My 'default', Barclays, and Surlybonds template...

[justinp1]

Hi,

 

My first post on this site is a follow up to the first response from the excellent information on this site. Once I have sorted my wrongly attributed defaults, I am certainly going to chase up my charges and donate!

 

My question is this:

 

I have sent to the 'Data Controller' of Barlcays to the address given by the ICO, Surlybonds template letter or something very close to it where I have asked them to substantiate that I have defaulted, as I am sure they did not send me such a notice and that as a have satisfied this default at the earliest opportunity offered to me that they have no right to keep handling my Data, let alone send it to the CRA's and I have asked them to remove the data and stop transmitting it.

 

My letter seems to have been passed to the Customer Relations Team and their response opens with "I am sorry you are unhappy with the charges you have incurred"!

 

It is obvious that they have sent me a 'stock letter' to do with reclaiming charges by mistake. They also go on to tell me that they cannot agree to guarantee solving my query by the timescale in my letter - this is despite the only timescale mentioned is the legal one...

 

It seems obvious that my letter has not been read, and I have just written a letter correcting them, but is this the best course of action?

 

Will it put me in a better position with the proof that they have received my letter to let the legal timescales expire and use this an a bargaining tool? If so what are the legal timescales for them to prove that the default is correct and/or stop transmitting my data as our contract has ended?

 

Many thanks to enyone who can help point out the 'legal' stuff involved in the timescales and what they are!

[ClintMccutcheon]

its very quiet round here of late :/ dunno where everyones got too!

 

ill try to answer you as best i can, the time limit of the notice you sent in SB's letter is 21 days, as for coming up with the original default notice i think that may come under them 21 days im not 100% sure to be honest,

 

why they sent you back a letter regarding bank charges is beyond me, maybe their so snowed under with the requests that they decided to change their standard 10 day letter to one that says about bank charges hehe

[justinp1]

Hi,

 

Many thanks, had a feeling it was 21 days as well, if anyone else could confirm that would be great. I sent the same letter also to NatWest about another account, and no heard back yet, that was about ten days ago.

 

My plan is to leave it until the 21 days and then write again, hopefully with the correct legislation that they have fallen foul of if anyone has the exact wording!?

[dayglo]

ok you need to understand something fairly crucial but sometimes it's difficult for people to get their heads around.

 

There are 2 types of default.

 

1) as defined by the Consumer Credit Act. This is a sheet of paper that must contain certain pieces of information before any creditor can take further action to recover a debt such as pass it to a DCA or similar. Other than the aggro of falling behind with payments/debts and being passed into the murky wolrd of DCAs there is no automatic link to 'defaults' on your credit reference file which currently hurt you for 6 years regardless of wether you settle the debt or not.

 

2) Defaults as defined by Credit Reference Agencies are markers or flags on your credit file and can be placed there by creditors, lenders etc at will without recourse to any legislation whatsoever. It is merely their view that you have 'defaulted' on some credit account. They do not have to send you a piece of paper, they don't even have to tell you about it - they just have to take reasonable steps to ensure that it is accurate.

 

Now then - S.10(1) notices are to stop data processing where it causes substantial damage and distress and that it is unwarranted etc....

 

let's look at section 10 in more detail to understand exactly what it is you are trying to achieve.

 

10. - (1) Subject to subsection (2), an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons-

 

(a) the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and

(b) that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply-

 

(a) in a case where any of the conditions in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 2 is met, or

(b) in such other cases as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order.

(3) The data controller must within twenty-one days of receiving a notice under subsection (1) ("the data subject notice") give the individual who gave it a written notice-

 

(a) stating that he has complied or intends to comply with the data subject notice, or

(b) stating his reasons for regarding the data subject notice as to any extent unjustified and the extent (if any) to which he has complied or intends to comply with it.

(4) If a court is satisfied, on the application of any person who has given a notice under subsection (1) which appears to the court to be justified (or to be justified to any extent), that the data controller in question has failed to comply with the notice, the court may order him to take such steps for complying with the notice (or for complying with it to that extent) as the court thinks fit.

 

(5) The failure by a data subject to exercise the right conferred by subsection (1) or section 11(1) does not affect any other right conferred on him by this Part.

 

ok? so - you have sent your notice. Under S.10(3) they have 21 days to either comply or give you justified reasons for not complying.

