barclays - Entered Wrongful adverse Credit info - complained to FCA/ICO - FOS ruled in our favour - but consequential loss are? PAPLOC issued now

**dx100uk** · September 18, 2023

that is NOT A POC its a WITNESS STATEMENT!!

please go LOOK at what you put in a POC

look at the postal forum or click evri and read a few threads.

CaptainMannering · September 18, 2023

Thanks dx.

nowhere near as detailed then just the facts and legal basis in bullet points then.

I’ll draft it in the morning. I’m reading claims are taking almost a year to get to hearing at the min.

with the damage done, particularly round credit scores, another years worth of damages is going to cripple us, more so when it’s Barclays that’s dragged it out this long up to now.
still no response to the LBA yet and forms going in this week, is it just a case of wait wait wait or can you press another way by maybe threatening to increase damages claimed the longer they delay?

**dx100uk** · September 18, 2023

you dont need any legal ANYTHING.

just the very basic fact WHY you are issuing the court claim.

CaptainMannering · September 19, 2023

1. Claimants have held a basic current account with the defendant since 19 March 2019.

2. In December 2022 the defendant made a credit payment into the current account for £512 which took the account balance to £512.

3. The claimant was informed in writing by the defendant that the payment was a refund payment to the claimants.

4. The claimant debited the sue of £512 to take the account balance to £0 on the account.

5. The defendant breached the terms and conditions set under the bank account when they debited a sum of £512 and took the account into an unauthorised overdrawn state.

6. The defendant breached the terms of a final notice issued by the financial conduct authority on 19 December 2019 when subjecting the claimants to treatment for which it was sanctioned for.

7. The defendant had breached further principles and guidebooks set by the financial conduct authority in its treatment of the claimants.

8. The defendant has caused financial hardship and credit problems for claimants as a result of their actions.

9. The defendant has acted unlawfully towards the claimants.

**dx100uk** · September 19, 2023

thats better. now slightly expand .

link 2+3 and BRIEFLY add the reason WHY the defendant made the £512 payment to your account. add dates.

4 does not make sense...but you dont need to include you took out the £512 that immaterial. its your money.

5. make this 4. add the date and remove the T&C's bit put that as a new point 5 . 4. On date the defendant re debited the £512 from the account (give their reason why they did this)

5 . add T&C's bit . add you complained to the FOS on date and on date the fos decided...(crux FOS statement)

7 name the rules / guidelines like COBBs or BCOBBS the defendant has breached

honeybee13 · September 20, 2023

Minor point in #6. 'treatment for which it was sanctioned for'.

HB

CaptainMannering · September 20, 2023

1. Claimants have held a basic current account with the defendant since 19 March 2019.

2. On 22nd November 2022 the defendant made a credit payment into the current account for £512 which took the account balance to £512.The claimant was informed in writing by the defendant on 25th November 2022 that the payment was a refund payment after their investigation team had completed their review.

3. On 16th December the defendant re debited the sum of £512 after a letter dated 7th December 2022 claiming this was now a "temporary refund" which was against its previous statement of it being a refund payment.

4. The defendant breached the terms and conditions set under the bank account (Barclays and You & Barclays Overdraft lending commitments) when they debited a sum of £512 and took the account into an unauthorised overdrawn state.

5. The defendant breached the terms of a final notice issued by the financial conduct authority on 19 December 2019 when subjecting the claimants to treatment for which it was sanctioned for'.

6. The defendant had breached further principles and guidebooks set by the financial conduct authority in its treatment of the claimants. These are: Principles 2.1, BCOBS, CONC, Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 77 & GDPR Act 2018

7. The defendant has breached the Financial Conduct Authority terms of "Unauthorised payments from your account".

8. The claimants exhausted the defendants internal complaints procedure and referred the matter to the FOS February 2023. The FOS ruled in the claimants favour on 30 April 2023. The decision was reviewed after defendants provided information to the FOS, over 4 weeks after it was requested from them, and after seeing the outcome ruling from the FOS. The FOS then requested further evidence from the defendant relating to debit card details after 28th July 2023 after the claimant raised concerns, the defendant failed to provide this information to the FOS.

