Hello Formister, Whilst I would agree in general with what you have said, there are OC's out there who at the first sign that there might be a problem start out to hammer you and behave in an even more underhanded despicable way than the DCAs. Many are the cases on this site. There are coroners' reports ON THE RECORD which have actually said that people have been driven to take their own lives both by OCs and DCAs behaviour, much of which of course is illegal. As Basil says, none of us can predict what will happen to us even on a day to day basis. I would, based upon our own bitter, bitter experiences NEVER accept the advice of so called "debt advisors" like CAB and the others in that you should at least talk to your creditors in an effort to resolve the problems. NEVER EVER reveal any weakness at all to them is our advice, there is one particular credit card company which will absolutely HAMMER you every way they can, in our cases with them it has led to serious criminal allegations being made in writing as to their intent and policies which they have FAILED to deny in almost three years now. I nor you fomented the financial crisis which has damaged, fatally in some cases, hundreds of thousands of peoples lives which will be blighted forever. This crisis was pure banker greed and avarice which is now suckuing the very lifeblood out of this country. Therefore it is my view that Parliament spoke with the CCA1974 et al and should there be any legal fialure to comply in full with the Statute Law then the creditor forfeits all rights and benefits undar the alleged agreement. It was not us that forced the Lisbon treaty upon us it was Parliament. There is no moral high ground to be taken by anyone ( bankers are amoral by definition) and I would use any method I can to defeat our creditor and have taken the actions necessary to do so. We have already won one issue with professional help which was a side issue, already costing the creditor the best part of £9.5K. I have repaid all of my debts many times over, over the years and I no longer subscribe to pure greed when it ruins so many peoples' lives. regards oilyrag

Hello DOH, I would refer you to my posts no's 46 and 52. It is not absolutely clear what SB is or was trying to achieve and until we have a clear picture of what has or has not been done it may not be the correct route to take to achieve the required ending merely to examine the paperwork posted. I entirely agree with your comments about being told to "throw in the towel" and I for one have been complaining formally about posts such as the ones you are referring to. I too can be analytical and logical as claimed by others and recently I have wondered why we all bother and why we all don't just capitulate as the poster suggests. However i do have the luxury of proper legal advice and support (not CMC, charity etc) and I know what is being said is not altogether helpful or even correct. My main aim has been , not to pry into SB's private affairs, nor to make his decisions for him, but i sincerely believe that his best interests would be served by first doing what I have suggested. Then and only then can rational decisions as to the routing of this problem be made. The advice to capitulate and the tone in which it was made does NOT in any way reflect the stance taken by our own solicitors who are specialists in this field able to plead as advocates in the higher courts on these issues. Hope that helps regards oilyrag.

It has just ben published by ITN news on the net that whilst infront of the Commons Select Committee the Diamond personage (the site team won't allow me to say what I really ought to say) claimed that barclays had paid £2billion into the Exchequer. It has just been revealed that most of that was in fact payroll taxes and national insurance for employees. it is alleged they only actually paid £113million in corporation tax. Come on Con-man Cameron and treacherous turncoat Clegglet, how about some leadership from the front. Don't bother about Osbourne , just take a look at his eyes, psychotic, predatroy and cunning, definitely not honest. regards oilyrag

Eire belongs to the days of "Erin co Bra" my friend. I got into awful bother when we addressed an envelope with "Eire" instead of "IRELAND". Perhapos with all the money we are lending them we should bring back the Black and Tans. Would help our unemployment problem a bit. regards oilyrag.