 

DO NOT CHASE THIS UP UNTIL THE 21 DAYS HAS EXPIRED.

 

after this period, simply exercise your right under S.10(4) and ask a court to order them to comply. They will have had their chance to explain why they haven't but it will be too late.

 

Make sure you can prove that a) the processing of data is causing you substantial harm (increased cost of credit etc.)

 

Good luck.

[justinp1]

Many thanks Dayglo, thats absolutely brilliant, thanks so such for writing in such detail!

 

I had a feeling that waiting for the 21 days was the best way forward. However, my original way of dealing with this scenario would be to basically write to the highest Customer Relations or even cheif executives department that I can find, enclose the copy of the letter, tell them I have sent it to the Data Controller and this has been ignored - including a photocopy of the proof of delivery, and tell them how the DPA has been breached and give them 7 days to remove without prejudice or I will take legal action for removal AND damages.

 

Would you recommend doing this first before jumping to the legal route? The reason I ask is the extra time and cost involved, and whilst this may result in complete submission I suppoes it may also get passed to a legal team who wants to fight it - thus causing a lot more aggro than appealing to someone high up who could have effected the change immediately?

 

What do you think? Although I have used the county court system to chase up companies before, I have never done it for a DPA breach, so would gladly take on any advice which would lead to ultimate success!

 

Thanks again!

[dayglo]

I was an impatient soul when I started and wanted everything sorting out there and then. I also chased up a poor response to my S.10(1) notice with Vodafone before going to court. In hindsight that was a mistake on my part. It just gave them a second chance to reply with a better response that they could then refer to in court providing they could persuade the court to accept it after the 21 day deadline which they may or may not be able to do.

 

If I was you, and I'm not not - lucky you, I would not give them a second chance. The Data Protection Act section 10 is clear regarding the process. Don't give them a chance to argue that the conditions described in Schedule 2 para 6 are met and therefore processing shoulod continue (it just makes your task harder!)

 

I'm also not entirely sure that they have actually 'breached' the Data Protection Act in the sense that you seem to be suggesting (I could be wrong here but it's semantics to be honest)

 

I have tried this approach 3 times and you may or may not be aware of what happened with each 1.

 

1) DCA - removed the default without recourse to court (although this was moorcroft and back in the early days of last summer before many firms had got their acts together)

 

2) Natwest - removed the default within 14 days of the N1 being issued

 

3) Vodafone - complete swines, fighting all the way and we're due in court in March this year. I may win I may lose but you should be aware of the limits of my experience before deciding what to do -good luck.

[justinp1]

As we thought, the 21 days have expired and we have no response!

 

As I phoned their Customer Relations department. I phoned the guy who sent the letter three times and was told he was 'on the other line' before on the fourth occasion told that he had actually left the company a few days ago!

 

However, they did follow it up for me and thought about it for a while before getting back to me with that they 'didnt think Barclays were doing anything wrong' and they would send it to the Consumer Finance department, who would contact me 'initially' within five working days

 

I did inform them that a definitive answer was not what I was asking for - I had made a legal request to substantiate their legal right to transmit data about me, that had already expired. I was actually giving the right department the chance to rectify the situation so that I dont have to take legal action. This held no sway and my case would be progressed in 'due course'.

 

So...

 

Has anyone had experience with the Surlybonds template letter and Barclays Consumer Finance? Do they submit immediately or do they argue their point.

 

I may have given the game away to them by geting them to get their skates, on but am I but now *quickly* getting the court papers filed? If so, what is the quickest way of doing this?

 

I have used MCOL before so know a bit about the process, but I understand that I need a form N1, which i can download from the net. Is it worth getting my solicitor to do this for me, if they can do it quickly enough, or can I do it myself.

 

I have lost all patience with the b*******, so I just want to run this by everyone so I can make a rational decision based on people more experienced than I!

 

Thanks again, guys!

[dayglo]

There is nothing you can do on the phone to 'hurry' this up.

They genuinely believe what they are saying - this is not like bank charges where they are playing a role in a game of charades.

 

download your N1 form here

 

use the following PoC

 

The Claimant had account (A/C No) with Defendant from (Date) conducted on their standard terms and conditions.

It is the Claimant’s contention that:

 

1.The Defendant, as a data controller, is processing the Claimant's personal data without consent.

2. The Claimant sent a notice under s.10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 on 2 October 2006, requesting the Defendant to cease processing his data, on the grounds that it was causing unwarranted substantial damage and distress.

