Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • doc legal letter 3.pdfdoc legal letter 3.pdfdoc legal letter 3.pdfHi    I have lost my job in Dubai back in December 2021 and moved to UK. I have personal loan with ADCB bank for £52k and the last payment i made is in Dec 2021 along with my end of service of benefit. I couldn't pay for the last 5 month because i hardly have any saving after each month. I am planning to take out a new loan in UK once i have a good credit score to pay off that UAE loan amount but that will take an another year.   Now i have received an legal notice on 23 May from a lawyer from Dubai ( Legal notice without prejudice) saying if don't payback the full amount with 7 days they will commence legal proceedings for the recovery with Dubai international financial centre court (DIFC ) Small claims tribunal).   Do i need to respond to them?
    • The payment they are talking about is the dd they set up on my account without my knowledge in march 2014 not 2015 !      
    • A new package to help people with rising energy bills will be funded by a windfall tax on energy firms.View the full article
    • So Johnson is moving on from partygate and feels he should deal with issues the country is facing, rather than resign for the culture in No10 or misleading the commons.   The Good Law Project has issued a legal letter threatening court action unless the Met investigates 'The Three Gatherings' or explains why it doesn't think it should investigate the PM's participation in them.   The law must apply fairly to all - Good Law Project GOODLAWPROJECT.ORG The Metropolitan Police investigated the various gatherings – we use a neutral expression – around 10 Downing Street during the pandemic...  
    • Having reviewed my previous response, whilst the overall position remains the same, where I referred to a Default, this should have referred to the full amount falling due for payment/the demand for full payment.  I apologise for any confusion that this may have caused and have amended my explanation below to replace any reference to the Default Notice.   Our client’s records show that the last deferment date was the 24 April 2011. Once deferment ends, the agreement takes effect in accordance with the terms thereof – i.e. the monthly payments fall due.   The relevant limitation period in respect of this type of agreement is 6 years, pursuant to section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 (‘the act’).  In respect of this type of agreement, limitation starts to accrue when the full amount owing falls due for payment, as the creditor does not have a cause of action to bring proceedings for the full amount of the claim until that time.  The full amount owing under the agreement becomes due (and the cause of action accrues) in one of two ways, namely:   1.    If the customer fails to make required payments, the creditor can serve a Default Notice pursuant to section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.  In the event that the customer does not pay the arrears in accordance with the Default Notice, the creditor can terminate the agreement.  Limitation then starts to accrue from that date; or 2.    If the agreement is not terminated due to failure to comply with a Default Notice, the full amount falls due for payment when the full term of the agreement expires.  Limitation then starts to accrue from that date.   In this case, the agreement was not terminated under the terms of a Default Notice.  The cause of action and hence, the limitation period therefore, started to accrue from the date when the term of the agreement expired.  This was a 60 month agreement.  When a student loan account reaches its 60th month and there is still an outstanding balance, the account matures. This means it will exit the Terms and Conditions of the agreement and the balance becomes due in full. The maturity date is moved on by 12 months with each deferment period meaning that this account matured on the 31 March 2016, which is when the relevant limitation period therefore, started to accrue.  Limitation would not therefore, have expired until March 2022.  As you are aware however, proceedings were issued against you in June 2019 – i.e. comfortably within the relevant limitation period.   Further to the above, even if limitation did not start to run from the date specified above (which it did) and actually started to run from the date of last deferment in 2011 as you incorrectly allege, you did make some payments in respect of the debt, the most recent of which was on the 28 March 2015 in the amount of £90.73, which was paid to Capita under a direct debit.  Pursuant to section 29(5) of the act, the relevant limitation period accrues afresh upon each part payment.  In view of that payment, even if your view of when limitation initially started to accrue was correct (which it is not), it would have accrued afresh based upon the payment and would not therefore, have expired until March 2021.  Again, as proceedings were issued in June 2019, this was comfortably within limitation.   The Subject Access Request supplied to you by Erudio enclosed a number of letters that were issued to you throughout 2016, in which they clearly informed you that your account was in arrears. These letters made it clear that the client wished to work with you to agree an affordable repayment arrangement and that failure to do so may result in a Default being registered against you. Unfortunately, they were unable to reach an amicable resolution resulting in a Final Demand being produced on the 12 January 2017 and issued to you on the 14 January 2017 and it ultimately, becoming necessary for our client to then issue proceedings against you due to non-payment.   As such, whilst I apologise if you feel that our client deliberately delayed the cause of action in order to prolong the limitation period, I assure you that is not the case. As set out above, as the agreement was not terminated under the terms of a Default Notice, Erudio were contractually obligated to allow a 60 month period between the last deferment date and the account maturity date.  They then acted in a fair and reasonable manner by allowing an additional 10 months after the account maturity date to give you the opportunity to resolve the matter before the Demand in Full was issued.    I have also had sight of an email that you sent to my colleague, Richard Senior in which you requested us to confirm that we have complied with FCA regulation. Having reviewed the matter, I am satisfied that throughout our instruction we have acted in accordance with the relevant FCA regulation.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

barclay's defence..let's tear them apart.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5634 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts


I have recently received my allocation questionnaire and copy of barclays defence, and am now preparing for the court!


