Hi, Have not posted for a while. Anyhow my fiancee received a letter today from Barclays saying that they disagree with her view that the charges are unlawful and refer her to their terms and conditions which were provided when the account was opened. We will see them in court I guess Oz

I have read long and hard about CI and am aware of the risks. I know there is a lot of dissent and discussion on the topic. I have decided to go this way and have submitted all paperwork on this basis. I am a bit nervous as it is not a tried and tested route but am also aware of the large amount of support available here to assist if it gets difficult. Oz

Hi, So re-writing paragraph 7 of the POC 7. The Claimant was unaware that the Charges were unlawful and was also unaware that the Defendant was concealing the nature of the charges and the right of action of the Claimant. The Claimant mistakenly paid the Charges on the understanding that they were lawful. As the charges were unlawfully applied and the Claimants right of action concealed, postponement of the limitations act 1980, under section 32(1)(b) is sought. Additionally and separately as the Charges were paid under the mistaken belief that they were lawful, postponement of the limitations act 1980 under section 32(1)© is sought. Any thoughts or comments? Oz

Glenn, Thank you for the comment. I see what you are saying and as you point out I have not explained that. What I need to argue and prove is that they acted unlawfully and concealed the charges as these are the reasons that the limitations do not apply to this case. I will revise and repost that paragraph... Cheers, Oz

Well I have re considered what I had written and taken the advice given. I have thus revised the POC to a short one page version based on the standard template with some stuff added to cover the CI element and limitations issue. Please comment as you see fit.. all thoughts and input welcome. One question with regard to the paperwork claim form - I have the Small Claims Pack and note that in the example it gives, when the value of the claim is entered on page 1 - it is entered without any interest. The amount in the lower box on the same page, however, included interest with an explanation of why on the second page. Is this how others have filled it in? I also note in that pack that it states the track should relate to the claim amount only and not including interest - any ideas? 1. The Claimant had an account ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around February 1998 and close on or around 1 September 2004 2. During the period in which the Account was operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. 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. 3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim (Appendix A). 4 The Claimant contends that: a) The charges debited to the Account 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 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 (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law. 5. Accordingly the Claimant claims: a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £XXXX.14 and any interest charged thereon; b) Court costs; c) Interest either: (i) pursuant to the implied and/or imposed term of contract between the parties at the Defendants unauthorised overdraft rate of 27.5% p.a compound. At 21/04/2007 this equates to £XXXX. Interest per day thereafter is £6.94 (see Appendix B). OR (ii) should this court not find that the Claimant is entitled to interest as stated in (i) then at the Defendant’s authorised overdraft rate of 15.6% p.a compound. At 21/04/2007 this amounts to £XXXX. Interest per day thereafter is £1.94 (see Appendix C). OR (iii) should this court not find that the implied and or imposed contractual terms exist, Claimant claims interest pursuant to s69 County Courts Act at 8%p.a simple. At 21/04/2007 this amounts to £XXX. Interest per day thereafter is £0.45 (see Appendix D) 6. Alternatively, if the charges are a fee for a service, then they must be reasonable under S.15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act (1982). 7. The Claimant was unaware that the Charges were unlawful and contends that Section 32(1)(b) and/or Section 32(1)© of the Limitations Act 1980 should apply and that therefore all the Charges made by the Defendant fall within the primary limitation period and are not time barred

Thank you to all for the comments. They are constructive and useful, however, with those in mind I will revise what I have done and researched and used and condense it into a concise POC. To answer the question with regard to no contract. I have derived that from other stuff I have read on here. I will review my research to make sure it applies to my fiancees claim. Seems like I have not done enough reading so will do some more... I take the point with regard to trying to write like Perry Mason - better to just put it in clear english. Will save what I have done for the later stages... Oz