 

3. The damage and distress relate to the Claimant having to pay higher interest rates on credit agreements and the inability to obtain new credit arrangements or to obtain a mortgage.

 

4. The Defendant continues to process the Claimant's personal data through their data processors of Equifax, Experian Call Credit and any other Credit Reference agency employed by the Defendant.

5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

a) An order that the Defendant ceases processing the Claimant’s data under Sections 10 (4) Of the Data Protection Act

 

b) Compensation at the courts discretion under s.13 of the Data Protection Act 1998

 

c) Court costs;

 

handover 150 of your finest pounds and wait. Do not contact them again!

[justinp1]

There is nothing you can do on the phone to 'hurry' this up.

They genuinely believe what they are saying - this is not like bank charges where they are playing a role in a game of charades.

 

download your N1 form here

 

use the following PoC

 

 

 

handover 150 of your finest pounds and wait. Do not contact them again!

 

Brilliant Dayglo, thanks very much, thats perfect. I thought it may come to this. My only thoughts are this:

 

1) Barclays are likely to capitulate when they see the papers arrive. They pay my costs and stop.

 

2) Because I am now taking action and they have something financial to defend they make even more of a fight.

 

Does anyone have personal experience with Barclays in particular and their attitude to such responses?

[Ferru]

ok you need to understand something fairly crucial but sometimes it's difficult for people to get their heads around.

 

There are 2 types of default.

 

1) as defined by the Consumer Credit Act. This is a sheet of paper that must contain certain pieces of information before any creditor can take further action to recover a debt such as pass it to a DCA or similar. Other than the aggro of falling behind with payments/debts and being passed into the murky wolrd of DCAs there is no automatic link to 'defaults' on your credit reference file which currently hurt you for 6 years regardless of wether you settle the debt or not.

 

2) Defaults as defined by Credit Reference Agencies are markers or flags on your credit file and can be placed there by creditors, lenders etc at will without recourse to any legislation whatsoever. It is merely their view that you have 'defaulted' on some credit account. They do not have to send you a piece of paper, they don't even have to tell you about it - they just have to take reasonable steps to ensure that it is accurate.

 

Now then - S.10(1) notices are to stop data processing where it causes substantial damage and distress and that it is unwarranted etc....

 

let's look at section 10 in more detail to understand exactly what it is you are trying to achieve.

 

 

 

ok? so - you have sent your notice. Under S.10(3) they have 21 days to either comply or give you justified reasons for not complying.

 

DO NOT CHASE THIS UP UNTIL THE 21 DAYS HAS EXPIRED.

 

after this period, simply exercise your right under S.10(4) and ask a court to order them to comply. They will have had their chance to explain why they haven't but it will be too late.

 

Make sure you can prove that a) the processing of data is causing you substantial harm (increased cost of credit etc.)

 

Good luck.

Interesting. What is the procedure for asking a court to remove a default?

 

Regards

 

Jeff

[justinp1]

There is nothing you can do on the phone to 'hurry' this up.

They genuinely believe what they are saying - this is not like bank charges where they are playing a role in a game of charades.

 

download your N1 form here

 

use the following PoC

 

 

 

handover 150 of your finest pounds and wait. Do not contact them again!

 

Cheers again Dayglo, I am going to fill out the N1 tomorrow.

 

Looking through my records, as I thought not only do I have the argument that my consent to pass on my records has expired, the 'default' was not even administrated properly.

 

Now, during the last year or so I was with them the may have sent me 2 or three default notices for either my current account or graduate loan account, however on each occasion I brought my account into proper standing as the notice demanded. After one of these situations on my current account I have the letter which is headed 'Termination Notice' where I am asked to repay my overdraft on my current account.

 

At this period I did complain at a high level that they should take this action, however I was informed that this would be their final decision and I had to accept it. Furthermore as I did not have a current account, accourding to their terms I could now not have their graduate loan either and would have to repay that. I asked about a defaul notice on my account, and i was told as long as I paid back both or came to an agreement with their other department which would deal with it, no record would be made to my credit record. I was also told I would have to wait for them to tot up a 'final amount' which would include interest up until that point for both accounts, and I should wait for this and pay it. I agreed.