Unfortunately guys it is ALWAYS the little people that have to suffer. All the major technological and engineering design was done by contractors here in the UK a while ago and suddenly we were lumbered with IR35. We were always told that tax evasion was criminal but tax avoidance was not. Unfortunately when the Confederation of Small Business went to court on our behalf against the Inland Revenue because of the list of exemptions to IR35 (doctors, hospital consultants, professional footballers, entertainers, fellow rovers and travellers, et al) we contract people were told by the judge that we were all criminals and in his view ALL TAX AVOIDANCE WAS CRIMINAL!!!!. So hail; all fellow criminals. So much for the even handedness of the law. Why are Barclays allowed to get away with it? Or is it that if you can commit larceny on the grandest of scales then you are no longer a criminal. Our legislators suddenly love you as do our judges. Recently it was published that there were £120billion pounds of uncollected taxes in the UK owed mainly by wealthy individuals and corporate tax evaders which WILL REMAIN uncollected. Why you may well ask. We mere thickos on the streets are told that if the Revenue collected all these taxes than these people would upsticks and leave the UK. Let em go is my answer. With only the clothes you stand up in. Rant over for now regards oilyrag.

Hello Floridagirl, Just picked up your thread. You ask how long acn they keep this up? Well brace yourself we have been at it the best part of three and half years altogether. Barclaycard are one of the worst people you can have to deal with in this business. Do quite a bit of reading on here and follow the advice you have been given and what is available on other threads. You can cope with them and once they have passed it on to their in house collections people Mercers they usually put several feet wrong and then even more so when it gets passed across the office gangway to the next level of BC thuggery departments which is Calders. The good people will advise your position and what to do when that happens. Remember that their main weapon against you is your own fear of what they may do. There is a mantra on here, never speak with them on the 'phone unless you can record it and save it for future use against them, everything writing only and yes they will ignore your letters. One final thing at this stage. If you have ANY other bank accounts within the Barclays coven, it is essential that you open an account elsewhere and divert any incomings to that new account. Barclays WILL exercise their right to "Set-Off" and raid your other accounts for monies owing to Barclaycard and leave you with nothing. regards oilyrag.

Some but not all professional legals are suggesting that proper argument of this in a court, should the creditor make any reference to "Carey", would require the creditor to provide a full and complete audit trail of all variations right back to the date of inception of the alleged agreement. It falls under sections 108 and 234 of the "Carey" judgement. Also please note that HHJ Waksman, whilst allowing for reconstituted documents elsewhere for the INFORMATION PURPOSE under s78 CCA1974, he leaves no room for manoeuvre here in 108 and 234 i.e. he specifically uses the word original. There is much debate on here with varying opinions, hence it is essential to read the whole judgment to get a handle on it. regards oilyrag

Hello Good People, I agree with most of what you say caro, however there is a point which needs clarification to ensure that stupidboy gets the best support from the folks on here. It really is essential that , stupidboy, you get to know exactly the position your solicitor (or ex as the case maybe) is in with your case. In our own case, all the ground work was done and we were then told to wait until any claim form arrived, if one ever did, and then and only then would things move again. We could safely ignore any of the other drivel. Correspondence had been sent by the sols to the OC stating the state of play and they were invited to go to court if they felt they had a case. the exact contents have not been revealed to us and as we have a level of trust and faith in ours I have not pressed the issue. We were not told this, I had to ask. Knowledgable, reputable legal professionals have many strategies to their hand and quite rightly in my opinion keep them to themselves. I don't ignore everything but use a template letter given to me by the sols suitably paraphrased to see off the interim hassle. Usually it works at the first pass (15 or so DCAs and 2 solicitors practices). So I believe you have a need to know exactly where you stand as you may weaken your own case by moving in a way which is contradictory to what has already been done. best regards oilyrag.

Hi caro, I should just like to point out that although Kotecha was a defendant in the original case, most claims management company claims are just that i.e claims against a creditor, mostly on the most frivolous grounds, which has not worked for a very long time now. It has been proper professional advice and the advice on here, to wait and defend a claim. It has also been a mantra in several other areas of the civil law, i.e. make them come to you!! regards oilyrag.

