Barclays Litigation Team Good or Evil? You Decide..

[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!

[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.

[dar£n]

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

[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

[dar£n]

well im afraid i have to disagree- have tried all ways to contact lit team aside from turning up at offices.....and have heard a big fat nothing from them........going t court on wed 1st- just preparing my bundle now which has to be in before the day .........was hoping not to have t bother but seems like its going all the way.......probably to no avail after the latest OFT press release......totally fed up.

Bery AND EVERYONE ELSE.

 

I realise it seems futile to continue but until you are directed by a judge please take it as business as usual.

If you quit now you will DEFINATELY lose out.

if you continue you MAY lose out but then again you MAY still WIN.

 

COME ON PEOPLE YOU ARE A LOT STRONGER THAN THIS,

 

I was pst off too this morning but hey if we dont continue they win automatically is that what you want.

 

 

Also, until further notice the Litigation Team are not open to negotiations.

[dar£n]

Just emailed to FOS:

You will see from the date of this original email that quite some time has passed since you contacted me.

I duly replied and heard nothing.

now with yesterdays ruling that the banks are allowed to sit back and relax while all claims are suspended my complaint to you obviously fell on deaf ears, so what is the point of your position, you obviously do not back consumers up like you claim to.

 

The ruling that consumers can not make claims relating to unlawful charges is unfair in the way that the same ruling has NOT been applied to the very banks who are applying them..

Why have they NOT been instructed to suspend all unlawful charges until proved otherwise.

 

once again it seems the consumer bears the brunt of the high street giants and are backed by those who are supposed to govern them.

 

Why not prove us wrong and actually back the right side for once.

 

Regards

 

it may not be worded perfectly but i have never claimed to be an english teacher ....if there are any typo's....i dont really care...LOL

[dar£n]

you can try but it seems the doors of negotiation have been firmly closed and bolted

[dar£n]

This one to the OFT:

In connection with the recent ruling allowing banks to stop processing complaints in connection with consumers reclaiming unlawful charges.

 

This ruling has put a stop to all claims from consumers attempting to get back charges applied to their accounts by not one but all banks throughout the UK.

 

Now can you advise to why the banks HAVE NOT been told to STOP charging consumers the very same charges that are in dispute in this ruling.

 

If the Claimant is to stop all action then so should the Defendant.

 

i look forward to your reply.

[dar£n]

I have just emailed the Litigation Team attempting to get an answer to if they have suspended all negotiations with the enemy...

 

will repost if any reply comes back.

[dar£n]

.......(SORRY DAR£IN TO CONTRADICT YOU WHEN YOU SAID " They will NOT honour their offer if you intend to continue! in a nother thread) because they have

Okay Clubber in answer to you comment that has been posted at least ten times throughout this site - This comment was made some time ago when the procedure was running normal, as a standard THEN, if the settlement offer was disputed in any way the banks would NOT honour or renegotiate....This is NOT saying this is the way they go now, Since the ruling The OFT has ordered the banks to honour any settlement offers for a set period..Things have change dramatically in the past couple of weeks as the banks became aware of this new ruling.....So although I would be wrong in using that statement NOW..it was correct at the time...

 

I lose£120 court costs but i am confident of claiming that back from MCOL.

I really hope you and anyone else in the same position is able to get the court fees back from MCOL and local courts i would be very surprised if a refund is made, unless you contact them before 10am the following day after submitting the claim...the fee is partly for running costs of the court.... but saying that these are exceptional circumstance where no-one could have possibly known this would happen [from our side that is].

 

Let us know how you get on.

 

for guidance see here:

If you would like to apply for a refund

 

Please read this guidance, and then apply for exemption or remission on Form EX160. You can also obtain this form from a county court office.

But the court must receive form EX160 within 6 months, starting from the day when you paid the fee and the evidence (see page 5) must have the details which would have allowed the court to accept it on the day when you paid the fee.

[dar£n]

Just to confirm things at the Lit Dept.

 

Emailed to ask the question about phoning to settle.

 

Reply received today:

All claimants can continue to contact us if they need to - there’s just very little we can do to help now, as you obviously know, we will not be settling any more claims as we wait for the outcome of the test case. I hope this clarifies things for you.

[dar£n]

you can only request it for the consideration of the judge, thats if you get in first, if the judge has decided prior to stay the case theirs not a fat lot you can do at the moment....we are working on a decent template to work against these stays...keep watching..

[dar£n]

Dino is top man, I dont know if he is a trainee or just new to the Lit Team but he has deserved his reputation on here as being the most helpful and efficient member of the dept.

[dar£n]

Good Luck Matrah,,,, if they do request a stay [if they turn up] ask the judge if he doesnt think theyve abused the system enough by keeping courts busy for months only to settle a few days before, wasting everyones time.

And that they are almost admitting the charges are wrong by offering the settlement.

If they honestly felt the charges were legit, why does it take a court order for them to disclose the charge structure?

 

Again good luck...

[dar£n]

welsh.... i sent a letter to my MP once concerning these charges and his attitude stunk, he was such a waste of time, i even got a letter from Ed Balls [dont laff thats his name] also waste of time.

there is a thread some where

hang on

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclays-bank/72321-letter-mp.html

[dar£n]

Paul,

I dont think Pete was having a dig, and in my opinion he has been consistantly helpful throughout his time on CAG so I don think he would purposely 'diss' your postings.