 

The next point of contact was from Barclays informing me that my account had been transferred to Credit Solutions Ltd. When I chased up what had happened and why the account had to be passed to a third party, I was at first told that Barclays refused to talk to me about the account! However, eventually they did and they recommeded paying Credit Solutions which I did within a few days.

 

However, on my credit record is a satisfied default - for the amount of both accounts put together, despite the loan account being up to date and never asked to repay until the first contact from Credit Solutions.

 

Should I comment on the default itself in the N1 form? Is the fact that the default itself I believe was incorrectly processed also worth bringing up?

 

Another factor is that the amounts I was ever over the limit for the account was no more than the 'charges' they had added in the past. Is it worth also arguing that if they had not added these unlawful charges the account would not have been over the limit in the first place?

 

Thanks again, I have not filled out an N1 before, but have issued and followed through court proceedings. The reason why I ask is that although I feel that the more 'reasons to give up' I can put on the N1 the more chance there is of winning the case, however there is a fine line between that and muddying the main issue if that is a strong one. What do you think?

[dayglo]

Looking through my records, as I thought not only do I have the argument that my consent to pass on my records has expired, the 'default' was not even administrated properly.

 

right - get this clear in your head - you are using your rights under section 10 to require a data controller to cease processing your data as it is casuing you harm and distress. whether or not consent has expired, or they sent you a default notice on the wrong coloured paper, or anthing about the past is largely irrelevant. It's bound to come up later on as a sort of background info point by point document but leave it for now.

 

Now, during the last year or so I was with them the may have sent me 2 or three default notices for either my current account or graduate loan account, however on each occasion I brought my account into proper standing as the notice demanded. After one of these situations on my current account I have the letter which is headed 'Termination Notice' where I am asked to repay my overdraft on my current account.

 

At this period I did complain at a high level that they should take this action, however I was informed that this would be their final decision and I had to accept it. Furthermore as I did not have a current account, accourding to their terms I could now not have their graduate loan either and would have to repay that. I asked about a defaul notice on my account, and i was told as long as I paid back both or came to an agreement with their other department which would deal with it, no record would be made to my credit record. I was also told I would have to wait for them to tot up a 'final amount' which would include interest up until that point for both accounts, and I should wait for this and pay it. I agreed.

 

The next point of contact was from Barclays informing me that my account had been transferred to Credit Solutions Ltd. When I chased up what had happened and why the account had to be passed to a third party, I was at first told that Barclays refused to talk to me about the account! However, eventually they did and they recommeded paying Credit Solutions which I did within a few days.

 

I'm sure they did.

 

ok, if you've read my other stuff, you'll know i rarely mean any harm and I apologise if this comes across as a little harsh, but - all this stuff is irrelevant if you're going after a default removal under section 10. Almost everyone with more than one default on the files will have similar sob stories (believe me, i've got a bucket full of 'em). Keep it simple, you have given them 21 days to cease processing your data, they haven't done and now you are execising your right under Section 10(4) to have a court decide etc.....

 

Should I comment on the default itself in the N1 form? Is the fact that the default itself I believe was incorrectly processed also worth bringing up?

 

an N1 is not the place for 'comments' if you know what i mean. You can pass all the comments you like later on, as for the N1, just use the info already provided to you in this thread - the particulars of claim.

 

Another factor is that the amounts I was ever over the limit for the account was no more than the 'charges' they had added in the past. Is it worth also arguing that if they had not added these unlawful charges the account would not have been over the limit in the first place?

 

sorry, have i missed something, if you have been defaulted as a result of unlawful bank charges then by far the more successful route for removing the default is to include this as a condition of your settlement during the process of reclaiming bank charges. Have you done this? it sounds as though you haven't.

 

If you check out the bank charges FAQs and the template letters you will see the paragraphs (in the prelim and LBA) regarding the removal of defaults.

 

so it's up to you really - either reclaim bank charges and include default removal as part of that process or continue with default removal as a consequence of 'cease processing data under s.10) - it's up to you.

 

 

Thanks again, I have not filled out an N1 before, but have issued and followed through court proceedings. The reason why I ask is that although I feel that the more 'reasons to give up' I can put on the N1 the more chance there is of winning the case, however there is a fine line between that and muddying the main issue if that is a strong one. What do you think?

 

keep to your main point - clearly and simply.

 

good luck.

[dayglo]

Interesting. What is the procedure for asking a court to remove a default?

 

Regards

 

Jeff

 

Hello jeff.

