Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
    • Hang on. don't panic!   You sent the snotty letter which has told the fleecers to put up or shut up.  So far they've haven't taken you to court.  This might change, but so far you're in the driving seat.  You don't have to deal with them any more.  It's up to them if they have the gonads to start court action or not.   Regarding DCBL, they are not representing their client in the normal way that a solicitor represents a client, because the sums of money involved are too low for that.  They are just chucked a few quid to send a couple of "threatening" letters.  There is no point in dealing with them.   If you want the original PCN send a SAR to UKPCM only.  For the SAR letter simply click on "SAR".   However, the SAR has nothing to do with the 30 days, you've already dealt with that with the snotty letter.  You need to read lots of similar threads and familiarise yourself with the legal process.  CAG is a superb free library.    
    • Hi again, so I will send a SAR to UKPC because I don't remember seeing the  NTK.  Then should I let DCBL know otherwise they will probably issue the court papers but they might hold off if i tell them about the SAR?   what do you think?  I need to do it this weekend or it will be beyond the 30 days.  Otherwise to let it run will definitely lead to a court case perhaps??   Can I get a copy of a SAR letter on here? thanks
    • 👍   One thing, write "unlawful", not "illegal".   Sorry to be pernickety, but "illegal" = "a crime".   "unlawful" = "not in accordance with the law".    They've lied to the DVLA but that's not actually a crime, it's misuse of your personal data which is a civil matter, and you can sue the idiots once your case is over for breach of GDPR, but it's not a criminal offence.
    • Just added also paragraph 11 stating " Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, VCS should prove that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith."
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

b8byd v Barclaycard **WON**


b8byd
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4965 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

hi all - this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/55044-mnrbig-barclaycard-2.html has an important element to it.

 

Basically, if we rely on the UTCCR argument as our main cause for raising the claim, it is likely a judge will stay it. I think, although the above POCs are good, that more needs to be made of the OFT 2006 report.

 

If we harp on too much about the points of law being challenged at the High Court, then our cases will be linked to that case, regardless of other arguments. The POC is the chance for us to distance ourselves slightly from the OFT case, whilst allowing the UTCCR to be aired as the law underpinning the OFTs report stating that the fees were unfair.

 

As the OFT have already said the fees are unfair, and the CCard company have both reduced their fees, and refunded the extra of this, our point of contention is not purely the UTCCR argument, but that their is a lack of clarity between you the consumer and BCard the supplier in what a fair fee is. The point of raising this case is therefore not to show that the UTCCR is unfairly held by the CCard, but that there is a lack of transparency in the charges, and that despite asking (in the early letters for this to be clarified) neither the CCard nor the OFT have been able to provide evidence of what the charges should be to align them with OFT report. Therefore the only way to clarify this, is through the courts.

 

Sorry if that got a bit muddled, I know what I mean, it's wording it!

 

Any thoughts

 

Peter

Sign my petition to the Prime Minister here:

PETITION

Thanks

Peter

 

!!!WON!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks for your comments PJ - i think I need to do a bit more research on this. When I get a moment i'll trawl though some of the other CC threads to get a better idea of what to emphasise in the particulars.

b8byd :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, i filed that before the test case was announced. I agree, less needs to be made of the UTCCR and more about the fact that the OFT have already ruled these as penalties

 

when I get 5 i'll try to redraft accordingly. Failing that (and this is more likely), I'll wait till someone else does it and plagiarise theirs. Just like being back at college....

"Banks are people that will lend you an umbrella when it's sunny, but demand it back the minute it starts raining"

 

Brad v Halifax

22/08/06 - Preliminary Letter sent requesting full repayment of charges

06/09/06 - LBA sent to bank

Link to post
Share on other sites

How quickly are you needing this?

 

I should be able to get a rough draft together for the weekend, using bit from my stay letter. In theory they both argue the same, just at different times int he proceedings, so should gel quite easily.

 

I'll post when I have something!

 

Peter

Sign my petition to the Prime Minister here:

PETITION

Thanks

Peter

 

!!!WON!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok guys and gals, here is my first stab at a new set of POCs:

 

Enjoy, and comments please!