9. The defendant has caused financial hardship and credit problems for claimants as a result of their actions.

10. The defendant has acted unlawfully towards the claimants.

honeybee13 · September 20, 2023

What is now point 5 still has 'for' twice in the same sentence. IMO you don't need both.

HB

CaptainMannering · September 20, 2023

Thanks HB I’ll amend that, I thought you were referring to the apostrophe not the double use of the word

I’ll wait to see what dx comes back with

to add in a point regarding the fos however - the FOS did not consider the issues relating to the refund, re debiting of this or the consequences of it (credit score etc). The fos only actually looked into the disputed transactions and their investigation of this.

the fos were poor really in this hence the legal route being pursued.

not sure if this would affect the poc

**dx100uk** · September 25, 2023

1 add 'joint' basic current ....

2. had completed their review. you must briefly explain WHY the payment was made by the defendant.

3. £512 after a letter .... following a letter

the rest still doesnt really follow well particularly the lengthy 7.

you need to refine that and make it more succinct and understandable

CaptainMannering · October 12, 2023

Hi dx, apologies for the delay in coming back to you just had a bit of time away on R&R.

So to update a little, Barclays solicitor had asked we didn't submit any forms to court until we received a formal letter of response from their client which arrived last week. This was without any knowledge of the specifics of any claim we would be bringing against them.

In short their response (9 pages written by their legal rep) is in no way different to what barclays have stated to us previously in correspondence to us. Its clear also from the response that Barclays have given a very select and inaccurate version of events and have negated to tell them a lot of key information.

They have stated that we have to substantiate our losses etc and they claim no breach of contract has taken place. We have written back as requested and outlined exactly what breaches we bring claim on and confirmed a lot of the details and examples of wrongdoing which Barclays haven't disclosed to them.

Is it worth uploading the response from their solicitor and our reply for you to look over?

Seems the timescales for cases getting to court are upwards of 52 weeks,

is there any way to expedite this as as its been a year of credit damage and financial hardship up to now, another year is likely to ruin both claimants further.

Can we issue a statutory demand for payment via the SD1 form or is there another way to get a case heard and resolved quickly?

Thanks

**dx100uk** · October 12, 2023

id not sweat upon case allocation, thats down to your selected court once you get past mcol.

pers i'd not be dictated too by barclays and allow them to control your claim.

get the letter of claim properly sorted, get it done correctly and up here for checking

then on day 15 launch your claim regardless.

dx

CaptainMannering · October 12, 2023

Hi dx, we cant use MCOL as there are 2 of us claiming (both account holders).

The letter of claim being the POC I take it?

**dx100uk** · October 12, 2023

of course you can use mcol!

your letter of claim is nothing to do with your poc nor the court claim

its compliance with the pre action protocol which you must abide by.

you've wasted 5 months already by some weird ideas and thinking

dx

CaptainMannering · October 12, 2023

i apologise dx I'm no expert you and the terminology is sometimes confusing!

letter of claim says to me that its the letter you issue advising the other party of your intent to claim, which has been issued already.

the attached is from the MCOL application which states you cant make the claim using the service if more than one person is claiming and there are two of us?

mcol (2).pdf

**dx100uk** · October 12, 2023

ok has to be a paperclaim, but what i meant was you can still issue a joint claim.

get you PAPLOC done.

CaptainMannering · October 13, 2023

Thanks dx, i really do appreciate your time and don't mean to frustrate you.

So the MCOL process then, is that different to simply printing off the N1 form and submitting this to the courts and third party?

honeybee13 · October 13, 2023

The N1 is the beginning of the process, whether via MCOL or on paper. have you read our small claims guide? Click on the words to go through to another page.

HB

CaptainMannering · October 13, 2023

1. Claimants have held a joint basic current account with the defendant since 19 March 2019.

2. On 23rd November 2022 the defendant made a credit payment into the current account for £512 which took the account balance to £512.The claimant was informed in writing by the defendant on 25th November 2022 that the payment was a refund payment after their investigation team had completed their review of disputed transactions.

