Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • yes they mostly would be enforceable, but that wasnt the point. even if they get a CCJ the very worst they could have done is get a restriction k which is useless to them. doesnt hurt anything. the CCJ would remain on file for 6yrs yes, but then gone same as a DN. the rest k charge does not show at all. and even so, the idea was to get your debts issued a default notice ASAP, them RESUME payments.. the advise is NOT conflicting, just you don't read things properly or understand.  oh well. dx
    • This is the dilemma I had then and still have it. The bit that stopped me was the post 2015 comments about them being enforceable now in most instances which I feel hasn’t been answered unless I am missing something. the bonus I guess is not all credit agreements now will be chasing me so less people chasing me down so to speak. this is the problem as there is conflicting messaging out there it is hard to plan a strategic way forward 
    • In 2017 my wife was given PIP and I finally, officially, became her carer. In 2019 she was reviewed and we were told it would be done by phone to make it easier for her as she has mobility issues and anxiety. The review was very simple, Has anything changed? No, ok, we'll stay as you are then. In 2022 a second review, this time by phone again but with an awkward given at the end for 5 years. Today, we got a new review letter (I know wait lists are bad, but I dont think the wait will take til 2027 for a decision). We're a bit confused because it's a letter, not a phone call as before. The form is just questions that ask "has anything changed" Now, since 2017, nothing has changed except we had our home adapted via disability grant. This was noted in the phone calls. So we should really write that nothing has changed in the last 2 years. The adaptations have been mentioned in both previous phone reviews, but not in writing so I guess we should bring it up. But we feel that they want us to explain everything as if it were a new claim again... And are worried if we miss something in the original claim or the phone calls she will risk losing part of the award (a 2 point swing could be really bad) It does just say "has anything changed?" But in dealing with ESA prior to getting PIP, answering the question asked "has your condition worsened or improved" at a review process with a simple "no, I'm still the same" somehow led to ESA ending and needing appeal. So just want a bit of guidance. How much detail is needed? Is minimal ok? Or should we be blunt with the fact nothing has changed, and bullet point the things she struggles with in each section?   I know the obvious thing is to just explain it all,but over 10 years the sheer amount of times the poor woman has had ESA or PIP stopped/refused just because something was missed out in their report, or they felt it meant a new claim should be made, or that they judged her healthy because we missed a tiny thing in our forms. During COVID it finally seemed like it was all just going to be smooth, especially with the phone reviews and the 5 year reward, but here we are. We just want to make sure we have the least chance to trip ourselves up, but making sure we have what is expected if you get me? I wish I still had a copy of the forms from 2017, because I could just verbatim copy them and add in about the adaptation, but (ironically) we lost our photocopies we kept of them when the house was being adapted
    • might of been better to have got them all defaulted 2yrs ago as we carefully explained before then you'd already be 1/3rd there and your current issue would not be one.    
    • No doubt the hotel will have security cameras on the floor you were staying to confirm or deny the allegation??   The only compensation you will probably get, which will be discretionary as a goodwill gesture, will be a credit voucher for the entire hotel group. Very much doubt anything more than that as you have not substantiated, the hotel committed the transgression 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Green v Barclays


bgqs
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6145 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

Please

Start your own new thread

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

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Here is my step by step to date:

 

16th January 2007 - Sent a SAR letter to Barclays Bank (Branch level) - No reply received.

27th January 2007 - Sent follow up letter to Barclays Bank for non-compliance of DPA.

13th February 2007 - Sent Complaint to Information Commissioner. However they advised as the 40 day limit had not been granted they could not issue an enforcement notice for compliance of the DPA.

 

I am now in a difficult position....Do I send my complaint to the Information Comissioner again or Do I simply proceed to Small Claims under a breach of Section 7 of the DPA.

 

I would note at this stage that the account was closed in 2006 and the letters of request have not been issued to Barclays Bank's head office.

 

I have completed the N1 form but have not sent it as yet.

 

I just want details of my charges and it would appear that this is the new tactic being employed...after all, if I dont know how much they have charged then I am not in a position to issue a claim against them !

 

Any help and advise appreciated.

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Many thanks. I have already issued a 7 day letter to their correspondance address in Leicester using recorded delivery but to no avail....?