Incidentally, when i first requested my statements for my 2 current accounts they took 3 months and they have still only sent one account's statements...is this a breach of the data protection act that is worth mentioning in the allocation questionaire? i have underestimated the charges incurred on that account but am claiming 2 grand back of UNFAIR charges!


if anyone has any good paragraphs to include on my allocation questionaire i would be really grateful if you could point them out...it is quite exciting to be doing this court business but still rather nervewracking!! the posts on here have boosted my confidence but every case i guess is individual...let us pray that the court rules in OUR favour.



Link to post
Share on other sites

this is what i intend to use on mine when i have to fill it in.


1. I respectfully request that my claim be allocated to the small claims track. This issue is not a complicated one; it is an issue of fact and not of law. The issue is only whether the money levied by the Claimant in respect of its customer’s contractual breaches exceed their actual costs incurred. I am happy to pay their actual costs because I would have paid them without argument. However, the continuing problem is (in common with the 100s of other cases currently being brought by other banks customers) that the banks refuse to reveal the details of their penalty-charging regime.


2. It is my opinion that the reason they have settled these cases in such a manner is that they are unable, or unwilling, to produce the evidence to back up their position.


3. As the banks have a fiduciary duty towards their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly and in utmost good faith.


4. May it please the Court; I request that the Defendants claim is struck out on the basis that the Defendant has no basis for its defence.


5. I am aware that the Defendant has recently experienced a large number of claims for the return of charges unlawfully levied on customer’s accounts. The defendant has repeatedly acknowledged claims, entered a similar defence they entered in this claim, filed allocation questionnaires, attended case management and allocation hearings, and generally abused the legal process to its advantage. However, the defendant has failed to attend court to defend a single claim to my knowledge and has repeatedly settled claims on the ‘steps’ of the court.


6. The Defendant has at its disposal the absolute defence required to defend this claim in its entirety and yet at no time has it ever offered to prove what its costs are in respect of breaches of contract, which it claims allows it to levy charges of the magnitude it has done in the claimant and other customer’s cases.

7. I have asked the Defendant several times for them to provide a breakdown of these costs, but they have failed to accede to my request. Indeed this Defendant has also been party to numerous successful County Court claims, (attached 1) and in all the cases of which I am aware, they have settled the claims prior to reaching Court rather than produce this evidence.

8. In the event that the Court is minded to allow the defence then it is requested that the Defendant is put to standard disclosure pursuant to CPR 28.3(1) a. I understand that it is in the courts discretion to do so. I believe this would bring a rapid end to this litigation.

May I respectfully request that the court orders disclosure of:

(a) The defendants costs in relation to the administration of breaches of contract on the part of the claimant;

(b) The defendant provides evidence of its pre-estimates prepared during the period the claimant held its account with the defendant;

© That the Defendant supply to the Claimant, a full certified breakdown of the actual expenditure incurred by Abbey National in relation to each of the charges detailed in the Claim.

(d) Where the charge is purely an administration fee applied under the Terms & Conditions of the account, the Defendant supply the Claimant with certified details of how this charge was set, and the calculations used in the process of arriving at this figure.

(e) That the above actions be completed within 14 days.

(f) The defendant provides all minutes, letters, emails, faxes, records containing references to meetings, discussions or other investigations into the investigation by the Office of Fair Trade into credit card charges;

(g) The defendant provides all minutes, letters, emails, faxes, records containing references to meetings, discussions or other investigations relating to the introduction of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.


9. I can see no merit in any further delays to attempt a settlement. I would respectfully suggest to the Court that the Defendant has attempted to prevent claims being brought against it by every means possible including applications for stays. I believe that in the event that the Court sets a stay in place that this would materially benefit the Defendant at the detriment of the Claimant. I therefore respectfully request this Court that the claim is allowed to proceed as quickly as possible to its natural conclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

wow thanks v much i will go through my claim tomorrow and conjur up something along those lines, thats a v good presentation of the facts by the way, very compelling!! lets hope the judge sees how ridiculous this is!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

excellent! i have compiled something similar and have included the fact that barclays are in clear breach of data protection act 1998 as they have failed to provide my requested info within 40 days, not at all in fact. I kindly ask the judge to take into consideration also the fact that I have requested full details of charges on 2 accounts by telephone, letter and email to barclays and had no success. They have failed to provide justification for the rate at which the charges have been set; surely it is their duty to keep records of these calculations and to provide them to me as their customer upon my request?


I am going to file it at county court on monday and see what happens. i am raring to go now because of their total disrespect for their customers and arrogance!

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey....quick update....i have submitted my allocation questionnaire to the county court so i am now waiting for a hearing date!


i am scared but at least i will have my chance to say how i feel and hopefully attract the papers to the hearing since it has been rare for barclays to go the whole way! oh well fingers crossed i will get my money back, if not i will be pxxxxd off but i will do my best to prove a point! :-p

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...