Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
    • Seeking further advice now. The 33 days in which the defendant has to submit a defence expires at 16:00 tomorrow. The defendant has submitted an acknowledgement of service but looking to get the claim awarded by default in failure to submit the defence. This is MoneyClaim Online and can see an option to request a default judgement but believe that is for failure to acknowledge the claim within 14 days??  So being MoneyClaim Online, how do I request the claim be awarded in my favour?
    • Have to agree with the above Health and safety legislation is specific in that the service provider in so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees and those not in the employ of the business. You claim is like saying you slipped in the swimming pool area while taking a dip. As rightly stated by by the leisure centre, a sports hall has dedicated equipment and you yourself personally have a legal obligation in mitigating danger or injury to yourself by taking account of your immediate surroundings. Where your claim will fail is if it is reasonable and proportionate to impose liability of the Leisure Centre? The answer has to be no.
  • 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

Barclays still settling depsite OFT ruling


supertrouper1963
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6130 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

A couple of months back I had a "goodwill" offer from Barclays of £2300 v a claim of £3600.

I didn't feel this was enough so went down the court route, obvioulsy I'm now caught up the OFT ruling delay.

However I have contacted my local court who have advised that they are still going to hear cases which were allocated to them prior to the OFT ruling.

Today I received a letter from Barclays advising that all cases were now being put on hold but they were still prepared to honour the original goodwill offer if I withdraaw my claim.

What I wanted to ask is :

1. Do you think there is a chance cases will still be heard in court if they are in the pipeline or will a stay application be successful ?

2. Do you think I am better to take something now rather than wait and risk getting nothing ?

Thoughts would be appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

a) if your offer is over two months old they are not obliged to honour it any more.

 

b) Some judges are ignoring the 'test case' and continuing regardless.

 

c) continue anyway cos at the very least you will be on the ladder for when the ruling is made following the test case and therefore get settlement way before all the new claimants who jump on the band wagon later.

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards the 2 month deadline they have revised the date to be from the date of this new letter, so the clock has been reset.

I guess it now comes down to whether I can get a court hearing before the 2 months run out.

Do you feel I can play one off against the other, i.e go for court option, if that fails take the offer.

Will I be seen as comprimising the offer If I pursue it in this way especially if it is stayed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

its a gamble only you can make.

in one hand you have an offer which you know id practically yours.

 

but in the other

 

if you wait. lose the chance to accept, get the hearing, you MAY get a judge who accepts the stay.

 

I say MAY because only some courts are standing by this ruling.

check this thread to see if your court is one of them.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclays-bank/108691-success-after-oft-anouncement.html

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Supertrouper' 63, interesting post regarding honouring initial settlement as I had my hearing adjourned and the stay refused on the grounds I had accepted the initial offer on the last day of the 8 weeks which Barclays then withdrew due to me taking court action. I am confident their offer will be reinstated and I will be going for costs etc- hopefully to fill the gap between the offer and the full claim.

 

I wondered if you would be able to post an anonymised copy of that letter opn here as it would prove very useful to refer to should B's dig their heels in. Likewise I will keep you updated on my case if it helps you in any way.

 

cheers, Clubber

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dar£n- you remember our threads about initial offers. It appears you were right all along about honouring initial offers as B's have now withdrawn their initial offer. I am at an interesting stage however, as I used the argument of compromising settlement in court resulting in the application for a stay being refused, a further court date listed and B's having to file statements by 29th August.

 

The relisted case is purely to do with the initial offer and my argument that it was still valid when I accepeted it. Do you think there is room to negotaite for the full amount (original offer was 75%) or at the least try and add court costs (£120) plus wasted costs and expenses to the original offer? Do you think B's will pay for a barrister for the 2nd hearing bearing in mind this will cost more than the amounts they are defending?

 

Any thoughts appreciated. Clubber

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...