3. On 16th December the defendant re debited the sum of £512 following a letter dated 7th December 2022 claiming this was now a "temporary refund" which was against its previous advice of it being a refund payment.

4. The defendant breached their terms and conditions (Barclays & You & Barclays Overdraft lending commitments) when they debited a sum of £512 and took the account into an unauthorised overdraft.

5. The defendant breached the terms of a final notice issued by the Financial Conduct Authority on 19 December 2019 when subjecting the claimants to treatment which it was previously sanctioned for.

6. The defendant has breached Principles 2.1, BCOBS, CONC, Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 77, GDPR Act 2018 & the Financial Conduct Authority terms "Unauthorised payments from your account".

7. The claimants exhausted the defendants’ internal complaints procedure & referred the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service in February 2023.

8. The FOS only investigated part of the claimant’s complaint specifically the disputed transactions & their investigation into these. The FOS did not consider any matters relating to the refund payment, their handling of this or the consequences of the defendants’ actions on the claimants.

9.The FOS ruled in the claimants favour on 28th April 2023. Comments from the FOS confirmed an inconsistent investigation which was not investigated properly by “confused staff” who provide no evidence or rationale for any decisions.

10. The FOS also requested further evidence from the defendant relating to debit card details around 28th July 2023. The defendant has failed to provide this (and other) information to the FOS to continue their investigation.

11. The defendant has caused financial hardship & credit problems for claimants as a result of their actions. The credit issues began in January 2023 & have had severe consequences on the claimants’ lives.

12. The defendant failed to act on instructions from the FOS in their outcome on 28 April which asked them to rework the claimants credit files. The defendant did not comment or action this.

13. The defendant has acted unlawfully towards the claimants and the claimants seek compensation including non-material damages and exemplary damages. The damage to claimant’s credit scores is of significant concern particularly as both claimants are company directors, and their businesses rely on healthy credit to operate. The damages continue to increase due to the delays of the defendant and claimants’ level of redress is continuing to rise daily.

14. The defendant provided inaccurate data to the FOS (file titled “investigation notes”) in February/March 2023. This file was later supplied to the claimants after redaction by the defendant however it contained information which was different to that it originally supplied the FOS. The defendant unlawfully denied the FOS the opportunity to comment on details of the original file when the claimants asked the FOS, it was claimed Barclays warned them with a confidentially clause. The claimants proved no confidentially claim could be upheld on the data and the FOS confirmed the data and claims made to us was inaccurate and that data has been manipulated by the defendant to support their submission.

**dx100uk** · October 13, 2023

30 minutes ago, CaptainMannering said:

2: add...their review of some disputed transactions following a previous complaint made (date) by the Claimants.

34 minutes ago, CaptainMannering said:

5. The defendant breached the terms of a final notice issued by the Financial Conduct Authority on 19 December 2019 when subjecting the claimants to treatment which it was previously sanctioned for.

you need to explain what led to the issuance of this FCA final notice first.

the rest doesn't 'flow'.

as in terms of you know what went on, but the rest of this (i assume this is you proposed court claim POC) does not tell the judge WHY you are stating such. they do not know the story.

7-10 can be merged to one, as its a resume of your FOS dealings and why you are bringing the claim as the FOS did not address all your issues. hence the court claim .

you need too...make clear WHAT you are claiming, why you are claiming it and what redress you require .

CaptainMannering · October 16, 2023

1. Claimants have held a joint basic current account with the defendant since 19 March 2019.

2. On 23rd November 2022 the defendant made a credit payment into the current account for £512 which took the account balance to £512.The claimant was informed in writing by the defendant on 25th November 2022 that the payment was a refund payment after their investigation team had completed their review of disputed transactions.

3.The claimants had raised its initial dispute over transactions on 6^th September 2022 and after the defendant reviewed some of these transactions, they refunded the sum of £953 back to the account and in a letter dated 22^nd September 2022 confirmed around 30 transactions as fraudulent.