Here is the POC for my fiancees claim.. any comments, suggestions for improvement or errors would be greatly appreciated. I am indebted to this site and those whose details and information I have relied upon in the production of these POC: Particulars of Claim IN THE CASE BETWEEN: XXXXXX And Barclays Bank PLC Particulars of Claim Part 1: Introduction and basis of claim 1. The Claimant had an account (herinafter referred to as ‘the Account’) with the defendant which was opened on or around February 1998 and was closed on or around 1st September 2004. 2. During the period in which the Account was open and operating, the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of “unauthorised overdraft fees”, “account fees”, “overdraft fees”, “unpaid item fees” and “referral charges”. The defendant has also charged interest on the charges once applied (amounts debited and mentioned in this paragraph are herinafter collectively referred to as “the Charges” and all are detailed and itemised within Schedule A attached hereto). 3. The claimant views the charges as being unlawfully applied. The claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the Charges were debited in accordance with the Terms and Conditions. It appears that the Defendant claims these Terms and Condition form part of an agreement between itself and the Claimant. A copy of the Defendants current terms and conditions are attached hereto. A copy of the terms and conditions are attached hereto – need to see if we can get a copy. 4. The claimant obtained a copy of the Charges by virtue of a Subject Access Request served upon the Defendant pursuant to Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. The letter was sent on or about 20th June 2006. 5. On or about the 31 January 2007 the Claimant sent a letter to the Defendant asking for a refund of inter alia the Charges. In said letter the Claimant made various assertions and arguments to substantiate her request, quoting relevant sources of law and evidence. The Claimant concluded therein that the Charges were unlawfully levied on the Account by the Defendant. At this point the Claimant invited the Defendant to present a defence to this claim, within 14 days, and to enter a sincere dialogue with regard to this matter. As yet the Defendant has not availed itself to this opportunity. 6. On or about 19th February 2007 the Claimant sent a letter to the Defendant giving a further 7 days in which to refund the Charges. As yet the Defendant hasn’t availed itself to this opportunity. 7. On or about 9th March 2007 a Letter Before Action was served on the Defendant. It was received by the Defendant on 14th March 2007 . To date the Defendant has neither replied nor responded to this letter. 8. On or about 2nd April 2007 the Claimant received a letter from the Defendant stating that they were looking into her complaint with regard to “the level of service received” and promised a response by 13th April. No response was received from the Defendant by the said date. 9. The Claimant notes that to date the Defendant has made no attempt whatsoever to present any defence to the claim. Brief outline of claim 10. The Claimant contends that a. the Charges have been unlawfully applied to the Account. b. no contract ever existed between the parties hereto that purports to allow the Defendant to levy the Charges to the Account. In that eventuality the Claimant is entitled to Judgement as sought and detailed in paragraph 47. c. should such a contract exist it could only exist in the form of Terms and Conditions. d. only if this court, being of competent jurisdiction, should find that such a contract existed between the parties hereto then the charges are penalties relating to a breach of contract and hence irrecoverable as set out hereinafter. In that eventuality the Claimant is entitled to Judgement as sought in paragraph 47. e. only if this court, being of competent jurisdiction, finds that the Charges are remuneration to the Defendant for services provided then they are irrecoverable as set out herinafter due to inter alia the fact that the terms, if any, which provide for the Charges are unfair and the Charges themselves unreasonable. In that eventuality the Claimant is entitled to Judgement as sought in paragraph 47. 11. In support of part of her basis of claim the Claimant contends, and intends to prove that: a. the Charges are i. punitive in nature; ii. unreasonable; iii. generally disproportionate; iv. excessive; v. unfair; vi. unlawful; vii. not a genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred by the Defendant in respect of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; viii. exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any alleged breaches of contract on part of the Claimant; ix. not intended to represent or relate to any alleged actual loss in respect of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which conducts is regime of charging with a view to profit; x. not intended to bear any relation to the Defendant’s actual losses which it can show it has incurred, and would not have incurred but for any alleged breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and xi. are held in terrorem to discourage the Claimant from presenting items on the Account for payment where there are insufficient funds to cover such payment of said item b. without prejudice to paragraphs 9(b), (14) and (15) of this claim all contractual provision(s), if any, between the parties which purport to permit the Defendant to levy the Charges to the Account are unenforceable by virtue of: i. the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the “UTCCR”) ii. the Unfair Contract Terms Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the “UCTA”) iii. the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, and iv. the common law; and c. the processes involved in processing unarranged overdrafts, unpaid items, referrals etc are entirely, or else almost entirely, automated. 12. The claimant makes reference to inter alia the following cases in relation to the notion of stare decisis to support her case: a. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garages and Motor Co [1915] [AC79] – (herinafter referred to as “Dunlop”) b. Lordsvale Finance PLC v Bank of Zambia [1996] [QB752]; c. Murray v. Leisureplay [2005] [EWCA Civ 963]; d. Bridge v Campbell Discount Co LtLL [1962] [AC600] e. Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Ltd v Tilebox Ltd [2005] [EWHC 281] (herinafter referred to as “McAlpine”); f. Commissioner of Public Works v Hills [1906] [AC 368] (hereinafter referred to as “Hills”) 13. Additionally the Claimant makes reference to inter alia the following Office of Fair Trading (OFT) cases, as reported in their Unfair Contract Terms Bulletin 21 (July-September 2002) as persuasive authorities: a. Case 4 – Dampcure-Woodcure/30 ltd (herinafter referred to as “OFT Case 4) b. Case 15 – Kids of Wilmslow Ltd (herinafter referred to as “OFT Case 15”) c. Case 18 – Legal and General Franchising ltd t/a Parker Estate Agents (hereinafter referred to as “OFT Case 18”) 14. The Claimant will refer to the OFT report “Calculating fair default charges in credit card contracts OFT842, dated 5th April 2006. 15. The Claimant reserves the right to raise additional issues and/or evidence at a later date depending upon, inter alia any defence that the Defence lodges. PART 2: Claimants specific reasoning and arguments No contract ever existed between the parties hereto 16. No admissions are made by the Claimant as to the incorporation of any term in any contract between the parties hereto purporting to entitle the Defendant to levy the Charges. If the Defendant intends to rely on such a term as part of any defence it seeks to advance then the Claimant calls upon it to show that such a contract and term did in fact exist. 17. Furthermore, except as detailed in paragraphs 45 and 46 of these particulars, no admission is made by the Claimant whatsoever as to whether she entered into a contract with the Defendant. If the Defendant intends to rely on such a contract whatsoever as part of any defence it seeks to advance then the Claimant calls upon it to show that such a contact did in fact exist. 18. The Claimant does not recall ever entering into a contract with the Defendant with respect to the Account. 19. Assuming the Defendant is unable to show that a contract existed as per paragraph 14 and 15 then the Defendant cannot claim to have ever had any right whatsoever to levy the Charges against the Account and the Claimant is entitled to Judgement as sought in paragraph 47. 20. For the avoidance of all doubt the rest of this claim is pleaded without prejudice to the non-admissions plead in paragraphs 14 and 15 and the submissions made in paragraphs 9(b) and 9(d). Charges arise from a breach of contract 21. Should the Defendant be able to show that the Terms and Conditions form part of a contract binding the Claimant in relation to the account then it is almost axiomatic that the Charges are a result of breaches of contract on behalf of the Claimant. 22. Particular reference is made to the fact that all of the Charges relate to a case where the Claimant had allowed a request for payment of an item to be presented against the Account whilst it contained insufficient funds to cover the transaction. This is a clear breach of the Terms and Conditions wherein the Defendant states that the Claimant must maintain a credit balance. Should the Terms and Conditions form part of a contract between the parties then the Claimant must have funds in her account to cover payment of items presented against it As such, should the Terms and Conditions form part of a contract between the parties then the Charges can only pertain to breaches of contract. Accordingly the Charges are penalty charges and cannot be said to be merely service charges. 23. Should the defendant be able to show that the Terms and Conditions form part of a contract binding on the Claimant in relation to the account then the comments made in OFT842 are pertinent: (a) The OFT recommendations regarding standard default terms on credit card contracts have wider implications with regards to bank current account agreements; (b) In a consumer contract where the parties are not of equal bargaining power any estimate that included costs which could not legitimately be claimed as damages from an individual consumer in a case bound at common law and which made material difference to the overall charge is likely to constitute a penalty at law © The interest ordinarily charged on an overdrawn balance of account would itself be deemed sufficient compensation for the Defendant in a claim for damages arising from account breaches of the said nature. Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (S 2083/1989) 24. Any contract between the parties hereto falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the UTCCR as the Claimant could only be a consumer, within the meaning of the UTCCR in relation to any contract between the parties hereto. 25. Regulation 5(1) of the UTCCR provides as follows: “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” 26. Paragraph 1(e) to Schedule 2 of the UTCCR includes all “terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation” as being part of an indicative and no exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair (Regulation 5(5) UTCCR) 27. Paragraph 1(k) of Schedule 2 of the UTCCR includes all “terms which have the object of effect of enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided” as being part of the “indicative and non exhaustive list of terms which maybe regarded as unfair” The Terms and Conditions allow the defendant to unilaterally alter the charges applied for “unarranged overdrafts” “unpaid items” and “referral charges” 28. Regulation 8(1) of the UTCCR provides that “an unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer” 29. Particular reference is made to OFT Case 4. Clause W had the potential to impose high financial penalty when payment was not received within seven days of the date of invoice. The OFT revised same to make clear that interest will be charged at 4% above a high street bank rate per annum if payment was not received within seven days of the date of invoice. 