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reissuing 7 day letter to Churchill Place, London. I have already completed my MCOL claim and just need to login and pay the £50 !

 

I have also drafted a summary detailing the time spent in attempting to correspond with Barclays and this is in the region of £375 + £50 court fees !!!

 

I know the costs associated are at the discretion of the court...however, I can earn up to £30 per hour in my normal job and therefore, this is an apparent loss of potential earnings. Will this stand up in court for a Non-Compliance of the DPA claim under Section 7 ?

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

To claim at your rate of £30 per hour you would have to prove to the court that you had lost earning at that rate for the time you say you spent on the matter. Otherwise the rate is £9.25 per hour, subject to a cap of two thirds of what you'd have paid a solicitor to deal with the matter. (Civil procedure rules 48.6 and relevant practice directions)

If in doubt read the

FAQs

 

If still in doubt - ask!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would they simply award a more suitable hourly rate in absense of the substantiated rate.

 

I could prove it but I would have to rake out old invoices etc...

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not so much proving the £30 per hour, its proving that you lost earnings whilst working on the matter. The actual wording is

 

(4) The amount of costs to be allowed to the litigant in person for any item of work claimed shall be -

(a) where the litigant can prove financial loss, the amount that he can prove he has lost for time reasonably spent on doing the work; or

(b) where the litigant cannot prove financial loss, an amount for the time reasonably spent on doing the work at the rate set out in the practice direction.

(My bold).

 

You'd need to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that you had suffered an actual loss rather than a notional loss of £x per hour.

If in doubt read the

FAQs

 

If still in doubt - ask!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh bggs - one point you should be aware of. If your claim is allocated to the small claims track you're very unlikely to get much in the way of costs as the civil procedure rules limit it to travel / loss of earning for the hearing and not much else. Sorry, should have mentioned that earlier but something distracted me.

If in doubt read the

FAQs

 

If still in doubt - ask!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I would be better going for the £9.25 as this is part of a much bigger claim (believed to be over £5000 therefore potentially outside of jurisdiction of small claims track) which will be compiled upon receipt of the statements.

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

haha....I woke up this morning with the bit between my teeth....and emailed John Varley and his executive team.

 

Here is an extract of the emails....

 

Dear Sir,

 

Further to previous requests for a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998, I would record your failure to provide the information requested within the statutory 40 day timelimit as stated in the Data Protection Act.

 

Please find attached a copy of a letter which will be sent in tonights post via recorded delivery. This is a final request for information and should you fail to comply with this letter by 10am on the 19th March 2007, legal proceedings will be commenced on the date.

 

Regards

Here is the Reply from Barclays !!!

 

Mr ******

 

Thank you for your email to our Chief Executive, John Varley, who has asked me to respond on his behalf.

 

I am sorry you have not received a response to your subject data access request dated 16 January, this despite your subsequent chaser sent on 27 January.

 

I have passed on your contact to our Data Protection Team and asked that I be informed when the request has been actioned.

 

I hope we are able to meet your latest deadline.

 

Your sincerely

 

Matthew Seeley

 

Matthew Seeley

Customer Relations Manager

Executive Support Team

I then replied to Barclays...

 

 

 

Mr Seeley,

 

Many thanks for your email. I would emphasise at this

stage that I will be commencing legal proceedings on

the 19th March 2007 as previously stated unless my

reques is satisfied.

 

As I am sure you are aware, as registered data

processers, non-compliance of the Data Protection Act

is a serious offence and is likely to be upheld by a

court of law.

 

Therefore, it would be in the interest of Barclays

Bank PLC to comply with my request within the

prescribed timelimit of 7 days.

 

Regards

 

Hahahaha....the clock is now ticking :)

 

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that MCOL was not the way to commence proceedings for non-complaince of the DPA and that the fee is £150 ? Is this true ?

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehee.....This is me applying a bit more pressure !!!

 

Mr Seeley,

 

Please advise as to whether my request has been actioned following yesterday's correspondance between ourselves.

 

I am issuing a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman today with accompanying letters that have been sent to yourselves previously. However, I would like to give you the opportunity to confirm when I will be receiving the information as requested.

