the Claimant had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges.

(7) In the premises, theeffect of the Charges would be prejudicial to the customer who incurred them,and cause an imbalance in the relations of the parties to the Agreement bysubordinating the customer’s interests to those of the Defendant in a way whichwas inequitable.

 

15. Without prejudice to theburden of proof, the Claimant will contend that the terms imposing the Chargesare not core terms under regulation 6 of the Regulations and relies on thefollowing matters.

(1) The assessment offairness does not relate to terms which define the main or core subject matterof the Agreement.

(2) The assessment offairness does not relate to the adequacy of the price or remuneration asagainst the goods or services supplied in exchange (in other words, whether ornot the relevant services were value for money).

(3) The Charges are correctlydescribed as default charges by the Defendant in the key information providedto new customers.

 

16. By reason of the saidmatters the terms were not binding under regulation 8 of the Regulations.

 

17. The Defendant wronglyapplied Charges to the Account totaling some £640 between xxxxxx and xxxxxxxx. Particulars appear from Schedule 2.

 

18. On 25 October 2012 theClaimant demanded repayment of the sums wrongly applied.

 

19. The Defendant has notrepaid them or any of them.

 

And the Claimant claims

 

(1) A declaration that thesums totaling £640 have wrongly been applied to the Account

 

(2) Payment of the said sum of£640 and interest in restitution of £2561.28 as per the case of Sempra Metals vInland Revenue Commissioners.

 

(3) Interest under section 69of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date ofclaim until judgment or sooner payment.

 

(4) Court costs of £100.

 

I have only highlighted a few in red but just go through your document again before submitting it to the courts to ensure its accuracy and presentation reads smoothly.

 

Sorry for nit picking, lol

Santander PPI X 2 **WON** claims on behalf of son (Oct 2010/ Mar 2011)

Citicard O/H (PPI) - **WON** Compound Interest Dec 2011

Citicard O/H (Charges) Bailiffs sent in August 2012

Barclaycard - **WON** Compound Interest Oct 2011

Monument - account information being sought for OH

Citicard - self - N1 submitted August 2012

Barclaycard - self - **WON** damages for non disclosure/information now rec'd. Aug 2012

Barclaycard - relation - Failed SAR sent 29/09/11

Halifax SAR sent 18/08/2011 for relation

LTSB - SAR sent 09/08/2011 for friend

Link to post
Share on other sites

Subject to the typos which Shelley has pointed out, and many others, the PoC's looks ok.

 

:-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's set out fine when i copy and paste it here but the words go all over the place when i press reply!

 

I have double checked it with spell checker!

 

 

Thank you both for your help, i'll be posting the claim off tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with it and stay strong.

 

Keep us posted and as Slick says, if you're not sure of anything, ASK.

 

Shelley

Santander PPI X 2 **WON** claims on behalf of son (Oct 2010/ Mar 2011)

Citicard O/H (PPI) - **WON** Compound Interest Dec 2011

Citicard O/H (Charges) Bailiffs sent in August 2012

Barclaycard - **WON** Compound Interest Oct 2011

Monument - account information being sought for OH

Citicard - self - N1 submitted August 2012

Barclaycard - self - **WON** damages for non disclosure/information now rec'd. Aug 2012

Barclaycard - relation - Failed SAR sent 29/09/11

Halifax SAR sent 18/08/2011 for relation

LTSB - SAR sent 09/08/2011 for friend

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just working out what to put on Schedule 1 and getting a bit mixed up.

 

Are their specific paragraphs that need to go on this schedule as i noticed Shelly used this on hers -

 

 

 

From Barclaycard Conditions in force (as of Dec xxxx).

 

3. Credit limit

From time to time we will work out your credit limit and tell you what it is.

 

5. Repayments

each month you must make a minimum payment. This will be;

(a)3% of the statement balance for Initial Visa, First Classic and Classic and 2% of the statement balance for Gold Barclaycard and Barclaycard Platinum or £5 whichever is more; or if the statement balance is less, the statement balance; or

(b)If a special promotion allows you to put off making repayments for a period, the amount worked out under (a) but with the relevant promotional balance taken away from the statement balance.