30. Further reference is made to OFT Case 15. In that case Clause 7 of the company provided for the supplier to charge interest on unpaid fees at an excessive rate above the bank base rate. Also unclear as to how the interest would be charged. The OFT amended the clause so interest was charged on unpaid fees at 3% per annum above the bank base rate. Further an administration fee per letter sent concerning unpaid fees was deleted. 31. Further reference is made to OFT Case 18. In that case a commission clause had the potential to allow the estate agent to charge a penalty fee for late payments. The OFT revised the clause to reflect the company’s practice of charging the higher of 8% per annum or the current rate of county court interest on late payments. 32. Accordingly in light of paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 the Defendant being at minimum fairly and amply compensated for unauthorised lending by the imposition of its unarranged overdraft interest rate (2.05% per month or 24.8% per annum). This contention is wholly supported by OFT842 as detailed in paragraph 23©. The imposition of further charges is unfair in terms of the UTCCR. 33. Without prejudice to paragraph 9(b), 14 and 15 hereinbefore regardless of whether or not this court finds that the charges are remuneration to the Defendant for service rendered rather than compensation for damages arising from breach of contract, if a term of contract exists between the parties hereto that purports to allow the Defendant to levy the Charges to the Account then such a term of contract is unfair and hence unlawful and unenforceable by virtue of Regulation 5(1) of the UTCCR. 34. Accordingly in light of the averments made hereinbefore regarding the Charges being disproportionate and punitive any term of contract purporting to allow the Defendant to levy the Charges is deemed to be unfair and unenforceable by virtue of Regulation 5(1), 5(5) and 8(1) and paragraphs 1(e) and 1(k) of Schedule 2 all of the UTCCR. As such the Claimant is entitled to judgement as sought in paragraph 47. Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 35. Any term of contract between the parties hereto purporting to entitle the Defendant to levy the Charges to the Account is unenforceable by virtue of S4 UCTA. In this eventuality the Claimant is entitled to judgement as sought in paragraph 47. 36. Specifically any such term would represent an indemnity clause in a contract where one of the parties deals as a consumer. Consequently such a term would be unenforceable as it would be unreasonable. 37. Under S1 of the UCTA the requirement of reasonableness is that “the term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made” Common law 38. The authorities mentioned in paragraph 11 and the facts mentioned hereinbefore make it abundantly clear that any term of contract purporting to allow the Defendant to levy the Charges against the Account is a penalty clause and hence unenforceable at common law. In particular the cases of Dunlop and Hills are powerful authorities in favour of the Claimant. Additionally the case of McAlpine seems to reaffirm the views of these cases. Accordingly the Claimant is entitled to judgement as sought in paragraph 47 of these particulars. 39. Lord Dunedin formulated the test for Penalty clauses as follows, in Hills “the general principle to be deduced is.. that the criterion of whether a sum – be it called penalty of damages – is truly liquidated damages and as such not to be interfered with by the Court, or is truly a penalty which covers the damage if proved, but does not assess it, is to be found in whether the sum stipulated can or cannot be regarded as a “genuine pre-estimate” of the creditors probable or possible interest in the due performance of the principle obligation” 40. It was further noted in Dunlop that “there is a presumption (but no more) that it is a penalty when a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation on the occurrence of one or more of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage” 41. Lord Dunedin went further in Dunlop and laid down three rules concerning penalty clauses: a. The use of the words ‘penalty’ or ‘liquidated damages’ may prima facie be supposed to mean what they say, yet the expression used is not conclusive. b. The essence of a penalty is a payment of money as “en terrorem” of the offending party; the essence of liquidated damages is a genuine covenanted pre estimate of damage. c. Whether a sum stipulated is penalty or liquidated damages is a question of constructions to be decided upon the terms and inherent circumstances of each particular contract, judged as of the time of making the contract, not as at the time of breach. There are number of tests which would proved helpful or even conclusive: i. it will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison to the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach; ii. it will be held to be a penalty if the breach consists only in not paying a sum of paying and the sum stipulated is a sum greater than the sum which ought to have been paid. 42. In McAlpine the aforementioned common law principles were held to generally be correct. Furthermore it was held that where there was a substantial discrepancy between the level of damages stipulated in the contract and the level of damages which is likely to be suffered it can be said that the agreed pre-estimate is unreasonable. Other relevant facts 43. Parliament has noted that the average default charge in the banking industry has increased by over 50% from £12 in 1998 to nearly £19 in 2003. It could be considered strange that the industries costs have risen so dramatically when compared to the rate of inflation. Also advances in IT should have reduced costs due to automation of the process. 