 

If I do not receive an email reply by 1pm today, I will be posting this complaint accordingly.

 

Regards

 

I have given them more than enough chances :)

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reply from Barclays...

 

Mr **********

 

Your request has not yet been actioned. As I indicated yesterday; I hope we can meet your previous deadline of 19 March. It is unlikely we will any correspondence today.

 

Matthew Seeley

My reply in response (copied to John Varley):

 

Mr Seeley,

 

As I am sure you will understand, this request has been outstanding for some time now and Barclays Bank PLC have been given plenty of opportunity to respond.

 

You have already failed to reply or even acknowledge my request to date and therefore, you will also understand my reason for continual persistance with Barclays Bank PLC.

 

I do not want to receive a generic letter from yourselves in the post. I want the information which I am entitled to by law.

 

You have already received my £10 cheque and have not sent me the information.

 

I, therefore, request that you investigate what stage my request is at and advise accordingly.

 

Regards

:D

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, as the DPA 40 day period is up, I have completed the N1 form, enclosed my money and have posted my claim.

 

I contacted my local court and they said they would accept the part 8 claim as a monetary claim and therefore, only have to pay £30 rather than £150 :)

 

Wish me luck....I have enclosed damages (loss and expense) of £270 including recovery of court fees...this is the first step and will definitely stand me in good stead for when I have to submit my full claim !!!

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear, I have posted my claim and have just received this email !!!

 

 

I will ensure the details of the charges are sent to the correct

address.

I have been assured these will be issued tomorrow, by recorded

delivery.

 

Matthew Seeley

 

Oh well, on the basis that I receive these by the end of the week, I will have to ring the court to confirm that the claim is to be binned. That is if they keep their promise :)

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reply received today from Matthew Seeley:

 

I am pleased to confirm the details of charges are being sent by secure

post

today.

You should (postage permitting) received these tomorrow.

I have also ensured your address has been updated on our records.

 

1-0 to me.....I hope !

I trust this action meets your requirements.

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, received all statements today and rung the court to cancel my claim for DPA Non-compliance....A very nice clerk said that although the defendant had now satisfied my request, I can still pursue for my damages....they issued the claim notice yesterday so Barclays have until 30th March to either pay my damages or enter a defence !!!

 

Am preparing for my second claim now :)

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, received all statements today and rung the court to cancel my claim for DPA Non-compliance....A very nice clerk said that although the defendant had now satisfied my request, I can still pursue for my damages....they issued the claim notice yesterday so Barclays have until 30th March to either pay my damages or enter a defence !!!

 

Am preparing for my second claim now :)

 

 

excellent. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you have to actually go to court for the non-compliance of the DPA and did they enter a defence ? My damages are £270 including court costs.

 

I have calculated my charges to be £3,020.00 and I have interest charges of £129.34. I have shown the interest seperately as this is likely to be disputed.

 

I hope they let me submit an N1 on this claim as the 8% statutory interest is approx. £850 !

 

I am claiming for 9 years as they have provided statements on fiche dating back to 1998 and therefore, they will probably claim that the first 3 years are statute barred and will probably have to plead that the contract terms were unfair.

 

Anyway.....let the fun begin !

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Mumofthreeboys
Did you have to actually go to court for the non-compliance of the DPA and did they enter a defence ? My damages are £270 including court costs.

 

Can I ask you how you came up with that figure for your damages?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Time spent issuing letters, phone calls etc....they are all conservative figures and I have claimed £15/hr (which I have substantiated by way of providing invoices for work undertaken on a freelance basis). This figure includes £30 court fees...

 

We will see what sticks eh !!!! lol

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Prelim letter sent today 16/3/07

 

Response due by 30/3/07 (which is the same date they have to enter a defence for the damages on my DPA Non-Compliance claim !)

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update on Non-Compliance of the DPA Claim: Barclays acknowledged the claim on17th March and will be entering a defence....they have 28 days to do so. :)

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Mumofthreeboys
Update on Non-Compliance of the DPA Claim: Barclays acknowledged the claim on17th March and will be entering a defence....they have 28 days to do so. :)

 

They have 28 days from the date of service, but only 14 from when they acknowledged it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...