 

My view of his posting is in total agreement with you and asking me to withdraw their 'credit stars' which they earned for being efficient and helpful etc.

[dar£n]

At the very very least, what ever the outcome Barclays, AND all banks's reputation have been seriously slammed to the ground,

 

but saying that, we are still stuck in voicing our disgust by moving to another bank cos theyre all the same.

 

I say Cmon Branson open a proper bank for consumers....NOT partnership with HSBC,,or any of the others

 

Could you imagine it, The Branson Bank. I think he would take the lead in High st finances very quickly indeed.

[dar£n]

hang in there leccy lem,,,all good things come to those who wait [plus interest]

[dar£n]

Kenny

As Saintly suggests correctly [again!!!!!!!] The Lit Team are not very responsive anymore following the announcement.

 

Although Adrian St John is named on the defence it doesnt mean he his handling your claim, he is simply one of the acting Barristers that Barclays use in court.

 

You CAN email the contacts but they will just advise that no decision will be made until after the test case...[if they even answer]

[dar£n]

Kenny

i have asked for this:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/109438-court-date-next-week.html

 

to be moved to the Barclays forum, where the boys and girls will help more if needed.

[dar£n]

email today from OFT

 

Thank you for your letter to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) enquiring about the reasons for the waiver being issued suspending court cases and negotiations regarding unauthorised overdraft charges by banks. Your complaint has been noted and will be kept on file.

 

There has been widespread concern as to whether or not the current account market in the UK is competitive. There have also been specific concerns about the legality of charges relating to unauthorised overdraft. Earlier this year, the OFT launched a market study[1] of personal current accounts. This is designed to provide the OFT with an understanding of how the market as a whole works, so that we can take a strategic view of perceived problems and any subsequent action OFT should take or recommendations it makes to business, consumers or the Government. The OFT's view is that active informed consumers are the best drivers of efficient competitive markets and so the study is focusing in particular on transparency for consumers and ease of switching. The study is due to report in December.

 

In parallel with the market study, the OFT is examining the fairness of the level of unauthorised overdraft charges and returned item fees in line with its statutory duties under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCRs). In considering this matter we need to look at financial information from the banks and also to take a broader view of the market to ensure that any action we take will improve the way the market works and outcomes for consumers. The market study will play a critical role in informing the OFT's view of the right outcomes for consumers.

 

One aspect of our work is considering whether the unfairness test contained in the UTCCRs applies to unauthorised overdraft charges. The OFT considers that the test applies, but the banks disagree.

 

We believe that an early ruling on this preliminary issue is in the public interest as it will provide some much-needed clarity in the market, and also provide the OFT with a stronger basis for conducting its UTCCRs investigation and negotiating any settlement. We have therefore agreed with the Banks to take a test case[2] and we commenced proceedings in the High Court on 27 July. The test case commences on 14 January 2008 and we estimate it may take approximately two weeks. We are committed to ensuring this process is resolved in as efficient and expeditious a manner as possible. Throughout this whole process we have worked very closely with the Financial Services Authority. For further information about this test case please see our Questions and Answers.[3] The Financial Services Authority in conjunction with the OFT has issued a waiver in this time, suspending court cases and negotiations with banks regarding unauthorised overdraft charges. As it is vital to have as many high street banks involved in the test case as possible, this is a way of assuring their full participation and co-operation.

 

For further assistance with your complaint you may wish to contact Consumer Direct at Consumer Direct Consumer Direct> telephone: 08454 04 05 06 or your local Citizen's Advice Bureau at Contact us .

[dar£n]

If you are in possession of the settlement letter and a copy of your reply then they should still honour it..............did you amend any of the wording?

 

did you return it via recorded delivery

 

did you actually stop the proceedings or apply to have an adjournment waiting for the funds to clear etc.?

 

If not you may have problems with the judge throwing it out as you never attended,,[esp if they did]....you will prob have to apply to get it started again by explaining the situation to the judge.

 

have you tried emailing the Lit team recently threatening with further action....The OFT case is irrelevent in your case as they have already agreed to settle....as long as you returned within 8 weeks they are to honour it

[dar£n]

Beverley

your biggest problem is that you stopped court proceedings on their word.

 

Did you keep a copy of the settlement, take it to the court and explain what they have done to you.

 

you could email Dino first stating youintend to take it back to court which will incurr further costs to the bank.

 

tell them they have until the end of business to get back to you with details of the transfer.

[dar£n]

Realistically, what will probably happen is:

The charges will be allowed to be in line with those accepted as credit card charges , ie £12

 

There will prob be a limitation applied to prevent customers claiming further than 6yrs.

 

The OFT are going to try and push for the 'automatic repayment of charges' to consumers to ease the burden from the courts,

 

whether any of this actually happens is speculation at the moment.

[dar£n]

I agree with Slick

The OFT have a figure in their heads and if the banks agrees to lower their charges to this amount then they will call off the dogs.

The banks, as we know DO NOT want to go to court so more than likely will go along with the lower amount.

 

This does NOT mean you have to accept it, after all we have been shown it costs no more than £2.50 to administer the charge so anything above that is clearly profit and according to the Code of Banking should not be allowed.

 

It is annoying that they have applied blanket stays and there is very little we can do at the moment.

 

Hopefully they will agree to the lower amount so the OFT mallarky will get dropped, allowing the cases to continue.

 

In my opinion, I dont feel the OFT have helped things AT ALL, theyve just got in the way.