 

the short answer is "there isn't one"

 

the long answer is in my "get my life back thread"

 

the key points are :-

 

1. Make sure you have paid off the debt in question this is not a 'debt dodgers charter'
   
2. if you have been defaulted as a result of unlawful bank charges the most succesful route towards default removal is to include it as part of the bank charge claim (the template letters contain all you need to know)
   
3. Section 10 of the Data Protection Act (go and read it, even if you just read section 10 and schedule 2) allows you the right to require data controllers to cease processing your data within 21 days of a wrtten notice from you providing that the continued processing of this data is causing (or is likely to cause) significant damages or distress and that this is unwarranted.
   
4. Send a S.10(1) notice to the data controller of the company that have defaulted you. They are unlikely to remoe it straightaway, wait 21 days then file an N1 at your local court, handover £150 and then wait.

good luck.

[Ferru]

Thanks.

 

£150 is alot of money to hand over, but if it gets rid of my default, then it will be worth it. If the N1 form guaranteed to force the removal of the default?

 

Jeff

[justinp1]

Filed my N1 form today!

 

I filled it out exactly as described above and went with my cheque for £150.

 

Two things worth pointing out about what happened for those reading the thread and hopefully for Dayglo or someone else knowledgable to confirm:

 

1) The clerk told me that I had to specify the amount I was asking for, 'at the courts discretion' wasnt good enough.

 

2) the clerk went away to find the cost and told me it was £30, not £150

 

So I went home and redid the forms as she had said. When I got back she then questioned it some more and then went on to tell me that if the fee wasnt right etc then it would be thrown out and a would lose the filing fee!

 

Annoying to say the least, I just hope it is all OK and filed as planned!

[ClintMccutcheon]

Surely the clerks job is to check whether or not the fee is correct for the claim?

 

Im interested in what you put in place of 'at the courts discretion'?

 

As im filing my N1 on the 8th against HSBC, looks like we will be doing things at roughly the same time!

 

Good luck mate!

[justinp1]

Surely the clerks job is to check whether or not the fee is correct for the claim?

 

Im interested in what you put in place of 'at the courts discretion'?

 

As im filing my N1 on the 8th against HSBC, looks like we will be doing things at roughly the same time!

 

Good luck mate!

 

Hi, I changed the claim and just deleted the section where I applied for compensation. I think this would be difficult to put a figure on firstly, and secondly its not really whan I am after, just to make them stop sending my data to the CRAs.

 

The clerk did say that my claim 'had' to be for an amount of money!? Is this right!? I dunno, its filed now though, so I guess i will find out in a few days.

[ClintMccutcheon]

Not sure thats correct, im sure you can have a non-monetary claim.

 

My claim is going to include some damages anyhow so there will be money present, along with the removal of the CRA Entry.

 

I did recieve a letter from HSBC, but it was just the standard "Hi, sorry youve had cause to complain, heres our awesome leaflet on listening to your concerns! Ill get back to you when ive finished my investigation!"

 

Strange thing about that was the letter was dated from before i served the Statutory Notice...... anyway

 

I take it you got no response from barclays and just went straight to the N1 after 21 days too?

[dayglo]

Bloody court clerks eh? In this case you have benefitted from a clerk that doesn't know the rules.

 

The rules are really clear

 

1) You can have a non-monetary claim. The fee for this is £150. see here

 

2) The £30 fee represents a claim that is the smallest (non-zero) amount.

 

You got lucky, well done you.

 

The sentence in the particluars of claim (5 c it think) is perfectly acceptable, that's what it says in Section 13 of the DPA, but you cannot legislate for trumped up clerks. hey ho.

[justinp1]

Bloody court clerks eh? In this case you have benefitted from a clerk that doesn't know the rules.

 

The rules are really clear

 

1) You can have a non-monetary claim. The fee for this is £150. see here

 

2) The £30 fee represents a claim that is the smallest (non-zero) amount.

 

You got lucky, well done you.

 

The sentence in the particluars of claim (5 c it think) is perfectly acceptable, that's what it says in Section 13 of the DPA, but you cannot legislate for trumped up clerks. hey ho.

 

Cheers Dayglo!

 

I thought this was the case. I really hope the situation is though that the £30 is accepted and not just the case is thrown out for being the wrong fee and I lose it!

 

You would have thought that the clerks themselves would know!?

