Maxine V Barclaycard. **WON**

[maxine989]

If you need to look for a mod or site heler, go to the main page, scroll to the bottom, and there is a list of everyone who is active. Mods are lit up green, and site helpers are lit up pink. Admins are lit up as red.

 

Ah thanks for that. I never realised that.

[maxine989]

Hi... thanks for the imput... I have made comments in red.

 

I haven't seen this before but others may have more experience of Barclaycard & Data Protection Act. My own experience is that they are pretty poor on Data Protection Act all round. I suspect they are snowed under with work because the microfiche argument just deferred all those requests to a later date so they had double to deal with.

 

I have had a look at your other thread and I see that you have some statements. I also see Barclaycard have said that they assume you will now withdraw the court action. I assume you will not be doing so but you did say you were looking for evidence of activity in the periods where the statmenets are blank.

I wont be withdrawing the court action.

Do you have the statements immediately before and after the blank ones? Yes I do and they show that the balances do not tally... there are more details of the actual figures on my thread. Do they show a balance should be carried forward to or brought forward from one of the blank statements. Yes, that's right. It makes it obvious that the statements do not follow on from one another as they should. That would show the courts the fact that the blank statements are at least partly wrong. That with your personal testimony would demonstrate that they were all wrong but if you can get more evidence such as cheque payments as you suggested on your other thread it would all help.

 

You had said you would write to Barclaycard and this is a good idea, email or fax in view of the court date. I have been speaking to Adrian Ruffhead all week via email. He has sent me copies of the missing statements twice... both times they show the balance as zero with no tranactions. I know this is diffinately not right. I have never had a balance of zero... especially not for 18 consecutive months. I have emailed him asking him if these satements are actual copies, a true record of history. He should get that first thing Monday. Point out what you know is wrong. I suspect they will tell you and the court it was a genuine mistake. If you have a least told them what's wrong then the court cannot allow them too much latitude. If they ignore your contact it will not look good. At least the impending court date will force them to act quickly, hopefully and if they don't, it would be reasonable to ask the court to demand prompt compliance with the correct details/statements. I am confused as to what will actually happen in court if they truly have lost the data and can not provide me with actual copies from that period. I am sure if they did have the data they would have sent it by now as this has been going on since Nov 06... and I have written to them a total of 15 times and the Information Commissioners Office twice. It's all very strange. I think Barclaycard are hoping I will drop the non-compliance case becasue they are really unable to comply... their last attempt to solve it was to fob me off with these dodgy looking statements.

 

Can anyone else give some advice on the court process because I don't have much experience of that side?

 

Good luck. Thanks for the luck... But I have a feeling that it is Barclaycard who may need it.

[maxine989]

All you need to do is to check the opening balance figure on the statement nestr following the blank ones and if that shows eg 212 dr then previous statement figure should have shown a closing figure of 212dr - if it doesn't then it cannot possibly be a correct statement and would indicate the earlier ones were spurious too................ so I would say you have them bang to rights if the covering letter said that these were the copies you requested. If it does I wouldn't bother with Trading Standards at this stage I would go straight to the police on the basis that they have produced a fraudelent instrument

 

Yes, that's right. The closing balance of the last actual copy statement does not tally with the opening balance of the dodgy looking one... and the same for the last of the dodgy one to the next actual copy one. I know they are not correct because I have never been well off enough to have a balance of zero for 18 consecutive months.

 

Oo... it's all a bit scary... do you think the police would take it seriously?

[maxine989]

If your posting in relation to my dodgy statements from Barclaycard, giving any advice or comments... could you post it on my thread please.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/49090-maxine-barclaycard-6.html#post901041

 

If you have also recieved blank statements then let me know about it here...

 

Many thanks,

maxine

[maxine989]

Hi,

 

I just got sent blank statements covering the period 2004 to 2007 along with a letter saying the older stuff is saved on microfiche and although 'they don't believe they should have to do so, as a gesture of goodwill they will send these through in 6 weeks'

 

My account was closed in 2003 so it was a complete waste of time sending me 2004-7

 

So it seems they send out blank ones when they do not have any data for that period... hmm

 

Interesting.

 

Thanks.

[maxine989]

Barracad... what do you make of it all?

[Josie8]

Yes, that's right. The closing balance of the last actual copy statement does not tally with the opening balance of the dodgy looking one... and the same for the last of the dodgy one to the next actual copy one. I know they are not correct because I have never been well off enough to have a balance of zero for 18 consecutive months.

 

Oo... it's all a bit scary... do you think the police would take it seriously?