44. The recent BBC production “Whistleblower”, which was aired on 21st March 2007, exposed a number of questionable practices within the banking industry. In this programme a branch manager of Barclays Bank stated, “So stopping a cheque or bouncing a direct debit costs the bank maybe £1.50, £2.00 in handling charges. But we bill the customer £30-£35. So that’s a bit unfair, a bit unrealistically harsh” Implied and/or imposed contractual term regarding interest 45. The Defendant charged interest to the Claimant via the Account, at its published “Unarranged Overdraft Rate” of 2.05% per month or 24.6%per annum. The Defendant claims that it is entitled to charge this rate by virtue of the Terms and Conditions 46. The unarranged overdraft rate is charged to the Claimant via the Account when the Claimant draws money from the Account whilst she had not obtained permission from the Defendant for exceeding any overdraft limit that she had. It is in effect a rate that the Defendant charges the Claimant when she drew funds from the Defendant when she had no right for doing so. 47. Using that reasoning and maintaining the principle of equity, mutuality, and reciprocity between the parties the Claimant contends that she is entitled to an equal rate of interest in this case. The Claimant notes in particular that the Defendant erred in law, had no legal right to levy the charges to the Account and refused to refund the Charges when asked to do so by the Claimant. 48. If the Terms and Conditions form part of a contract between the parties hereto then there is an implied and/or imposed term of contract that the defendant must pay the Claimant at the same rate of interest which it reserves for itself in similar circumstances. If no express contract exists between the parties hereto then the Claimant contends that an implied and/or imposed contract exists between the parties hereto relating solely to the Claimants right to charge interest to the Defendant at the rate which it reserves for itself in relation to similar circumstances. Limitations Act 49. The Claimant only became aware that the Charges were unlawful after OFT842 was issued in April 2006. On or around the same time media publicity highlighted a legal claim regarding the legality of bank charges. This led the Claimant to make further investigations and seek advice through the Consumer Action Group website and other internet based legal sources. 50. As the Claimant was unaware prior to April 2006 that the Charges were unlawful she holds that Section 32(1)(b) and/or Section 32(1)© of the Limitations Act 1980 should apply and that therefore all the Charges made by the Defendant fall within the primary limitation period. 51. The Claimant is a lay person with no legal training or expertise and could not be expected to have legal knowledge nor the necessary detailed financial information to question the validity and lawfulness of the Charges levied on the Account. 52. The Defendant is a major financial institution within a group of companies that have interests throughout the UK and the world. They operate as fudiciary to many thousands of customers in the UK and employ a large number of staff including highly experienced and qualified lawyers and accountants. 53. As a company regulated under the Financial Services Authority (FSA) they have agreed to abide by the Principles of Business as outlined in Chapter 2 of the FSA handbook. This document is produced under the powers given to the FSA within the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and provided a benchmark by which financial companies should operate within the UK. Principle 9 of Chapter 2 places a duty on companies and institutions to, “take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgement”. It is contended that the Defendants fudiciary responsibility is encapsulated in law and therefore if such a regulated company informs a customer that it is entitled to levy Charges against an Account, it would be reasonable to expect the account holder to believe that the actions of the Defendant are lawful and that the Charges relate to the internal costs associated with any loss incurred. 54. Should this court find that the Charges have been unlawfully applied to the account then the claimant seeks the courts permission to proceed with the claim under s32(1)(b) Limitations Act 1980 on the grounds that the Claimant could not reasonably have discovered the defendants concealment of the facts relevant to the claimants right of action before the report of the Office of Fair Trading was published on 5/4/06. In that eventuality the Claimant is entitled to Judgement as sought in paragraph 57. 55. Alternatively, should it be found that the Defendant had made a mistake in the way it calculated the Charges resulting in them being excessive and disproportionate, then the Claimant seeks the courts permission to proceed with the claim under S32(1)© of the Limitations Act 1980. In that eventuality the Claimant is entitled to Judgement as sought in paragraph 57. PART 3 CONCLUSION Details of Judgement sought by the Claimant: 56. According the Claimant seeks: a. the return of the amounts debited in respect of the Charges as detailed in this Schedule. The total sum being £XXXX b. court costs and c. interest either: i. pursuant to the implied and/or imposed term of contract between the parties hereto as detailed in paragraphs 45 and 46. Claimant calculates interest at the said rate up until 9th March 2007 as being £XXXXX details whereof are provided in Schedule B attached hereto. Interest per day or part thereof is £5.07; or ii. should this court not find that the claimant is entitled to interest in accordance with the Defendants “unarranged overdraft rate” then at the Defendants Debtor Interest Rates as detailed in Schedule D attached hereto. Interest in that case up until 9th March 2007 amounts to £XXXXX. Interest per day or part thereof is £1.70. iii. should this court not find that the aforesaid implied and imposed contractual term does not exist the Claimant claims interest pursuant to s69 County Courts Act. Interest in that case up until 9th March 2007 amounts to £XXXX as detailed in Schedule E attached hereto. Interest per day or part thereof is £0.45 57. In conclusion the total amount sought by the claimant is £XXXX plus interest of £XXXX until 9th March 2007 and £5.07 per day thereafter or part thereof. Statement of truth The Claimant believes that the contents of these particulars of claim are true. Signed XXXX Date: XXXX