 

The Claimant has a Credit Card, Account number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around Date.

 

1 - During the period in which the Account has been operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant.

 

a - The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

 

b – These charges are not identified on Terms and Conditions accepted by the Claimant at the time of opening the account, a copy of these Terms and Conditions, as sent to the Claimant by the Defendant as part of a Consumer Credit Act 1974 request, are enclosed.

 

2 - A schedule of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.

 

3 - The Claimant contends that:

 

a - The charges debited to the Account, as outlined in the attached schedule, are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or are not related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

 

b - The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR) (1999) paragraph 8 and schedule 2 (1) (e), The Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 section 4 and the Common Law.

 

i – The Defendant has already acknowledged charges prior to May 2006 as being disputable under the UTCCR by offering/refunding partial charges to the value of £xxxx

 

ii – The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) report Calculating fair charges in credit card contracts of 5 April 2006 acknowledged in Part 1.8 of the report that a threshold of £12 should be applied.

 

iii - The OFT report states that although a threshold has been set by the OFT, ‘Only a court can decide finally whether a term is unfair, or at what level default charges should be set to meet the requirements of the UTCCRs.’ (Part 1.14)

4 - The Claimant believes these charges to be a penalty. Penalty charges are irrecoverable at Common Law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79, along with Murray v Leisure Play [2005] EWCA Civ 963. It was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses. It is clear that these charges do not reflect any actual and or real loss. In the event that the charges are not a penalty, they are unreasonable under The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 section 15.

 

5 – The Defendant, after receiving the OFT report changed it’s charging structure to mirror the threshold limit of £12. However, the Claimant still considers this to be an unfair penalty. The Defendant did not return monies taken unfairly until after a letter before court action was sent, and has failed to justify the new limit set, despite the OFT report summarising that £12 was a threshold, not a reasonable cost.

 

a – This claim is asking the defendant to return charges that are deemed a penalty by the UTCCR and OFT, and prove, in a court, what the actual cost of processing a late payment or exceeded limit charge actually is.

 

b – The OFT report notes that the pre-2006 charges were significantly higher than is fair for the purposes of the UTCCRs and may that they may only recover the relevant limited administrative costs arising out of those defaults (Part 1.6).

 

c – this dispute deems to clarify with the Defendant what those costs are, how they are derived, and how they should be implemented

 

6 - Interest claimed

 

a - The Claimant claims compound interest on the charges to the Account at the annual rate of APR%. This is the rate currently applied by the Defendant to the Claimant’s use or borrowing of the Defendant’s monies, as provided for in the contract.

 

b - The Claimant’s case for claiming this rate is based in equity, and a legal requirement for fairness and balance.

 

7 - The Claimant deems the Defendant’s charging regime to be unlawful, since the charges are unconscionable, remain unsubstantiated, and amount to unenforceable penalties at law. If the Defendant avers that its charges are fair, reasonable and therefore enforceable, its remedy will be to defend the claim by providing evidence of its actual losses or pre-estimate of costs in relation to the Claimant’s account breaches. Since the Defendant has been invited to do so prior to the issue of court proceedings, and has refused, and since the Claimant is aware that the Defendant has failed to defend any other similar claim, choosing to settle before the trial dates, the Claimant deems the Defendant’s charges to the Account to be indefensible, and unenforceable at law. It was clearly not in the Claimant’s contemplation when entering into the contract, that the Claimant would authorise the Defendant to apply penalty charges to the Account, or to profit in an unlawful manner from the Claimant’s account breaches.

 

8 - For the contract to confer advantageous terms (i.e. entitlement to compensation) on one party (the Defendant) where there is no comparable term in favour of the other party (the Claimant) is to create an imbalance in the parties’ rights and is contrary to the requirements of Regulation 5 (1) of the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“UTCCR”).

 

9 - Regulation 5 (1) of the UTCCR states as follows:

 

5. (1) “A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.”

 

a - Therefore, to satisfy the requirement of fairness within the definition given by the UTCCR, the contract would have to provide a mutual or reciprocal term permitting the customer to apply the same rate of interest on any unauthorised withdrawals from the customer’s account by the bank (the Defendant). The interest claimed is therefore deemed to provide an equitable remedy.