 

 

Well from what you saud and what i've read on your posts it would appear that they have indeed produced and sent you fraudulent instruments with an intention of deceiving you into thinking that they had coplied with your SAR request and should therefore halt the court proceedings. You may find that you will have to complain to the police (ask for the fraud squad) and if they show no inclination write to the Chief Constable asking why an institution such as Barclaycard is deemed to be above the law.

 

In any event you should proceed with the court proceedings and you will find the judge will take a very dim view of their behaviour - it amounts to a contempt of court.

 

You may well find that Barclays legal department will "run for the hills" and may be inclined to settle your whole claim if you have a figure you're happy with - but they should be made to pay more for the con they appear to have tried to pull.

 

I would also complain to the OFT about their fitness to hold a credit license (as they are supposed to be whiter than white in these matters).

[Mistermind]

....

Right then... I got a bundle of statements on the 7th June... some were the missing statements. But again... I was still missing May 04 - Dec 05.

 

So I emailed Ruffnuts once again and expained I still had missing dates.

 

This morning (9th June, aside by Mistermind) I recieved another bundle of statements.... for dates May 04 - Dec 05.

 

A suspect bundle arrived by post on 9th June, presumably postmarked 8th June (this postmark wrapping ought to be retrieved asap from the bin). This amazingly efficient delivery was prompted by Maxine's email sent on 7th June(?). Ruffnuts are to be highly commended for delivering within 24 hours 19 months' worth of statements which previously could not be delivered over months and months.

 

Far be it from me to suggest the following was the statement production mechanism. I have heard of template letters and template replies. But are there such things as template statements, with name, account number, dates and balances to be filled in by input at the PC? How strange that Maxine's name and address are correct but her account number is wrong. Has the template statement not been updated in full since the previous use? Tut tut.

 

I would suggest that so far nothing worse has been proven beyond error and muddle, explainable as the result of cack-handed reproduction of old statements by non-IT lawyers. To prove intent to deceive, a written confirmation will be needed from the culprits -- "Yes this is a true and correct reprint of the original statements".

 

Apart from the police and the criminal courts, a PLC is in even greater fear of the court of public opinion which makes it possible for them to do business at all. As for the News of the World -- well I have always wanted to see Maxine draped across page 3....

[Josie8]

A suspect bundle arrived by post on 9th June, presumably postmarked 8th June (this postmark wrapping ought to be retrieved asap from the bin). This amazingly efficient delivery was prompted by Maxine's email sent on 7th June(?). Ruffnuts are to be highly commended for delivering within 24 hours 19 months' worth of statements which previously could not be delivered over months and months.

 

Far be it from me to suggest the following was the statement production mechanism. I have heard of template letters and template replies. But are there such things as template statements, with name, account number, dates and balances to be filled in by input at the PC? How strange that Maxine's name and address are correct but her account number is wrong. Has the template statement not been updated in full since the previous use? Tut tut.

 

I would suggest that so far nothing worse has been proven beyond error and muddle, explainable as the result of cack-handed reproduction of old statements by non-IT lawyers. To prove intent to deceive, a written confirmation will be needed from the culprits -- "Yes this is a true and correct reprint of the original statements".

 

Apart from the police and the criminal courts, a PLC is in even greater fear of the court of public opinion which makes it possible for them to do business at all. As for the News of the World -- well I have always wanted to see Maxine draped across page 3....

 

 

Well it will be interesting to see the response she gets .................but the letter they sent her in which they said they had now complied with the SAR and told her to drop court proceedings and they wouldn't be responsible for the costs of court bundles etc would appear to be (assuming they know what their duties are under the SAR to produce documentation relating to her account) an attempt to decieve her into dropping the proceedings.

 

Moi - I think you are being a wee bit too charitable here

[Mistermind]

In the accompanyng letter with the dodgy statements ... Ruffnuts says:

 

"As all copy statements have now been povided,

.....

Adrian Ruffhead"

 

This is the crucial getout clause. They did not say reprints of the original statements. They did not say true copies. They did not say what was the mechanism of copying, whether it was the modern PC equivalent of a clerk transcribing figures from one piece of paper to another, a junior paid at £5 per hour.

 

They just delivered a pile of papers. If one side claims conspiracy and the other side muddle, the judge has to decide.

 

PS. Even the account number was wrong. The culprit could say these were not Maxine's statements at all. Just error upon error upon error. Appalling, but not proven as a criminal offence.

[Josie8]

This is the crucial getout clause. They did not say reprints of the original statements. They did not say true copies. They did not say what was the mechanism of copying, whether it was the modern PC equivalent of a clerk transcribing figures from one piece of paper to another, a junior paid at £5 per hour.