4. On 16th December the defendant re debited the sum of £512 following a letter dated 7th December 2022 claiming this was now a "temporary refund" which was against its previous advice of it being a refund payment.

5. The defendant breached their terms and conditions (Barclays & You & Barclays Overdraft lending commitments) when they debited a sum of £512 and took the account into an unauthorised overdraft.

6. On 19^th December 2019 the defendant was issued a Final Notice by the FCA for “breaching Principles 6 and 3 of the Authority’s Principles for Businesses and CONC 6.7.2R, 7.2.1R and 7.3.4R from its Consumer Credit sourcebook by failing to show forbearance and due consideration to business and retail customers when they fell into arrears or experienced financial difficulties. Barclays failed to treat customers who fell into arrears fairly in a number of ways: Customer Contact, Customer Circumstances and Forbearance”.

7. The defendant breached the terms of a final notice issued by the Financial Conduct Authority on 19 December 2019 when subjecting the claimants to treatment which it was previously sanctioned for in that notice.

8. The defendant has breached Principles 2.1, BCOBS, CONC, Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 77, GDPR Act 2018 & the Financial Conduct Authority terms "Unauthorised payments from your account".

9. The claimants exhausted the defendants’ internal complaints procedure & referred the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service in February 2023. The FOS only investigated part of the claimant’s complaint specifically the disputed transactions & their investigation into these. The FOS did not consider any matters relating to the refund payment, their handling of this or the consequences of the defendants’ actions on the claimants. The FOS ruled in the claimants favour on 28th April 2023. Comments from the FOS confirmed an inconsistent investigation which was not investigated properly by “confused staff” who provide no evidence or rationale for any decisions. The FOS also requested further evidence from the defendant relating to debit card details around 28th July 2023. The defendant has failed to provide this (and other) information to the FOS to continue their investigation.

10. The defendant has caused financial hardship & credit problems for claimants as a result of their actions. The credit issues began in January 2023 & have had severe consequences on the claimants’ lives.

11. The defendant failed to act on instructions from the FOS in their outcome on 28 April which asked them to rework the claimants credit files. The defendant did not comment or action this.

12. The defendant has acted unlawfully towards the claimants and the claimants seek compensation including non-material damages and exemplary damages. The damage to claimant’s credit scores is of significant concern particularly as both claimants are company directors, and their businesses rely on healthy credit to operate. The damages continue to increase due to the delays of the defendant and claimants’ level of redress is continuing to rise daily.

13. The defendant provided inaccurate data to the FOS (file titled “investigation notes”) in February/March 2023. This file was later supplied to the claimants after redaction by the defendant however it contained information which was different to that it originally supplied the FOS. The defendant unlawfully denied the FOS the opportunity to comment on details of the original file when the claimants asked the FOS, it was claimed Barclays warned them with a confidentially clause. The claimants proved no confidentially claim could be upheld on the data and the FOS confirmed the data and claims made to us was inaccurate and that data has been manipulated by the defendant to support their submission.

14. The claimants seek financial compensation for the outstanding disputed transactions which have not been refunded as well as to cover damages to the claimants credit scores and ability to obtain credit for the period from January 2023. This is to cover increases in borrowing rates, refusal of credit and any debts as a result of non-payment of the outstanding disputed amounts which should have been refunded in September 2022. We seek compensation to cover the claimants for the following 6 years. Claimants also seek compensation that reflects distress and inconvenience and will look to seek exemplary and punitive damages.

.................................

Also any view on this; their solicitor under 4.11 and 4.12 states we cannot bring a claim under the CCA 1974 as the “repayment plan” isn’t covered under section 77 of the act.

Barclays then send us a system generated letter contradicting the advice claiming they are terminating under the act quoting subsections of the same act they tell us we can’t claim under?

As we had no agreed credit (arranged overdraft) on the account, the only claim they have under the act is the “repayment plan” we dispute was in place and that they can provide no evidence to support being agreed to?