Thanks Glenn, My POC are posted on my other thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclays-bank/62198-101-barclays.html#post525459 now and I all future comment and input will be on that thread. Cheers, Oz

Thanks for the advice. Yes I have just about finished my POC and have used data from a range of threads on the web site.. I will post it here in the next day or so for comments..

Thanks for that - will formulate a letter and send it to see if it gets any of the required data... Is this used as a delaying or fobbing off tactic does anyone know?

Yes you would.. and another letter today trying to fob us off and ask for more time. I am afraid the time is now up.. POC to be posted here very soon for comment... Oz

Hi, Has anyone had a letter similar to this with regard to Barclaycard SAR?? Dear Ms XXXXX BARCLAYCARD CUSTOMER SERVICES ACCOUNT NUMBER XXXXXXXXXXXX DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 - Subject Access Request Further to your request for personal data held by Barclaycard. Unfortunately we are unable to provide you with the information you have requested as it has been deleted from our main computer systems and is therefore not available. If the purposes of your request for statements was to calculate and reclaim the fees you may have paid in excess of the Office of Fair Trading limit, please write to Barclaycard Customer relations at the following address and enclose a copy of this letter. Barclaycard Customer Relations PO Box 599 Manchester M60 3NF Your sincerely Pam Brown Any feedback appreciated - you can find my thread at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/82574-barclaycard-say-r-subject.html#post737039

Got this letter from Barclays.. and have had no reply.. so it is off to court.. Dear xXXX We are sorry that you have had to contact us about the level of service that you have received from Barclays. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to do so. We are looking into your concerns and will let you have an answer or update as quickly as possible, but no later than 13th April 2007. In the meantime if you wish to discuss this matter further please call us on 08456090806 I have enclosed a leaflet explaining how Barclays works to resolve complaints. I hope you find this useful. Thank you for bringing this to our attention Yours sincerely. xxxx As I had sent them the LBA it would appear that they had not even read it as it was hardly a simple complaint. Anyhow, we have given them until their deadline and no contact so I will post my POC here for comment before sending it off..

