Martin3030 v Barclays business LIMITATION WON-now for the fun.

[Bookworm]

Re: your costs.

 

From going to court with Tiglet, may I suggest (in case you haven't done so) that you detail the time spent working on this in 10 0r 15 mns time "slices"? The judge in Tig's case felt that she couldn't have spent as many hours as she said working on her case, and I think that is she had it diarised as it happened, he might have been able to get a better picture of how much time a LIP actually spends on those cases. Just a thought.

 

 

(No idea what it says exactly, but it should be "congrats" somewhere, hopefully! )

[photoman]

...........

 

Special thanks to Janet M-been there all along with me on this,Photoman banker rhymes with,Castella,hsbcfiddled.

Bankfodder,and others- you know who you are.

 

Well pleased and looking forward to the next round.

 

You make it sound like "The Oscars".....

 

....... You forgot to mention; Your Agent. The Production crew. Your Hair and Make-up team....... and your stunt double !!!!

 

 

PM

[MARTIN3030]

Ha Ha-actually the peeps mentioned all put forward their thoughts and written points-you saw them yourself !!

I forgot all about the agent and production crew-thanks for reminding me........that might get the costs up to 1100:rolleyes:

[MARTIN3030]

Re: your costs.

 

From going to court with Tiglet, may I suggest (in case you haven't done so) that you detail the time spent working on this in 10 0r 15 mns time "slices"? The judge in Tig's case felt that she couldn't have spent as many hours as she said working on her case, and I think that is she had it diarised as it happened, he might have been able to get a better picture of how much time a LIP actually spends on those cases. Just a thought.

 

 

(No idea what it says exactly, but it should be "congrats" somewhere, hopefully! )

 

 

 

Yep I would use a spreadsheet and itemise it.

Pretty much the same sort of thing as used in Wasted costs schedule-Ive done a couple of them and had no probs.

 

Am trying to translate the photo-I have sussed out 5 words !!

[MARTIN3030]

Heres one of my faves;

 

 

Wonder if Med is thinking of sending this one to Kiev to bite the Boss of Natfogas

No signs of Putin in the photo....he was prob working on his exuses for the EU Czech boss to try and explain why the Baltics have no Gas.

What has Putin and Carlsberg got in common?

He is probably the most dangerous man on earth

Edited January 9, 2009 by MARTIN3030

[MARTIN3030]

Time for an update here.

I was given a hearing date for full trial for 15th.April.

Directions were given for a bundle exchange to be filed by all parties no later than 14 days before.

As I was almost complete with my bundle with days to spare before the deadline I contacted Barclays to ask if they were ready to exchange,and also request a copy of the terms and conditions that applied to my account and those charges in my claim for 1999/2000.

 

I was then informed by email that a letter was on its way to me.

When it came I was a little shocked to find that it was actually a letter and a copy of the Judgement handed down in Justice Smiths decisions on terms and conditions not being penalties at common law.

I was basically being informed that Barclays had just won a case in Salford County Court against a business claimant,and that they were awarded costs.I was invited to withdraw my claim or face costs from them.

 

At no stage was I given any details about their Victory-how much it was for what period the charges related to etc ?

 

With little time to spare I had to consider my options,but spurred on by fellow Cag members and also the team,decided to proceed.

 

I again asked Barclays to let me have my terms and conditions but they were adamant I was not getting them.

I therefore submitted what I had,and filed with the Court my bundle asking for directions that they are ordered to give me these terms and allow me to submit an ammended defence.

 

At the hearing I left the Judge in no doubt as to my frustrations and he agreed-In fact his words were that I would be given a copy of the 2000 terms before leaving Court-he was not very pleased at all,saying he was concerned that since I was a litigant in person I should have been given these when I requested them.

Barclays had submitted terms from 2000 to the Court,but had not given me a copy.

They stated that some of my charges fell over into 2000,which was true in part.....but from 64 charges-these terms covers only 6 !!!!

 

I do not want to go into any fine details on matters ahead,except to say that I have 14 days to now look over the terms which Barclays have now given me-albeit for 2000.They maintain that there is no difference between their consumer terms and conditions that operated for current personal accounts and those of business.