Heloo stupidboy, I have seen your bumps. You have had advice from here yet it would seem that you have failed to act upon it. As regards your paperwork, there are enough threads and direct information on here to determine to your own satisfaction the validity of said paperwork or otherwise as the case maybe. Do you know EXACTLY where you stand with the solicitor you allege has bailed out on you? Do you HAVE IN YOUR POSSESSION ALL of the paperwork and correspondence you allege has passed between court/OC /yourself and them? Have you had the face to face meeting with the qualified professional at your solicitors recommended to start sorting out what they have done and where your case actually stands at this moment? That actually means a practising solicitor who by definition is an officer of the court not a paralegal(clerk), trainee, ;litigation exec. etc. It is no good at all demanding help from here until you, yourself are in possession of all of the facts of the case. We cannot make your decisions for you we can only provide infromation for you to make your own decisions and until you clear up these outstanding issues it would be folly indeed for anyone to get involved. Sorry and all that. best advice from the facts as I see them:: SORT OUT YOUR OWN SOLICITOR AND THEN GO FIND ONE THAT KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE DOING!! regards oilyrag.

Stick at it bubbsie, we are all still learning. I am glad that you have already voted with your feet. That is the only course of action with these people. They exercised their right of "set-off" for a barclaycard against an account which was already OD and took us over the agreed limit and had the blasted cheek to try and charge us for the privilege. The problem they had was that the card was actually fully paid up to date, we got the money back, instructed solicitors to deal with them and we have just won a 10% F&F on the OD plus barclaycard get nothing at all and have been told formally that they will have to go to court to get any resolution these matters. They have tried every trick in the book to avoid a courtroom appearance, 15 or so DCAs (all seen off with a standard FO letter plus two lots of fancy London solicitors gone away with their tails between their legs). We and our legal team just lie in wait. Standard legal advice in many matters--- Make them come to you!! Plus there is an open serious criminal allegation on the table that they refuse to deny and have done so for three years now. Barclays are the absolute pits and no one in their right mind should ever deal with them. regards oilyrag.

Hi Bubbsie, yes I can confirm that slick is correct, CSL are part of the Barclays coven and definitely your OD is still with the bank itself. They are normally slow to sell debts on but never wish to appear the "bad boy", and get others to do the dirty work. There is a "doorstep" letter in the library and I would send that to both Barclays head office and CSL plus power2contact. However NEVER sign anything to anyone involved in this business from now on, either just print your name or get one the electronic signatures which were available on this site. In your position I would also, now that they have handed the alleged debt on to their collections chain, I would seriously consider opening an account somewhere else at another bank/buildingsociety/post office which is completely un connected with Barclays. This bank is a particularly bad bunch and from experience they will try anything they think they can get away with. regards oilyrag.

Unfortunately this is the problem with all these "on-line" banking methods. These are the disadvanatges that no one tells you about. They can a**e around as much as they like when you do everything on line. Remember that Paypal is a big USER of VISA which is a Barclays company and I would not be surprised to find that the dead hand of the Barclays coven extends to at least the partial underwriting of Paypal. They own an awful lot of financial companies in the States beside here. So beware. We do nothing on-line now if we can help it, all through branch with stamped and initialled receipts and yes it is a pain but you will have an audit trail and no automated screwing around hidem from you. regards oilyrag.

Hi Guys, Good Morning to you both P1 and DD. I think DD the we should remember that both you and I were both, when in agreement with each other, cagbotted on the very subject of the motives of certain people on this site. Carey v HSBC has been very much overplayed by many and the more it goes on the more I realise that the protagonists and those that constantly raise this subject either do not understand what it was actually about or worse still do NOT WANT to understand what it is actually about. Of course the banks and creditors will overplay this hand if they can, of course they will do everything they can to hoodwink judges. of course they wil twist every nuance on every word to their advantage if they can get away with it. The reason: Carey was NOT all in favour of the creditors and areas of it provided a dangerous piece of ground for them to get on to, hence they needed very swift rulings in the lower courts to build case law history to use against the unwary LIP and the sometimes the not so knowledgable professional. I have said this many times. Our solicitors have not shifted their stance in our sases one iota, NOT ONE IOTA since Carey. As they were actually at the court, representing clients in that series of cases, they do not need to make it up as they go along. I think that says it all. Hence much of what was said and argued on that other thread by a certain party who certainly has a big axe to grind over HHJ Waksman is misleading and needs to be treated with utmost caution. (diplomatic as always ) regards oilyrag.