CCA info.docx

**dx100uk** · October 16, 2023

docx file all your pers details in info/file/properties

use PDf only

sadly Barclays are correct, it is only section 10 of the CCA the encompasses Bank Accounts.

quite honestly as im getting to the stage of believing you have a very poor knowledge of how to construct a court claim, but are now somewhat getting there . hence i feel it might be FAR BETTER, if you issue a NEW Letter Of Claim.

the 1st was FAR too wide and waffled on about issues etc that it did not need too

as for OD's and the CCA:

Overdrafts come under section 10 of the Consumer Credit Act.

10.—(1) For the purposes of this Act—

(a) running-account credit is a facility under a personal credit agreement whereby the debtor is enabled to receive from time to time (whether in his own person, or by another person) from the creditor or a third party cash, goods and services (or any of them) to an amount or value such that, taking into account payments made by or to the credit of the debtor, the credit limit (if any) is not at any time exceeded; and

(b) fixed-sum credit is any other facility under a personal credit agreement whereby the debtor is enabled to receive credit (whether in one amount or by

instalments).

(2) In relation to running-account credit, " credit limit" means, as respects any period, the maximum debit balance which, under the credit agreement, is allowed to stand on the account during that period, disregarding any term of the agreement allowing that maximum to be exceeded merely temporarily.

(3) For the purposes of section 8(2), running-account credit shall be taken not to exceed the amount specified in that subsection (" the specified amount") if—

(a) the credit limit does not exceed the specified amount; or

(b) whether or not there is a credit limit, and if there is, notwithstanding that it

exceeds the specified amount,—

(i) the debtor is not enabled to draw at any one time an amount which, so far as

(having regard to section 9(4)) it represents credit, exceeds the specified

amount, or

(ii) the agreement provides that, if the debit balance rises above a given

amount (not exceeding the specified amount), the rate of the total charge for credit increases or any other condition favouring the creditor or his associate comes into operation, or

(iii) at the time the agreement is made it is probable, having regard to the

terms of the agreement and any other relevant considerations, that the debit balance will not at any time rise above the specified amount.

CaptainMannering · October 17, 2023

Thanks DX, you're right I was struggling and thanks to your help I'm getting my head round it more.

I will rewrite the LOC and have now hope fully completed the POC (section 4 has been expanded) if you can check this. In terms of the final point and redress, does this have to be specific figures or just outline as we have done?

the letter regarding the overdraft i was just confused in that they threaten to report the debt to the CRA but they have already done this in January without warning us about it. My understanding was that on disputing a "debt" on reasonable grounds (as we did when we questioned them re debiting the sum) they have a duty to put the debt on hold and investigate this, coming back to us with their finding before taking any action? They showed no forbearance and didn't give any opportunity or time to repay or resolve any debt before reporting the account to CRA.

................................

1. Claimants have held a joint basic current account with the defendant since 19 March 2019.

2. On 23rd November 2022 the defendant made a credit payment into the current account for £512 which took the account balance to £512.The claimant was informed in writing by the defendant on 25th November 2022 that the payment was a refund payment after their investigation team had completed their review of disputed transactions.

3.The claimants had raised its initial dispute over transactions on 6^th September 2022 and after the defendant reviewed some of these transactions, they refunded the sum of £953 back to the account and in a letter dated 22^nd September 2022 confirmed around 30 transactions as fraudulent.

4. On 16th December the defendant re debited the sum of £512 following a letter dated 7th December 2022 claiming this was now a "temporary refund" which was against its previous advice of it being a refund payment and held the claimants liable for the transactions. The defendant provided the claimants no evidence or rationale behind why they held the claimants liable for these transactions as they have a duty to do. Despite requesting this the defendants provided nothing at all to support its claims of we were liable, and they failed to speak to the merchants who took the payments to confirm the payments. The merchants in question are not legitimately operational companies, they are overseas merchants who took the payments in USD, and the defendant had already confirmed payments from the same merchants as fraudulent and refunded these transactions in the case they confirmed as fraudulent on September 22^nd.