Obviously I beg to differ.Their legal council also told the Judge that Barclays no longer had terms and conditions from 1999-again I do not beleive that to be the case-Barclays actually boast on one of their websites about their Archive strength !!!

Fortunately,I am now in receipt of other documents which will form a key part of my ammended submissions....and I am sure Barclays did not anticipate I would have these.

I have no illusions that success will depend on reconciling a number of things,but moreso in a fashion that the trial judge will have no difficulty to understand.

 

I know that it is only a County Court and a result will set no precedent,however I beleive that it would be important because it would demonstrate clearly that the banks continual statements of the issues of business charges incapable of being penalties,would then be open to question.

 

My main task is looking at just how Smith arrived at his decisions-this means that I have to study his decisions based not only on those things that Barclays submitted,but just as important ALL the other submissions....I can then begin the task of reconciling.

 

This is my last chance to show some evidence to the Court,but the Court has given me that chance and I do not plan to waste it.

 

I hope that next time I post here it will be to tell all that I have found the way forward with this.

 

But I know you will understand that I cannot go into any details further,not just on account of Barclays possibly watching,but in respecting Court protocols-everything I have posted so far is true,and I have no need to post anything that isnt-I would just like to encourage all other business claimants to consider your own positions too-study the results of the judgement that concerned your own bank.Look specifically at those terms and conditions that were studied,look at those fees and charges that were studied,and look at the periods.

I am sorry I will be unable to help individuals for a while,but if you have specific questions,then post them in the main discussion on Photomans thread-we are all in the same position and therefore can learn from eachother.

Edited April 17, 2009 by MARTIN3030

[Brassed off]

Good Luck hunni

[gandolfi]

Keep the pressure on, Martin3030!!!

Watching with interest and behind you all the way

Gandolfi

[Josie8]

Good luck

[MARTIN3030]

Thanks

[kennyh]

Any further news?

[MARTIN3030]

Yes Kenny I have a hearing date for July 22nd.

I am happy with this since it gives meplenty of time to prepare.My Skeleton needs to be filed a week before.

 

Am looking at a number of things-so will take my time to digest and determine.

[kennyh]

If you need support (although I'm tubby I AM exceedingly ugly) please ask.

[goin4it]

Martin, I wish you luck with your claim,man. Thanks for this thread. I am just going to start claim for business account and one for personal as well. I know a lot about personal but I was a bit worried about the business one. By reading your thread I am much more encouraged.

 

I know that all circumstances are different, but I can see on your case that determination goes a long way.

 

Thanks again, man and I am looking forward to join you in giving hope to others.

[MARTIN3030]

Ok thanks.

I can say that I have recently been in touch with the Office of Fair Trading and they have said that any precedents set in the current test case issues will be looked at for future work with both credit card AND Business charges.

We have seen that different banks have adopted different approaches and attitudes towards business bank claims-Barclays without any doubt at all remain the most hostile to accepting them and so there is lots of work going on to fight on.

I can confirm that a Cagger was recently refunded approx 70% of their claim by Natwest/RBS for business bank charges -the claim was in court but stayed.

They had submitted draft directions for disclosure by the bank of its charges -and the court had granted the request.

I think it is essential therefore for users to try to get this,since we know that no bank has ever been prepared to submit to this-with the exception of Citicards.

My advice therefore at this moment is that everyone should stick together-continue to exchange information and make sure that Particulars of claim are right.

I have lots of things to go through with my own case-from a variety of sources and formed opinion-next week I will begin the task of collating this and putting it all together.

I like others,continue to observe the progress of others and seek to find anything that may be significant.

It has become quite personal given the persistance of Barclays resolution to deny us the rights and ability to fight for what we all know is essentially an injustice.

[mo]

are you sayin martin that at the moment not to claim on business accounts?

[MARTIN3030]

I am saying Mo that theres not a one fits all approach the ruling in the October Judgement that charges cannot be penalties under common law,means that we cannot use this without distinction.

That is to say-Claimants need to show that the ruling should not apply if the terms and conditions differ to an extent to allow it to be used.

The only certain use of Common law we have at the moment is those which were deemed as possible-this was Natwest historical accounts.