 

b - In the alternative to 6a , if the court finds that the Claimant is not entitled to contractual interest, the Claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984.

 

10 – OFT High Court Test Case

 

a – The Claimant draws attention to the current court case between the OFT and seven banks and one building society. Although much of this case refers to similar areas of law and regulations, there are several differences

 

i – The current test case, by the OFTs own admission is focused solely on the UTCCR in relation to banking overdrafts

 

ii – Overdrafts and Credit Cards differ due to contractual agreements and Consumer Credit Act (CCA) 1974 law, which bind Credit Card companies, but not banking overdraft obligations. Much of the test case will focus on how this affects the UTCCR.

 

iii – No Credit Card company is represented in the test case

 

b – By not allowing this case to be heard, the court is subjecting the Claimant to an infringement of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which states that “1. In the determination of his civil rights… everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.” As no timescale can be allocated to that of Credit Card companies, including the Defendants company, being given a test case and that case being heard, the Claimant is unfairly limited in their actions

 

c – The OFT, in setting out it’s aims in light of the test case, stated that: - ‘The second step is then to consider whether the amount of the charges is unfair.’ The OFT, in it’s 2006 report, has already made it’s views clear on Credit Card charges, as stated above in 3bi-iii.

 

11 – Abuse of the system

 

The Defendant is well known to use the Court System to both delay and intimidate, and therefore the Claimant asks the court to acknowledge this in any directions it makes.

12 - Accordingly the Claimant claims:

 

The return of the amounts debited in respect of penalty charges in the sum of £AMOUNT;

 

13 - Court costs;

 

a - Contractual interest at a rate of APR% per annum, compounded daily from the date of each transaction to FILING DATE of £INTEREST, as set out in the attached schedule of charges.

 

b - In the alternative to 13a, interest under Section 69 of the County Court Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of each transaction to FILINGDATE of £8%AMOUNT and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £RATE.

 

12 - Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in these particulars of claim are true.

 

 

SIGN

 

NAME

 

DATE

Peter

Sign my petition to the Prime Minister here:

PETITION

Thanks

Peter

 

!!!WON!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one! Cleverly avoids relying on the OFT case and I particularly like the part about Article 6.

 

Eagerly awaiting comments before I submit my claim (with kind permission to use your draft PJ :D).

 

b8byd

b8byd :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Def use - glad you like it. although the bulk is others' work.

 

Would welcome any comments (good and bad) and if anyone wants to redraft it, then please do!!!

 

Although obviously anyone who wants to use it, then they can, although I have to point out I am not a banana, and have formed this of my own opinion, and it is untried both as a POC and at court.

 

However, saying that, it is what I will be relying on when i submit my court claim in a few days time.

 

Peter

Sign my petition to the Prime Minister here:

PETITION

Thanks

Peter

 

!!!WON!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

looks good to me peter and was pretty much exactly what i was about to put up *whistles innocently*

 

the only thing that would possibly concern me is the line about the charges are not on the terms & conditions accepted by the client. I was under the impression that they were in the terms & conditions?

"Banks are people that will lend you an umbrella when it's sunny, but demand it back the minute it starts raining"

 

Brad v Halifax

22/08/06 - Preliminary Letter sent requesting full repayment of charges

06/09/06 - LBA sent to bank

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - that is something I should have mentioned, and thanks for bringing it up.

 

On the T&Cs sent to me by BCard (see my thread BCard v Davies (at present) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/102290-bcard-davies-present-2.html#post1067573) The T&Cs BCard sent me have no mention of any Charges that could be applied to my account, other than the antiquated yearly 'service' charge of £10 that was actually scrapped before I took out my card.

 

I find this strage, and added that line to the letter (I meant to highlight it in red) as I think it could be significant to my case.

 

I assume that no-one else has found this? The only thing I can think of is that my card was initially a Student Card, so maybe fees weren't applied back then on Student Cards. Since they haven't provided me with any other T&Cs I am assuming that these T&Cs still hold true, unless they can prove otherwise, which I'm sure they will try and do!

 

So in short, if that line doesn't apply to you, I'd remove it!

