PRA Letter of Claim - now Fast Track claimform - 2000 barclaycard debt - now n244

[RobinB4nk]

Not sure what the award is, they said refund interest on balances above 7k, which was the limit in 2013. but there has been multiple increases to the 2016 16k limit. account has always been pretty much racked up the entire period. so quite difficult to calculate.

 

regarding pra how does that leave the claim? given that everything since 2013 is pretty much irrelevant? is the default notice even ligit, how could they even enforce a 'left over'? seems all messy to me.

 

TBH, i feel a claim against Barclaycard in the wings.

[dx100uk]

you already have a claim against bc.

what else do you feel needs addressing ?

[RobinB4nk]

Well the FOS have not given compensation , only a refund in relation to interest, there's also nothing punitive.

 

Its like a being burgled and having your possessions stolen, then when the police catch the thieves, they simply hand the stolen goods back and everything's ok.

 

Well its not ok is it. without compensation or punitive costs the thieves will simply do it again.

 

We know how it works, its maths, the lenders and dca's operate knowing this. hell, even the ombudsman knows this, everybody does.

 

The FOS have given nothing in relation to the fact that Barclaycard has through irresponsible lending caused collateral financial issues with other aspects of life and other lenders.

 

It fails to take into account stress and anxiety, not to mention selling the debt to a bunch of scammers causing a whole load more of wasted time and stress.

 

In my mind, they've been caught, quite rightly. And they should be made to pay back properly what they've taken.

 

rant over

[dx100uk]

the FOS are not morality or hurt feelings police.

 

dx

 

[RobinB4nk]

That may well be, which is why a summons will most likely be heading barclays way. 

[dx100uk]

for what?

dx

[RobinB4nk]

In this country you are entitled to be compensated for financial loss if someone is found to be negligent. I will issue a summons for financial loss which has arisen from there irresponsible lending.

 

At the end of the day if they've taken £100-£300/mth in interest because of irresponsible lending, then that money has not been available for other things.

 

It is those other things which have a value which have been lost.

 

For example, it hindered your ability to pay down other loans/credit, which meant you paid more interest, as an example.

 

That money could have been used for a pension fund, which has now been lost.

 

hell, at a bare minimum you should be entitled to interest on that lost money. the list is endless.

[dx100uk]

Unless the account goes into the black, its only a notional debt, no-one actually paid that interest least of all the card holder.

you cant claim compo against money you didn't pay them in the 1st place.

 

stop dreaming

[RobinB4nk]

sorry i dont understand, interest was paid every month until payments stopped, the FOS have investigated, they havre been found to be irresponsible, they have accepted the findings. the door is wide open to a claim

[dx100uk]

yes ...think about it though - its only notional interest.

 

even if you were to remove all interest charged on the card balance and use his payments against the resultant outstanding balance,

there would still be a debt.

 

he couldn't of invested that money anywhere, he was still paying the real debt , not a notional interest payment each month as that has been all  removed.

 

 

[RobinB4nk]

sry dx, i dont understand. the FOS are saying that they should never have lent any more than 7k, probably even less. yet they've been taking interest payments for a 16k card. that means hes not had the benefit of that difference.

[dx100uk]

but does that leave an outstanding balance still?

 

if it does that means even if they remove the interest and use his payments against that non interest balance, he still would have had to have made those payments, so he is not out of pocket, so could not have invested it elsewhere.

 

the IRL complaint system was bought in to kill PayDay Loan companies, which universally it almost 100% did.

but those companies were charging interest in the +1000%. it was to be called Short Term High Interest , but those letter could make a swear word, so they called it Irresponsible Lending Bill...

 

punters ended up paying more money in interest than the amount initially borrowed, so when they were refunded, it often meant punters got moneyback, physically.

 

Highstreet Card, Loan and OD interest is rarely above 50% and financially that can never equate to more interest paid than transactions made.

 

you also can't counteract the statute barring limit imposed by the FOS. not even a judge can do that.

[RobinB4nk]

Firstly, I don't understand this attitude that the capital borrowed is different to the interest charged. If they lent irresponsibly then tough they shouldn't get any of it back, they are a multimillion/billion pound outfit and they know the law inside out. I appreciate the whole you've had it and you've spent it blah blah blah... but as said #53 there is no real deterrent to irresponsible lending.

 

I hear what you are saying, you've borrowed x and you've paid y. does y cover x. But this is very simplistic and takes the contract as a whole. This is not a Chargecard, people work to a monthly cycle. You cant escape the fact that from a monthly perspective there is substantial reduction in spendable income and with that financial loss.

 

In any event, is it really likely that Barclaycard will go in front of a judge, when they've been found guilty of irresponsible lending and plead for a few quid, I think not!