So theres no definitive answer to give that suits all.

Claimants should post up the details of their own situation giving dates -for discussion.

It is extremely frustrating that we are not able to give answers-all those who have looked into this will know about it-its a little like trying to find the needle in the haystack.

The absence of any help or guidance from the OFT and other regulators has not helped-they have turned their backs on small traders.

The banks first line of defence will be that the particulars of claim lack substance to justify-it is clearly this area in the absence of any stat law and precadents that is causing the headaches.

 

Therefore there has to be a focus on other things such as the contract,and the terms and conditions.Looking into those closely we hope will open the way.

It should be said though that there remains some protection under the consumer credit act (and so there is recourse to use unfair terms) where there are charges that have fallen under this-for example loans.

Edited June 12, 2009 by MARTIN3030

[smouk]

...all those who have looked into this will know about it-its a little like trying to find the needle in the haystack.

LOL! Can anyone tell me which field to start in?

 

Just curious: Have organisations like the FSB or the FPB ever shown themselves to be of use in this area?

[MARTIN3030]

FSB ? ha ha....thats new name for KGB !!!

 

Seriously no they haven't-they don't really have much clout.

Its something that is for the heavyweights-and as I see it,things dont come much more complex than this.

There have been some banks who continue to pay out,in some circumstances which has been quite baffling.Therefore its not unreasonable to assume that theres something there-we just dont appear to have stumbled on it yet-maybe its something fairly obvious that we are overlooking.

As I said-common law was ruled out on the basis of those terms and conditions that were looked at in the test case for personal current accounts.

In Barclays case-they maintain that the terms and conditions for personal accounts were identical to those for business accounts offered by them-I do not agree-and this is something I am looking into.

So basically you have to read the judgements from the October ruling to see on what grounds those observations were made-and then look at the terms and conditions of your own account (each banks terms and conditions were looked at individually not all decisions were made on the same clauses) and see if you can dispute that as being applicable to those of yours.

Secondly there is the supply of goods and services act.

and lastly-the contract itself-there may be a case for putting forward an arguement that the contract itself was not transparent fair or reasonable-this is the arguement of clarity and relationship that you would expect to have with your bank.

Theres no case law on this as far as I am aware-it is a matter of putting it to the court and letting the Judge decide.

So theres a few pointers I hope you can take something from.

[skippy176]

Good luck Martin. If I remember correctly, you are in court in a few days. Fingers crossed.

 

 

Secondly there is the supply of goods and services act.

 

I think there was a case where s15 of the Supply of Goods & Services Act was kicked out (was it Berwick -v- Lloyds TSB ??). Although the DJ made some interesting comments about the situation of bank charges being varied over time - that you arguably could say that these should have been reasonable.

 

With regard to s140A of the Consumer Credit Act ("unfair relationships"), there was a case of Sadeer in the Bromley County Court (November 2008 ). The Defendant counter-claimed because of high interest rate on loan as well as additional charges.

He lost the case generally but, again, the DJ made some interesting comments about charges added on. "The Defendant objects to the charges added to the account. But the credit agreement entitles the lender to charge for letters, notices and telephone calls and £12 per item is not unreasonable. ................. I have been given no evidence by the Claimant in relation to the £100 repossession fee or the £100 legal charge. These seem to be fixed rate internal charges with no particualr basis for that rate. I accept that the Claimant had to instruct a recovery agent - but that was a standard process and I see no reason to allow more than the £12 charge for this."

[MARTIN3030]

Thank you.

Yes hearing is this Wednesday 11.15am.

You are correct about the SOGAS.

The banks defence on this appears to be that it is not applicable to core terms.

 

Yes ..you are also correct that sole traders and partnerships are covered under the CSA where they have used services which are covered under it such as loans.

 

Will give it best shot anyway.

[kennyh]

Everybody needs a little luck but, throughout, you've been doing your homework and relying on 'nouse' (as they say in my old part of London) - so may your Gods go with you!!

[Rhia]

Subbing - just starting a fight with Natwest on historic penalties.

[yourbank]

Good luck today Martin.

[MARTIN3030]

Thank you.