The minimum payment must be received by us and paid into your account on or before the payment date.

 

Yet on the library template there are a lot more paragraphs and i'm unsure what to put on mine now!??!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SMU,

 

I would be guided by Slick or other site team members because I know I did get some things wrong on mine albeit, I still won if B/C have different legal representatives its not to say they will roll over so easy.

 

I am sure Slick will be along shortly to advise.

 

Hold fire until you can get better opinions

 

Shelley

Santander PPI X 2 **WON** claims on behalf of son (Oct 2010/ Mar 2011)

Citicard O/H (PPI) - **WON** Compound Interest Dec 2011

Citicard O/H (Charges) Bailiffs sent in August 2012

Barclaycard - **WON** Compound Interest Oct 2011

Monument - account information being sought for OH

Citicard - self - N1 submitted August 2012

Barclaycard - self - **WON** damages for non disclosure/information now rec'd. Aug 2012

Barclaycard - relation - Failed SAR sent 29/09/11

Halifax SAR sent 18/08/2011 for relation

LTSB - SAR sent 09/08/2011 for friend

Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow the POC Guide here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?561-Credit-Card-Charges.-POC-for-N1 - although I'm sure you have this already.

 

Use the guide but adapt it as necessary to reflect your own case, with regard to dates, etc.

 

Use the wording or examples as shown but use the T&C's as close to when your a/c was opened as you can. Otherwise, use T&C's that were in place when the penalty chgs arose.

 

:wink:

Edited by slick132

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

So today i have received Barclaycards statement of defence which is near enough set out the same as the one Shelley uploaded in her 'Won' thread.

 

Do i now have to wait to hear from the court before taking the next step which i assume will be filling out the Allocation Questionaire?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the court will send out AQ's when they require them completed.

 

Spend the quiet time you have now to research your court bundle so you have the necessary documents gathered together in one file, ready for printing if required.

 

:-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received an offer from Barclaycard today, they are willing to refund all charges in the past 6 years + 8% interest which comes to a total of £140! A bit below the figure in my claim!

Now you start a game of 'electronic ping-pong'!

Santander PPI X 2 **WON** claims on behalf of son (Oct 2010/ Mar 2011)

Citicard O/H (PPI) - **WON** Compound Interest Dec 2011

Citicard O/H (Charges) Bailiffs sent in August 2012

Barclaycard - **WON** Compound Interest Oct 2011

Monument - account information being sought for OH

Citicard - self - N1 submitted August 2012

Barclaycard - self - **WON** damages for non disclosure/information now rec'd. Aug 2012

Barclaycard - relation - Failed SAR sent 29/09/11

Halifax SAR sent 18/08/2011 for relation

LTSB - SAR sent 09/08/2011 for friend

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shelley,

 

I'm just surprised they have made an offer so soon as they only sent me their defence a couple of days ago and i still haven't received anything from the court yet.

 

I just want to get my figures correct before i reply to them, am i right in that i don't add compound interest anymore from the date of claim, just add 8% stat interest?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SMU,

This isn't probably the answer you want but I am probably not the best person to ask on this, simply because I made so many errors in my claim with B/C (in hindsight, I wonder now whether they read them at all) I don't know how on earth I managed to get a settlement. I do know that I managed to get every penny of interest out of them because after they had agreed to pay, they dragged their feet in paying up so I demanded the interest for their delays.

 

Reading your post above again, I think you are right. Once a claim has been submitted interest at 8% is only permitted. Hopefully, Slick may drop in to confirm :)

 

My only advice on this is: whatever your claim is worth, stick to your guns and timeframes and only accept what you are comfortable with. If they do not want to go into court make sure their representatives do not take advantage of the matter. Stay strong.

Santander PPI X 2 **WON** claims on behalf of son (Oct 2010/ Mar 2011)

Citicard O/H (PPI) - **WON** Compound Interest Dec 2011

Citicard O/H (Charges) Bailiffs sent in August 2012

Barclaycard - **WON** Compound Interest Oct 2011

Monument - account information being sought for OH

Citicard - self - N1 submitted August 2012

Barclaycard - self - **WON** damages for non disclosure/information now rec'd. Aug 2012

Barclaycard - relation - Failed SAR sent 29/09/11

Halifax SAR sent 18/08/2011 for relation

LTSB - SAR sent 09/08/2011 for friend

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SMU,

 

Well done for getting barclayshark to realise you exist, that's a miracle in itself.