Got this letter from Barclays.. and have had no reply.. so it is off to court.. Dear xXXX We are sorry that you have had to contact us about the level of service that you have received from Barclays. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to do so. We are looking into your concerns and will let you have an answer or update as quickly as possible, but no later than 13th April 2007. In the meantime if you wish to discuss this matter further please call us on 08456090806 I have enclosed a leaflet explaining how Barclays works to resolve complaints. I hope you find this useful. Thank you for bringing this to our attention Yours sincerely. xxxx As I had sent them the LBA it would appear that they had not even read it as it was hardly a simple complaint. Anyhow, we have given them until their deadline and no contact so I will post my POC here for comment before sending it off..

Hi, I am assisting my fiancee in claiming back her fees from Barclaycard. Sent the SAR some time ago and then have received the following letter from them. Has anyone else had this and if so what is the next course of action if you dont have your old statements? How long must they keep data on file if an account has been closed? Dear Ms XXXXX BARCLAYCARD CUSTOMER SERVICES ACCOUNT NUMBER XXXXXXXXXXXX DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 - Subject Access Request Further to your request for personal data held by Barclaycard. Unfortunately we are unable to provide you with the information you have requested as it has been deleted from our main computer systems and is therefore not available. If the purposes of your request for statements was to calculate and reclaim the fees you may have paid in excess of the Office of Fair Trading limit, please write to Barclaycard Customer relations at the following address and enclose a copy of this letter. Barclaycard Customer Relations PO Box 599 Manchester M60 3NF Your sincerely Pam Brown

Cheers, Dont think she has any of the statements.. but I will get her to look again. I managed to get the current T&C's but from what I have read they are significantly different... Oz

Hi, I too need T&Cs from the same time period - did you have any luck with someone sending you a copy? Any information appreciated. Ozmrr

Baznew, I am helping my fiancee with her claim against Barclays. I have managed to get the 2007 T&C's but not those that were in force earlier - she had her account from 1998 to 2004. Do you, by any chance, have an older set of T&Cs for Barclays? Ozmrr

I hope this is the method to include a link to my other thread - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclays-bank/62198-101-barclays.html#post525459

Hi, I have a thread called 101 vs Barclays. But in the title it is not apparent that it is for in excess of 6years and for contactual interest... this may be of interest to a number of people.. and their help and advice would be appreciated by me.. I will see if I can link the two but not sure how to do that at present.. Oz

I was in the process of preparing the POC for the claim detailed herein. We recieved a letter from Barlcays saying they would respond by 13th April - there time was up on Friday at which time I should have lodged the papers but they were not completed.. any views, previous experience, what to do?

Hello, Does anyone have a copy of Barclays terms and conditions that they could email me. Ideally from a couple of years ago but anytime would do.. Cheers

Hi, I have sent the LBA to Barclays and have heard absolutely nothing. But then again apart from when they send the DPA information I have heard nothing. Is this normal for them? It seems not when I have read other threads.. End of this week it is time for the court action stage.. As mentioned in my early posts it is a claim for more than 6 years and also CI so I will post the POC for comment here in a day or so. Hope to hear from you all Oz

I guess I expected too much.. the preliminary request was sent as detailed earlier. Waited 14 days and as the original not sent registered sent another giving an additional 7 days. No response. So Monday is the day for the final demand and letter before action... I will post it here in the next day or so... Looks like it will be the standard process of delaying tactics and ultimately misuse of the court system to prolong the inevitable...

Peter, I agree. If you are not willing to do the research and to read up on the issues and argue that case then you should not be doing it. Some people seem to have claimed CI successfully. It is a lot more work but then again you are only claiming what was yours back plus interest. It is ground not as well trodden as the standard process, but it is worthwhile if you believe in the process and logic behind the arguments. When I read all the conflicting recent messages I became somewhat confused and wondered what was going on. I am, however, after reading more and more still confident that claiming CI is justified and am willing to argue the case. Ozmrr