You and me both P1. I have traced one to a dca inspired forum and have watched some of the postings there and I am horrified. I take strength from the fact that their lives must be so sad and desperate now that they have to come on here to undermine whatever good we may be doing to help our fellow man in the same trouble we are or have been in the past. best regards oilyrag.

Unfortunately P1. despite the responses constantly handed out of reading the whole judgement, those quoting " one liners" from it are doing just that, "one-liners". There seems to be a complete misunderstanding of what the case was actually about. Very few have looked at the history of it (Halbert in Chester County court et al) the case management conferences (Oct 16th 2009) (13 LEAD cases not TEST cases etc) etc. Our sols were there yet all of this still goes on, they are not making it up as they go along. Carey actually changed NOTHING as far as defendants, exactly as you said, were concerned and it was NOT expected to either by the protagonists concerned. It was ONLY to establish ground rules in the cases of CMCs making claims against the creditor based solely on non compliance with s78 requests. I know you have heard me before but some people really should read the WHOLE judgment. In fact I have heard absolutley nothing from the resident experts on the supplementary hearings on Jan 8th/9th to sort out some "housekeeping" guidelines. regards oilyrag.

Unfortunately, Billy, The whole issue of s78 has its head again following the ruling in the Court of Appeal in Phoenix Recoveries v D.Kotecha. Unfortunately the judgement is not totally in the public domain, it is on Lawtel (subscription only) at the moment. However the CofA ruled in favour of Kotecha on a technicality to do with interest rates it would seem. There is thread on it which has been closed down but is still viewable due to the acrimonious nature of the some of the posts and the diversion of the thread by one in particular. Worth a read though for the factual bits. regards oilyrag.

Unfortunately Barclaycard do do this and will continue to do so as long as you have funds. They actually used an overdraft facility on our account to "set-off", unfortunately the card payments were actually up to date when they did it. It was their incompetence in "losing" two payments that led to the problem. We got the money back, the only problem being that our OD facility was exceeded and they even tried to charge us for this. Although we had disputes with other Barclaycards this led us to seek out proper professional legal advice and led to them getting nothing at al as the sols placed the accounts formally and legally in dispute. By the way firstship, you are only a beginner with BC ( no offence meant) we fought them to a stalemate over two years and it has been with sols now just over 18 months. Unfortunately doing the "right" "moral" "honest" thing meant the SB clock did not start until 18months ago. These are the worst people you could ever not wish to have dealings with. My advice to OP, vote with your feet and get out totally from the Barclays coven. regards oilyrag.

Unfortunately P1 there are professionals on here (or who claim they are professionals) that do the same nand try to baffle the rest of us with gobbledegook legalese. regards oilyrag.

Hi Guys, I think it should be pointed out that a subject access request under the provisions of the Data Protection Act may be in order as well here. I understand these are credit card debts and charges, PPI etc can still be reclaimed plus statutory interest at 8%. It has been known to get interest in restitution at the current contractual rate as well but this usually involves a head on fight with the creditor. I bring this issue up because, depending on the age/maturity of the card there may be significant sums due and this will reduce the outstanding balances. hence providing a little more relief at this early stage. Just a suggestion regards oilyrag.