 

Ah well... this situation astonishes me more and more!

[zonecrew]

If the claim gets to AQ stage you will need to send a further £100 pounds to the court. Court will ask for this when they send out the AQ

[justinp1]

An update!

 

Firstly this morning I opened a letter from the court to say that my case has been accepted, and Barclays are deemed 'served' as of the 14th, giving them until the 28th to respond.

 

Ironically, Barclays have also responded to my Surlybonds template letter, out of time of course.

 

The answer is basically 'no'. Here are the main points:

 

"I note that you are looking to rely on the provisions of section 10 of the Act, as it is your belief that Barclays is subjecting you to substantial and unwarranted financial damage and personal distress by continuing to process your personal data. You are requesting that the data is therefore deleted. For the avoidance of doubt, Barclays does not accept this and it is denied that the processing of your personal data was unlawful."

 

Nice - are they seeming to deny that they are causing me distress or financial damage (?) on what evidence !?

 

"...It is Barclays view that such consent was not limited to the duration of your account and that it cannot be revoked at will."

 

OK, but they dont try to explain why that clause is any different to any of the other contractual clauses which they have revoked at the end of the agreement!

 

"(when considering retention periods) Barclays considers all its legal, regulatory, operational and commercial requirements."

 

I notice the 'commercial' point. Are they under contract for retention to the CRAs?

 

"Section 12 of the Act... does not apply."

 

"Guidance published by the ICO recommends that a default entry on a consumers credit file held with the CRAs be removed 6 years after the default"

 

"I must advise you that we are unable to comply with your notice, since we believe that the default data we have provided to the agencies is accurate"

 

I havent actually put forward my accuracy points yet, should I at this stage?

 

"We will not instruct the CRAs to delete your personal data. We lawfully disclosed the default data to them and they are processing it in accordance with our agreement with them."

 

Interesting - the commercial involvement and contracts with the CRAs mentioned again - perhaps this is the reason they are being difficult?

 

"They are data controllers in their own right and you would be advised to continue your discussions with them separately."

 

That will help.... I think not!

 

The letter concluded with giving me a direct contact number to discuss the matter. What is interesting that whilst of course the statutory time limit has expired, that they have made no attempt to even mention the fact that the letter asks them to prove the default and prove the consent. No copies of the default letter or the signed agreements with my consent have been supplied.

 

So... where do I go from here? Is it worthwhile 'negotiating' with the Customer Relations team with the fact that if they dont comply 'without predjudice' then I will simply proceed with claiming back my charges? I can also point out to them their failures in administrating the default which I know they have on their records.

 

Or... do I merely let the court papers run their course?

 

Has anyone got that far yet, and got a final outcome?

[dayglo]

what's going on? I just typed a response to this and then bang it disapeared

[dayglo]

I'll try to remember what I typed.

 

 

in a nutshell my points were :-

 

1. Nothing new in this letter
   
2. of course barcalys are going to deny the substantial damages/distress claim etc... don't forget you are the claimant, it is up to you to provide evidence to support your claim not them!
   
3. I would file the letter away and continue with your court claim
   
4. Others have gone this far. There is no evidence on here of anyone reporting back (with the exception of SB's claims) with successful hearings but many have had defaults removed during the court process - early settlement stuff.

good luck as always.

[justinp1]

I'll try to remember what I typed.

 

 

in a nutshell my points were :-

 

1. Nothing new in this letter
   
2. of course barcalys are going to deny the substantial damages/distress claim etc... don't forget you are the claimant, it is up to you to provide evidence to support your claim not them!
   
3. I would file the letter away and continue with your court claim
   
4. Others have gone this far. There is no evidence on here of anyone reporting back (with the exception of SB's claims) with successful hearings but many have had defaults removed during the court process - early settlement stuff.

good luck as always.

 

Cheers Dayglo!

 

I thought as much. Part of my business degree is in law, and specifically contract law. Of course Barlays may contend that the disclosure clause is the one and only clause which continues after the end of the contract, what it actually means is something different entirely. I think they will find it very difficult to explain why this clause *must* continue whilst all the others end on the date of termination.

 

It is of course my hope that when the 'threat' of legal action (which is mostly an empty one with consumer claims) is realised they will believe that it is simply not worth it.

 

I would be interested to find out though if anyone has pushed Barclays this far and what the outcome was if anyone knows!?