 

Thanks for the comments Brad.

 

Peter

Sign my petition to the Prime Minister here:

PETITION

Thanks

Peter

 

!!!WON!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

no worries Peter. Just a quick question, how did you get your terms of contract sent to you? I'm at the stage where I can file, but haven't got those and really want to present a watertight case.

 

just so the judge can ignore it and issue a stay anyway

"Banks are people that will lend you an umbrella when it's sunny, but demand it back the minute it starts raining"

 

Brad v Halifax

22/08/06 - Preliminary Letter sent requesting full repayment of charges

06/09/06 - LBA sent to bank

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent a CCA request to BCard, they sent me through the original application forma nd the T&Cs - it costs £1, I think the details of what I sent are on my thread.

 

I was going to try and have the debt removed by that method, but the amount is so little it is hardly worth me pursuing, and apprently can be a difficult thing to argue - BUT - I did get that little gem from them, so not all that bad!

 

Peter

Sign my petition to the Prime Minister here:

PETITION

Thanks

Peter

 

!!!WON!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Peter...I'll send the CCA off...didn't realise you got a terms & conditions with it

 

Bet I don't...born winner I am!

"Banks are people that will lend you an umbrella when it's sunny, but demand it back the minute it starts raining"

 

Brad v Halifax

22/08/06 - Preliminary Letter sent requesting full repayment of charges

06/09/06 - LBA sent to bank

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they don't then you may find you enter a whole new kettle of fish!

 

Basically, an unenforceable CCA could mean whatever you ahve outstounding would be wiped, and any defaults removed - in fact the whole file removed!

 

It does, however, mean you can't claim charges back.

 

But to answer your Q/statement, they WILL send you the T&Cs!

 

Good Luck!

 

Peter

 

(could anyone else have a look at the POCs I posted on the previous page pls)

 

Peter

Sign my petition to the Prime Minister here:

PETITION

Thanks

Peter

 

!!!WON!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

cheers Peter...my outstanding balance is only about £50 though (it was -£300 until they took back the "goodwill payment" they gave me)

 

born pessimist...best way to be....never disappointed then!

"Banks are people that will lend you an umbrella when it's sunny, but demand it back the minute it starts raining"

 

Brad v Halifax

22/08/06 - Preliminary Letter sent requesting full repayment of charges

06/09/06 - LBA sent to bank

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Hi B8byd,

 

Saw your post on Maxine's thread and just wanted to make sure you've seen the new BC POC's which you'll find in the Stickies at top of BC forum.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi to anyone who's reading this...

 

I hadn't really made much progress on this claim for a while, and having checked my account I noticed that Barclaycard had charged me even more charges since my letter before action. So I wrote a further letter before action including the new charges, giving them until Monday (11th Feb) to respond. They have responded already, offering nothing further, and have said that is there 'final response'. Would it be ok to submit my claim form this week or should I really wait until Monday?

 

Thanks in advance

b8byd :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they've responded to your LBA with a final response, File your Claim at court without waiting.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll get your 2 BC threads merged for you to avoid confusion.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Slick.

 

The POC template doesn't mention contractual interest. Can that not be claimed now? Sorry if i've missed anything major, I haven't been keeping up with the news on here for a while.

b8byd :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look here :-

 

19. The Defendant has not repaid them or any of them.

 

And the Claimant claims

 

(1) A declaration that the sums totaling £[ xxxx.xx] have wrongly been applied to the Account

 

(2) Payment of the said sum of £[xxxx.xx ] and interest of [£xx.xx] applied by the Defendant thereon.

 

The last box is the one for CI, which IS still being claimed on credit card claims.

 

Be warned, however, that BC will not voluntarily settle a claim which includes CI - they'll take it right up to the courtroom door. Some have won and others have accepted just the 8% Stat'y Int't.

 

Do a comparison - put the chgs amounts and dates on a simple spreadsheet to see what the differance is. Some have dropped CI if the diff is not too great and settled more quickly and easily.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Threads merged

 

I have'nt read your whole thread, but if you are going for contractual, then keep your claim as a package. Don't let them split up your claim and pay what they think you should get.

 

Good luck

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...