 

They just delivered a pile of papers. If one side claims conspiracy and the other side muddle, the judge has to decide.

 

PS. Even the account number was wrong. The culprit could say these were not Maxine's statements at all. Just error upon error upon error. Appalling, but not proven as a criminal offence.

 

Well as I said it will be interesting to see what response they give because if they write back insisting they have complied with the SAR then I would be inclined to take them at their word and see how they explain that one:p

[maxine989]

I am really looking forward to Adrian Ruffheads response to my email tomorrow. I have already sent it so he should read it first thing when he gets into the office. Hopefully he will respond straight away (as he has with all of his other emails). If he doesn't respond, then... well... I suppose it's off to court we go.

 

I have still got the enverlopes that the statements arrived in with the post date on... and also the covering letters are dated and all refer to dated correspodences via email between myself and Adrian Ruffhead (or Ruffnuts as I like to call him now) which was the day before the bundles were sent... So yes... this could also be used to show how Barclaycard have kept me waiting for 7 months with no apparent reason.

 

Also... Ruffnuts did say in his covering letter that the copy statements were for

 

"for account 4929 *** **** ****, which also appears as 4929 **** **** ****".

 

So he himself has stated that the differing account numbers are in affect for the same account. So they would not be say it was a mix up in the court. Why I have two sets numbers for one account I do not know!! I have never noticed the numbers changing over the years. I have also asked him about this in the email which he will read tomorrow.

[joneshousehold]

I agree Maxine, you would have expected them to have supplied the information if they have it. I know you said the account number was wrong and it may be this is the reason for the incorrect statements. We shall see what they say when/if they reply. If Barclaycard claim to have destroyed the information then they should keep a record of when it was destroyed and the method (it's a requirement of either the DPA or the Information Commissioners Office I think) so you could ask to see the evidence of date and method if they try that argument. I am not sure how I know this information, I think it was from some of the other threads but I can't remember which. Try searching for words such as 'information' and 'destroyed' or 'destruction' and see if that turns anything up. Alternatively you could ring the Information Commissioners Office to see if they know why. I don't have a lot of faith in these regulatory bodies but you may strike lucky. It could prove to be a useful piece of research if Barclaycard do try to offer the accidental destruction argument. I would however be inclined to point out that the account number on the statements supplied is wrong and that it is more likely that they sent the wrong information even though it does show your name and address. Try to argue that it is likely that was altered at the time they were sent just to send the statements to you. You might have to be imaginative!

I really love these sorts of situation. You have to try and think about what disproves their statements, anticipate their defence and try to highlight why you think they are wrong, incompetent or whatever. Try to avoid the emotive stuff like 'deliberate' or 'fraud' because I have an inclination judges don't like it. They want everyone to be reasonable, no mud slinging etc. You want a clear cut situation before you can use strong words like that.

Sorry to ramble on, I am writing things that spring to mind as I type this post. If you post any more thoughts I will try to keep an eye on the thread although last week was very busy at work and I have not been able to get on CAG quite as much as I would like.

Break a leg - just to ring the changes!

[maxine989]

Thanks Joneshousehold...

 

Adrian Ruffhead did say in his covering letter that the copy statements were for

 

"for account 4929 *** **** ****, which also appears as 4929 **** **** ****".

 

So he himself has stated that the differing account numbers are in effect for the same account. So they would not be able to say it was a mix up in the court. Why I have two sets numbers for one account I do not know!! I have never noticed the numbers changing over the years. I have also asked him about this in the email which he will read tomorrow.

 

Thanks for the input. I am beginning to think more and more that they really do not have the data to send me, in which case I will estimate the amount of penalty charges applied to my account for that period and continue with the non-compliance case too.

[joneshousehold]

Did you actually use the account in that period or should they just show interest charged and your payments? If it was you could probably have a bit of a stab at recalculating just to provide a reasonable basis for the estimation.

[maxine989]

yes the account was used during that period. I have never had a balance of zero (wishful thinking...lol) especially not for a period of 18 months. During this time I was at Uni and the card was almost always maxed out.

[Josie8]

I am really looking forward to Adrian Ruffheads response to my email tomorrow. I have already sent it so he should read it first thing when he gets into the office. Hopefully he will respond straight away (as he has with all of his other emails). If he doesn't respond, then... well... I suppose it's off to court we go.

 

I have still got the enverlopes that the statements arrived in with the post date on... and also the covering letters are dated and all refer to dated correspodences via email between myself and Adrian Ruffhead (or Ruffnuts as I like to call him now) which was the day before the bundles were sent... So yes... this could also be used to show how Barclaycard have kept me waiting for 7 months with no apparent reason.