 

When I issued court papers for my charges, (never got that far) they repaid ALL of my charges, not just the last 6 years plus interest at 21.94%, not 8% so don't let them fob you off.

 

It is hard going and ever so frustrating but as Shelly advised, stay strong and stick to your guns.

 

Good luck

 

Up2

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SMU,

 

BC are hoping to get a cheap settlement by offering only 8%.

 

The choice must be yours but, at this stage, I would turn the offer down and stick to what you claimed in charges, interest in restitution and 8% Satutory Int't from the date of issue of the claim at the stated daily rate.

 

To save me looking back, roughly what is the total you're claiming.

 

:wink:

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone i'm not going to give in yet!

 

Hi Slick, my claim is for just over £3000.

 

They also said they would take the amount off the money owed on my account yet it was sold to a DCA 2 years ago so i cant see how they could do that without buying the whole debt back?

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, Shelley is being rather modest in her post #67 above.

 

A few errors may have been made but I take responsibility for at least some of them.

 

Shelley ran her campaign boldly and stood up to BC even when they tried to Set Off the refund against an a/c that BC had sold on.

 

She stuck to her guns and was brave in sticking to her demands. Hence my nickname for her :-

 

Shelley the BC Slayer :laser:

 

:wink:

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop it boys - you are making me blush :madgrin:

 

From my own personal point of view, I remained so determined because of the havoc they caused me some years earlier. Naturally, I had to repay the compliment. Which reminds, I need to update my latest B/C claim info on here, lol

Santander PPI X 2 **WON** claims on behalf of son (Oct 2010/ Mar 2011)

Citicard O/H (PPI) - **WON** Compound Interest Dec 2011

Citicard O/H (Charges) Bailiffs sent in August 2012

Barclaycard - **WON** Compound Interest Oct 2011

Monument - account information being sought for OH

Citicard - self - N1 submitted August 2012

Barclaycard - self - **WON** damages for non disclosure/information now rec'd. Aug 2012

Barclaycard - relation - Failed SAR sent 29/09/11

Halifax SAR sent 18/08/2011 for relation

LTSB - SAR sent 09/08/2011 for friend

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well after emailing BC to turn down their offer i never received a reply back from them and today i have received the AQ from the courts.

 

I have filled it in using some of the other examples on here with Draft directions etc and it's nearly ready to go.

 

I've been looking into what i need for the court bundle and the link for the zip file that everyone keeps posting up explaining the court bundle is broken.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=23210&d=1289862151

 

Does anyone know where i can find another copy of this as i'm still not sure exactly what is needed in the bundle?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without knowing exactly how your decline letter was worded, I won't know what B/C are thinking in respect to further offers or continuing with the court case. However, with that in mind, personally, I would continue with the AQ making sure I have retained a hard copy of same for my records (including signature & date) then I grovel nicely to Slick who will help me to draft an email or letter to B/C to follow up your earlier decline letter to jog their memory and let them know you are still here and won't be going away easily. (if that makes sense?)

 

A member of the site team will check the link and if necessary will post up a new link to the thread you need for the bundle but personally, I have never needed that for any B/C claim and hopefully, you won't either.

 

As a precaution, you might want to post up your Draft directions and AQ (without personal information) to let the site team have a nosey over it for you.

Santander PPI X 2 **WON** claims on behalf of son (Oct 2010/ Mar 2011)

Citicard O/H (PPI) - **WON** Compound Interest Dec 2011

Citicard O/H (Charges) Bailiffs sent in August 2012

Barclaycard - **WON** Compound Interest Oct 2011

Monument - account information being sought for OH

Citicard - self - N1 submitted August 2012

Barclaycard - self - **WON** damages for non disclosure/information now rec'd. Aug 2012

Barclaycard - relation - Failed SAR sent 29/09/11

Halifax SAR sent 18/08/2011 for relation

LTSB - SAR sent 09/08/2011 for friend

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...