Barclays Litigation Team Good or Evil? You Decide..

[dar£n]

Personally I think at the very best they will rule that charges are allowed at £12 much the same as credit cards have been allowed, and somehow will rule they dont have to pay the excess.

 

Now before anyone starts shouting or cancelling that cruise around the med etc, this is just me thinking out loud,

 

 

got to say tho' I am impressed with the number of hits this thread has had since started.

 

good luck to all of you..

[paulson1985]

Yes I agree Darn,

 

Good Luck to Everyone.

[carter56]

anyone got an impending court date ie tomorrow or next week . would love to hear what happens

linda

[dar£n]

Sent to Sky News

With the recent news about the High St banks being taken to court to decide if its present charges are lawful.

 

A ruling has been made that all banks can take a step back while claims for reclaiming unlawful charges are suspended until the ruling.

This is fair enough but has the same been applied to the same unlawful charges being applied to accounts today and up to the day of the ruling.

Surely if consumers can not argue the charges then the banks shouldnt be allowed to apply them.

 

Also many many claimants who have worked very hard and spent many stressfull hours preparing the documents needed to take the banks to court are simply left waiting in the wings hoping for some good news that their claim will be allowed to continue.

 

As a member of Consumer Advice Group I would like to wish everyone claiming against the High Street Banks all the best and hope they are victorious in the end. after all these giants prey on the unfortunate in their time of most vulnerablilty and only succeed in making their lives even more a misery.

 

This is why the world is as it is today - GREED!

[Maggiebroom]

Personally I think at the very best they will rule that charges are allowed at £12 much the same as credit cards have been allowed, and somehow will rule they dont have to pay the excess.

 

I agree with you Dar I think that will be the outcome too. However if they honor claims that are nearly finished now, that should give all those who are claiming the same amount they are claiming at present. If that makes sense.

 

I think I need some vino. I spout better on a litre or two.

 

maggiebroom

[tezl]

although told by court case continuing,i think there needs to be a bit clarity on this,dont fancy carrying on with paperwork costing me more money and headache.tez.thats the first neg i have read from you darren.

[carter56]

WELL SAID DARREN

[tezl]

although told by court case continuing,i think there needs to be a bit clarity on this,dont fancy carrying on with paperwork costing me more money and headache.tez.thats the first neg i have read from you darren.

did not mean letter,just little bit about£12 and not paying difference.

[Matrah]

Been dealing with Dino, and am in court next wednesday, he did offer a settlement to the full amount, however he applied conditions to it, one of them was that the majority of the settlement be used to settle a disputed account. He know's the account is in dispute and has been told that i won't settle an account that i disagree with. He now say's they will be representing in court and applying for a stay.

I emigrate to Australia next month and now don't know where i stand if it is stayed?

 

PLEASE HELP!!!

[dar£n]

Put that to the judge, explain that if a stay is granted you will no longer be a resident of the UK when it comes to trial and therefore will not be able to represent yourself., advise the judge that they offered the settlement with conditions and see if he will take your side and order the payment as they were going to settle before the recent OFT ruling.

[Matrah]

Cheers dar£n, you do have all the answers, 5*****

[dar£n]

believe me that isnt the case, i think everyone claiming has had their feet kicked from under them today.

[paulson1985]

Do you remeber me telling you about my friend who was in court on Wednesday and the barrister settled there and then and the judge gave them 28 days to settle?

 

Well she has just phoned me frantic she is so scared Barclays will not pay her.

 

I must admit I am not sure now any ideas?

 

She has had nothing in writing and no contact from the bank yet.

[pt2537]

IMHO, the best thing to do is to carry on with your claims, it is up to the judge to stay the case .. in my case no stay has been ordered and i am proceeding to have the banks defence struck out as they have failed to comply with the district judges orders. i have spoken to the court and they have told me that the 'BANK CHARGE' cases are proceeding as normal in our court. lets hope that not all judges order stays especially where the banks abuse the court process and fail to comply with directions

[dar£n]

Do you remeber me telling you about my friend who was in court on Wednesday and the barrister settled there and then and the judge gave them 28 days to settle?

 

says it all in your post, it was settled there and then, that means they cant go back, the judge has ruled that they have to pay.