 

Also... Ruffnuts did say in his covering letter that the copy statements were for

 

"for account 4929 *** **** ****, which also appears as 4929 **** **** ****".

 

So he himself has stated that the differing account numbers are in affect for the same account. So they would not be say it was a mix up in the court. Why I have two sets numbers for one account I do not know!! I have never noticed the numbers changing over the years. I have also asked him about this in the email which he will read tomorrow.

 

 

Well personally if it was me I would already be looking at it as an attempt to deceive me into thinking they had provided me with what they were legally obliged to do....................so it will be very interesting to see what Adrian has to say in reply to you.....................especially as he has already confirmed that they are correct. He will probably say the differing account nos relate to different card numbers you've been given on renewal - did the earlier statements reflect the same account number as the later statements ? :p

[joneshousehold]

Might be impossible to recalculate then. At least your payments should be of a similar amount each month so you should be able to find some of them from your bank statements. Missing ones and larger ones may suggest a charge and you could use that as a basis for estimating the charges.

 

Best crossing that bridge when you get to it. Leave that side for now and concentrate on your hearing.

[maxine989]

Will do.

 

It would be good if I could negotiate a settlement for my charges from them in relation to the non-compliance case.

 

Maybe if they realise they could be treading through murky water, they will settle the whole thing.

 

I had previously sent them an LBA on estimated charges, but wasn't confident of taking them to court on estimated figures... & also didn't have the spare cash for the court fees, so I haven't moved forward with the charges claim.

 

Do you think it would be wise to try and negotiate a settlement with them in order to end the claim for charges and the non-compliance case? They must know they are taking a big chance here... especially if they really haven't got the actual data to give me.

 

I haven't got much time as the court date is getting nearer and I will soon be printing off the court bundle to send to them.

 

I was planning on filing the charges claim Monday (tomorrow)... but am thinking it may be wise to try and negotiate with them considering what is going on here with the non-compliance.

 

I suppose the first thing to do is to wait and see what Ruffnuts says in the morning.

 

Anyway... It's been a busy day... I have been printing off and organising court bundles for my o/h's natwest. Need sleep... & I bet my 13 month old will wake up at the crack of dawn...ARGGGHHH!!

 

Nitey nite

 

[joneshousehold]

You could try to settle the whole lot with them if they are willing to do so. It will depend on whether Barclaycard play ball I suppose. I have no experience of it to be honest, they never did settle with me but then I got them into a default position under Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act so they get nothing. That was last November and they have gone incredibly quiet now.

[skbuncks]

Hiya... just wanted to ask...

 

You say you got your statements up to May 04... were the ones after that OK? The ones after May 04...? Were any of them a bit dodgy looking... with zero as your balance showing no transactions??

 

I am asking this because I have been battling to get my statements from Barclaycard since Nov 06... and they are trying fob me off for some of the dates with fake looking statements... ones that have nothing on them... no balance and no tranactions.

 

I think they have lost some data and really can not retrieve it and so are hoping I don't notice all the zero's on some of my statements.

 

Take a look at my thread... the last few pages. See what you think.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/49090-maxine-barclaycard-6.html

 

cheers...

 

Good luck with your claim.

 

Maxine

 

Hi Maxine,

 

If memory serves me right there was no discrepancy between pre and post may 04. Reading through your thread there is definetely something fishy going on. I sincerely hope you can prove to court today that BC were deliberately forging statements. That would be sweet and would certainly serve them right for being such awkward bar stewards in the first place

 

good luck

skb

[maxine989]

Yes too right.

 

I am still waiting for Ruffheads response to my email... should arrive today... I HOPE!

[Josie8]

Should be very interesting...............................

[Mistermind]

He is preparing to emigrate.

[maxine989]

Surprise surprise... no reply from Ruffnuts! I had a feeling he wouldn't be as prompt this time. All the other times he has emailed me back within hours... when he was trying to get the statements out to me and asking me to confirm the case had been vacated. Now he doesn't seem to be as quick to jump to attention. I wonder why that is??? Hmmm....

 

So... what do you think the best course of action is now peeps...?

 

I am thinking of compiling a letter to the litigation dept and trying to get some sort of settlement in order for me to to 'drop' the non-compliance case.

 

Any ideas on wording the letter... obviously I don't want to go wading in there accusing them of fraud. However, I do want them to understand that I am aware they are treading in very murky waters and that a settlement of my charges claim (including the estimated amounts) would be a lot easier than a non-compliance court case that reveals them as fraudsters.

 

Any ideas???

 

I will start compiling a letter later tonight & will post my progress here later.

 

Thanks for all your comments and support so far folks. I do appreciate it.