Barclaycard Charges Reclaim and, now, Default Removal

[johnhn]

Credit cards and Current Account charges/defaults have no connection.....different legislation and sections of the CCA1974

 

Seems obvious to me, so why not to a judge?

[AndyOrch]

Seems obvious to me, so why not to a judge?

 

Because some are not experienced enough in Consumer Credit Law and are led by the Creditors Counsel

[Old Cogger]

another case a judge mis-directing themselves == this is getting to be a sick joke, = no judge should sit on a case they have no knowledge of the area in question - = equates to mis carriage of justice everytime = uurggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[johnhn]

I emailed BC's sols after the hearing requesting bank details for payment of costs and added that I would pay the £129 default if only to have it marked as settled. Still no reply 11 days later.

 

Meanwhile, I've been wavering about appealing* (the deadline is this Thursday), however, I have yet to receive a copy of the judgement (so don't know exactly what is written into it).

 

Is this normal?

 

*my interpretation of OFT v Abbey is that it actually supports my argument and the OFT guidance on credit card charges as it makes the clear distinction between them and bank overdraft fees, therefore the judgement is "erroneous"...

[AndyOrch]

Can take 2/3 weeks to get the judgment typed up and served....subject to which county court.....should you decide to appeal ( I personally would advocate you didn't ) retain the envelope when in receipt as proof of when you got it.

 

Your argument is sound...the risk is you could get the same DJ ?

[johnhn]

Your argument is sound...the risk is you could get the same DJ ?

 

My dilemma in a nutshell. Probably won't to be honest, galling though it is.

[AndyOrch]

Quite...

[johnhn]

I emailed BC's sols after the hearing requesting bank details for payment of costs and added that I would pay the £129 default if only to have it marked as settled. Still no reply 11 days later.

 

3 weeks later, still no reply from the sols. Are they taking the p*ss?

[AndyOrch]

Dont be in a rush to part company with your money...they have 6 years to get payment

[johnhn]

Normally I'd agree, but I'm buying a house and need to not have a CCJ!

[AndyOrch]

Normally I'd agree, but I'm buying a house and need to not have a CCJ!

 

Have you got the judgment ? are you paying it in full before 28 days ?

[johnhn]

Yes, and that was the plan - under the circumstances I'd have paid it on the spot, but I still haven't been supplied with any payment details.

[AndyOrch]

Contact the court and stress that the clock is ticking and the claimant refuses to clarify payment details.

 

Have you actually rang the Solicitor that dealt with the claim ?

[johnhn]

Spoke to the solicitor on Tuesday - "Oh, sorry, I thought I'd sent the information to you - I'll send it out today". Postman's just been. Still nothing.

Ringing the court on Monday.

 

Complaint to SRA, or waste of time and energy?

[AndyOrch]

Complaint to the Court.

[johnhn]

Rang the sols on Monday - "someone from the team will ring you back today without fail". They didn't

 

Rang them again on Tuesday.

The plonker who was supposed to send me the info in the first place, and again last week, is now on holiday, but they'd send the info "this week".

 

I explained that if I didn't get it by Thursday I'd have a CCJ for 6 years, and right in the middle of a house purchase.

Also, if a global financial institution is incapable of supplying an account number and sort code, it's not very impressive!

 

Finally received the details, paid it, and sent proof of payment to the court.

 

The email address the court gave me to use was very similar but not the same as the one previously given, so I sent it to both.

 

Here is the reply:

 

"It is noted that you have lodged documents in this case in more than one format or to more than one email box. We are writing to advise you that doing this, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, is unnecessary and unacceptable.

 

You are referred to 5APD.5 in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

 

Practice Direction 5.3 does allow for the electronic filing of documents. However the practice goes on to say, in mandatory terms, that if a document is filed by fax, and by implication, email, the party must not send a hard copy in addition.

 

Your conduct in dealing with a matter in this way is significantly contributing to the delays in the court dealing with matters. Each item of correspondence, whether it comes in by email, facsimile or post has to be individually dealt with by a member of staff. Thus one item, which only requires one action, because of the way that you are dealing with it, may require two or three separate sets of work by the court staff.

 

In the future please avoid doubling or tripling the amount of work that the court has to do, by only filing or lodging documents in one format. That is what the Civil Procedure Rules envisages, and that is what will assist the court in being as efficient as possible in these financially constrained times."

 

I might send them an apology for not being thoroughly au fait with "5APD.5 in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998".

 

To as many email addresses as I can find...

[AndyOrch]