 

your friends nightmare is over..well almost.....lucky

[mikejames1]

Krysta Campbell ****

Legal Clerk

Tel: 0207 116 4753 or 0207 116 5835

Fax: 01452 638 359

E-mail: [email protected] Krysta Campbell is away from 20th July until 14th August, according to her out of office. The person dealing with her claims whilst she is away is:- [email protected]

Tel: 020 711 63565

 

I was just told that Krysta's email address was: [email protected]

 

I presume this is incorrect & it should be krysta, otherwise many people would have noted it..... AND that she was back in sometime next week....... she is dealing with my case which is 13th August 2007 so maybe it would be better if she was still on holiday while I turn up to court on my own!!!

 

Oh well!

 

I even reconfirmed her email address! :o

[oneofakind]

Personally I think at the very best they will rule that charges are allowed at £12 much the same as credit cards have been allowed, and somehow will rule they dont have to pay the excess.

 

 

Would I be right in thinking that the credit card 'permitted charge' is only a guideline, and has not actually been legally tested? Surely in any test case, the Bankers would have to fully disclose their costs, which is what we've wanted all along? If the cost do prove to be at the level we all know they are, then how can a charge of even 12 quid stand up?

 

Or am I being too innocent.....

[kimberly6492]

I have a small claims hearing date of 6 August with Macclesfield County Court. I just read the previous posts and, panicking, rang the court to ask if my claim has been suspended due to the OFT test case being announced today. The clerk I spoke to said she hadn't received any directions to this effect and that my hearing date still stands. I also just rang a friend of mine who is just finishing his training to become a barrister. He said not to believe all of the hype and that nothing is cast in stone just yet. Of course, things may develop during the next few days and I don't want to reassure people prematurely - if you have a hearing date, I would call the court to see what their position is.

[Esio Trot]

As in anything legal, it pays to carefully read what the OFT have said.

 

Their court action is to do with overdraft charges. This is different to bank and credit card charges.

[pjdavies2000]

Would I be right in thinking that the credit card 'permitted charge' is only a guideline, and has not actually been legally tested? Surely in any test case, the Bankers would have to fully disclose their costs, which is what we've wanted all along? If the cost do prove to be at the level we all know they are, then how can a charge of even 12 quid stand up?

 

Or am I being too innocent.....

 

You are right.

The OFT and FSA said that £12 was not a true cost, but that anything over £12 was totally unreasonable. This meant the CCards dropped to £12 to keep them happy for a while.

 

However, the same as what will happen with the Banks, no Credit Card companies decided to just repay the difference straight off! Buggers aren't they!

 

what this means is, if the court decided that £12 was a 'fair' price, but the banks still hadn't disclosed how this number was decided, then we could still pursue cases in light of the fact that they hadn't proved anything, just 'came to an arrangement' in a 'gentlemanly' way.

 

Just MHO!

 

Peter

[pjdavies2000]

As in anything legal, it pays to carefully read what the OFT have said.

 

Their court action is to do with overdraft charges. This is different to bank and credit card charges.

 

I agree on CCard charges, but would say that Overdraft Charges and Bank Charges are one in the same!

[oneofakind]

From reading the OFT statement, I believe they are including all Bank charges under the heading of 'overdraft fees' generally.

 

Re my last post, Peter, my point is that unless the Banks actually DO cough up with their costs, then how can ANYONE determine an actual fair charge? IMHO this saga could just go on... and on... and on.

 

I sincerely hope that the OFT actually approaches this case with the attitude we have seen from so many CAG members. I don't want them to settle for a 'Gentleman's Agreement' (oxymoron where banks are concerned!) because that helps no-one. If their intention is to settle this situation once and for all, we HAVE to have full disclosure.

 

 

 

[saracen01]

My Court date is Tuesday 31st - I'm going to appear, even if Barclays don't turn up. I have an email saying that they were settling, followed funnily enough by a telephone call holding it off until a final court date as Tuesday is a prelim hearing.

 

After todays news - am I surprised - err NO. But I'm still going

[oneofakind]

We're getting off the point of this thread now, aren't we?

 

[oneofakind]

Go Saracen, unless the Court tells you otherwise.