Hi bh2362, Unfortunately, yes they can and will if allowed to. You have found this out by bitter experience. You should have a read around these forums in the barclaycard forum and in debt collection and in legal issues to get a feel for the current climate. The MOST URGENT you must do is to get another account at another bank or institution NOT in the Barclays. They WILL use their right of Set-Off however and whenever they wish, leaving you with nothing. You should immediately divert all inwards coming funds to your new account. This is an absolute must. This action will protect your funds for the interim at least. Then you need to decide what you want to do. It is no longer feasible or wise to attempt to make a claim against your creditors based on a section 78 request. there are several routes open to you, each has its levels of hassle so only you can decide how much you are prepared to put up with, how much study you are prepared to do and exactly what you want to achieve from all this. As has been advised many many times, do not communicate by telephone at all, do not accept telephone calls from them, everything to be conducted in writing from now on, keep every communication including the envelopes each marked with the actual date of delivery. Barclays and Barclaycard are probably one of the worst outfits to deal with but deal with them you can. I think the experts on here will need to know a little more of your case but if no-one comes along shout again and I will try to flag it up to the site team to help. As your thread grows a bit, more of the guys will get interested and much more information will come. I just don't want to bog you down at this stage. But it is most important you regain control of your incomings as i have suggested. best regards oilyrag.

Yes reb. A very strong letter to the Chief Executive Officer of Barclays Bank plc will sometimes bring a bit of action. However don't expect too much you will almost certainly get a Customer Relations Manager in the CEO's office reply to the OP, and in general it will end up in the "Director's Office" of Barclaycard. Who frankly are the slimiest bunch of under stone life you could ever not want to deal with. But it is worth a try. regards oilyrag.

Hi Fred, I would start a new thread regards oilyrag.

Sorry I missed the guarantee issues. I haven't got any real authority to back what I am saying but there have been several posts from differing people on CAG which have stated that the guarantee is invalid if not renewed annually. What I can say is that in the nastiness following our F & F, this was one of the things they tried, sols shrugged their shoulders and said ignore it was irrelevant now. regards oilyrag.

Hello Losser, Glad to be of help. Firstly when making trying to make our minds up about a F&F I looked around for information. Much was confusing and contradictory as it is a huge subject on its own and extant case law still referred to includes the infamous Pinnel case going back to 1602, yes 1602! However all is not lost if it is tackled in a logical way. My links from here never seem to work properly so it is probably quicker for you to Google up firstly: Gannons London Solicitors. They have a write up on F & F. Please note that this is advice for the CREDITOR on what they may and what they may not do and the consequences of those actions. It does make good reading. Secondly Google up: Addleshaw Goddard. These are a firm of solicitors and although the site is not that easy to navigate they do have an exceptionally good guide to Full & Final settlements. This write up gives you case law references from 1602 up to current date and Lord Justice Lloyd speking in judgement from the Court of Appeal. I did the reading on here and spoke by PM with sequenci (site team member) who is most helpful on these issues. I spoke with our own solicitors who are handling our credit card disputes who immediately took it up. It was they who suggested the 10% opening bid, we expected a much higher figure. A total of three letters,one of which took "serious issue" with the bank concerned very frosty indeed, from them closed it all up watertight and they were told try it on if you wish see you in court. Basically what happens is that if you follow the guidlelines given to you, the banks in their greed and arrogance will immediately bank the "third party" cheques and fail to inform you within the time frames laid down that they have not accepted your offer (within 7 days is contained within the Lloyd LJ rulings but i woudl suggest 8 weeks is really the cut off). The banks are now so large that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing and they fall into the legal quagmire by their own actions. Our solicitor is quite happy in all our dealings to sit back and let them hoist themselves on their own petards, then take them apart if they do try litigation. Despite as I said a load of nastiness 3 months after the event when they woke up to what they had done, they have retreated to lick their wounds and find some other unfortunate to have a go at. I know one of the people who is helping out on this thread is likely to take issue with what I have said, but there are differing opinions and several ways of tackling the issue. We won ours the way I said and it was done by the solicitor almost exactly as sequenci suggests in his blog. regards oilyrag.