[dx100uk]

he still spent the capital on purchases and even without interest will not have repaid the capital in full. 

the interest is purely notional in relation to a successful IRL ruling and the ruling by the FOS does not mean BC should never have issued the card.

 

dx

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RobinB4nk]

This is a quote from the FOS findings:

 

“CONC makes it clear that Barclaycard is required to complete reasonable and proportionate checks to ensure Mr *********** could repay any amount he was borrowing in a sustainable manner, without it adversely impacting his financial situation.”

 

the reality they didnt, so why should they expect to be repaid?

[dx100uk]

why dont you scan up all the letter to one mass pdf

read upload

 

dx

 

[dx100uk]

1 hour ago, RobinB4nk said:

the reality they didnt, so why should they expect to be repaid?

who be repaid and what?

 

why not scan up the whole letter to one mass pdf

read our upload guide carefully

 

[RobinB4nk]

What im saying is they lent money that was unaffordable, it couldn’t be repaid.

Nothing has changed, it cant be paid back.

 

it follows how and why would it be expected to be?

 

To me its an unfair contract, to lend money to someone knowing they cannot afford to repay it.

 

As for not suffering loss because you've not paid back the borrowing i just see as smoke and mirrors.

[dx100uk]

On 05/10/2022 at 14:22, dx100uk said:

Well no.

 

He wont nor did actually owed the money as its a notional debt anyway, made of their unlawful lending.

 

So there is no 'refund' to anyone as such, but whatever Barclaycard might be told to do, any sum awarded will be removed from the outstanding balance, any excess over whats owed, would yes goto him.

 

I would suspect bc will buy the debt back anyway and sort it out that way.

 

As for the credit file, it might be that bc should not have defaulted him, when everything is undone. So KeeP a. Close eye on that and make it a part of any settlement if he wins.

 

Dx

i hark you back to the above... you knew this was coming..

 

  

41 minutes ago, RobinB4nk said:

What im saying is they lent money that was unaffordable, it couldn’t be repaid.

Nothing has changed, it cant be paid back. and the FOS has addressed this by removing the interest in line with IRL Rules.

 

it follows how and why would it be expected to be? because he used up the credit 

 

To me its an unfair contract, to lend money to someone knowing they cannot afford to repay it. quite correct and that has been addressed in line with enforceable rules

 

As for not suffering loss because you've not paid back the borrowing i just see as smoke and mirrors.

 

even if he had not been given or used the additional funds since 2013, he still already owed more than what he has repaid since 2013 , he would not have had more money in his pocket  eitherway so has not been deprived of investing it. in all truth he has has had MORE money and has gone an spent it!!

 

its a win.

it'll most probably kill the court claim.

so the BC debt is now dead in the water.

what else do you want for someone whom, quite honestly, is crap with finances.

 

and i bet as sure as eggs is eggs this is not the only credit he has.

 

get dealing with those before MORe crap hits the fan.

 

move on not try and undo a good win

 

use the experience wisely.....

 

time for more IRL complaints...that will help him far more than crying over spilt milk now cleared up.

 

we are here to help, not offer justification on decisions we've dealt with time and again..

 

[RobinB4nk]

Hi dx,

thank you for your response, as always i find invaluable. I agree its a win, providing the whole thing goes away.

 

Quote

"and i bet as sure as eggs is eggs this is not the only credit he has."

funny you should say that lol.

 

I am learning and will of course apply this to other more pressing issues as you have alluded, I do realise that sometimes one has to know when to quit, and that the moral high ground can be costly.

 

Many Thanks again for your help.

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by RobinB4nk

[dx100uk]

if you want help or clarification

start a new thread in the debt self help forum.

 

1st is to probably write to everyone with new address? and start the CCA/Pro-rata letters.

or go Gov't breathing space option

 

dx

 

[RobinB4nk]

Thought to good to be true, the muppets at PRA Group have paid to have the stay lifted, so have received 'notice of proposed allocation to the fast track', have to respond by 13/04.

 

We have agreed with the FOS and they have told 'Barclays Bank UK PLC to settle the complaint directly in the way we agreed'. clearly the claim is wrong on many different levels.

 

So what's the next move?

[dx100uk]

Scan the n244 and everything else they've sent to one mass pdf please 

[RobinB4nk]

hi dx, 

not sure what n244 is? I've attached what's been received.

01-combined.pdf

[dx100uk]

On 18/03/2023 at 16:51, RobinB4nk said:

Thought to good to be true, the muppets at PRA Group have paid to have the stay lifted

the only way to do this is via an N244 with a fee.

so it never was stayed. just delayed?

 

is that N181 addressed to YOU or the claimant?

what is the status of the claim on MCOL?

 

dx