ok thanks dx, so im drafting n265, hows this look? any thing else? 1) Section 78 Request, dated 16/09/2022. 2) CPR 31.14 Request dated 15/12/2022. 3) Copy Barclaycard agreement provided by claimant following Section 78 Request. 4) Copy Barclaycard Terms & Conditions provided by claimant following Section 78 Request. 5) Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) Irresponsible lending complaint acknowledgement dated 02/03/2022. 6) FOS complaint findings dated 13/02/2023. 7) Barclaycard Acceptance of FOS findings and resolution dated 17/02/2023 Closing correspondence from FOS dated 14/03/2023

so, the first entry is about disclosure of documents, should i be disclosing any? what about evidence from the ombudsman, or should this just be included in the WS.

Well, I keep hoping the idiots at PRA will let this drop but what incentive is there until they have to part with money? they may as well just waste yours and everyone else's time. got back from holiday and my brother has forwarded a notice of allocation. Looking at others it seems pretty standard? If you could have a quick glance and pass comment that would be most appreciated. should I not contact Barclaycard and get them to just stop the whole thing? or just follow this through? many thanks NOA.pdf

ok thanks andy, on the DQ i assume 'no' to 'A1' and 'A2'? and 'A3' is failure to comply with 'CCA request'? I assume still no need to mention FOS findings at this stage?

So i assume i refuse the draft directions and fill in the DQ?

Well they are saying they are copies of the originals, but clearly I’ve not seen a signed copy. tomlin is for full amount.

Update on this one: pra group have written to say they believe the best way forward is to settle with a tomlin order. also, in response to the amendment request re documents to original documents: “We write in reply to your letter dated 30 March 2023. Unfortunately, we cannot provide original documents as they are provided electronically by Barclays Bank UK PLC as copies of the original documents. Sections 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 allows consumers to request a "true copy" of their credit agreements and we oniy provide copies of original documents received directly from the assignor. We hope this satisfies your query and we look forward to hearing from you confirming you agree or disagree. Yours faithfully” any thoughts on how to proceed?

got it! thanks for clarifying

sry andy, think I'm being think. iii) (b) says 'Original Documents'. is this not the case? am i missing something? also given the FOS have found Barclays guilty of irresponsible lending, should we not be trying to get this struck out? Surely, the default notice, the debt and the amount is all completely and totally incorrect.

hi andy, I'm trying to get my head round this. should i agree to the directions? I'm not sure which point you refer to point 1. also the dates seem to be missing?

Also received from pra combined.pdf

hi dx, sry for the delay. N181 addressed to my brother. mcol: Your defence was received on 16/12/2022 at 16:05:06 Case Stay Lifted on 13/03/2023 DQ sent to you on 13/03/2023

hi dx, not sure what n244 is? I've attached what's been received. 01-combined.pdf

Thought to good to be true, the muppets at PRA Group have paid to have the stay lifted, so have received 'notice of proposed allocation to the fast track', have to respond by 13/04. We have agreed with the FOS and they have told 'Barclays Bank UK PLC to settle the complaint directly in the way we agreed'. clearly the claim is wrong on many different levels. So what's the next move?

Hi dx, thank you for your response, as always i find invaluable. I agree its a win, providing the whole thing goes away. funny you should say that lol. I am learning and will of course apply this to other more pressing issues as you have alluded, I do realise that sometimes one has to know when to quit, and that the moral high ground can be costly. Many Thanks again for your help.

What im saying is they lent money that was unaffordable, it couldn’t be repaid. Nothing has changed, it cant be paid back. it follows how and why would it be expected to be? To me its an unfair contract, to lend money to someone knowing they cannot afford to repay it. As for not suffering loss because you've not paid back the borrowing i just see as smoke and mirrors.

This is a quote from the FOS findings: “CONC makes it clear that Barclaycard is required to complete reasonable and proportionate checks to ensure Mr *********** could repay any amount he was borrowing in a sustainable manner, without it adversely impacting his financial situation.” the reality they didnt, so why should they expect to be repaid?

Firstly, I don't understand this attitude that the capital borrowed is different to the interest charged. If they lent irresponsibly then tough they shouldn't get any of it back, they are a multimillion/billion pound outfit and they know the law inside out. I appreciate the whole you've had it and you've spent it blah blah blah... but as said #53 there is no real deterrent to irresponsible lending. I hear what you are saying, you've borrowed x and you've paid y. does y cover x. But this is very simplistic and takes the contract as a whole. This is not a Chargecard, people work to a monthly cycle. You cant escape the fact that from a monthly perspective there is substantial reduction in spendable income and with that financial loss. In any event, is it really likely that Barclaycard will go in front of a judge, when they've been found guilty of irresponsible lending and plead for a few quid, I think not!

sry dx, i dont understand. the FOS are saying that they should never have lent any more than 7k, probably even less. yet they've been taking interest payments for a 16k card. that means hes not had the benefit of that difference.

sorry i dont understand, interest was paid every month until payments stopped, the FOS have investigated, they havre been found to be irresponsible, they have accepted the findings. the door is wide open to a claim

In this country you are entitled to be compensated for financial loss if someone is found to be negligent. I will issue a summons for financial loss which has arisen from there irresponsible lending. At the end of the day if they've taken £100-£300/mth in interest because of irresponsible lending, then that money has not been available for other things. It is those other things which have a value which have been lost. For example, it hindered your ability to pay down other loans/credit, which meant you paid more interest, as an example. That money could have been used for a pension fund, which has now been lost. hell, at a bare minimum you should be entitled to interest on that lost money. the list is endless.

That may well be, which is why a summons will most likely be heading barclays way.

Well the FOS have not given compensation , only a refund in relation to interest, there's also nothing punitive. Its like a being burgled and having your possessions stolen, then when the police catch the thieves, they simply hand the stolen goods back and everything's ok. Well its not ok is it. without compensation or punitive costs the thieves will simply do it again. We know how it works, its maths, the lenders and dca's operate knowing this. hell, even the ombudsman knows this, everybody does. The FOS have given nothing in relation to the fact that Barclaycard has through irresponsible lending caused collateral financial issues with other aspects of life and other lenders. It fails to take into account stress and anxiety, not to mention selling the debt to a bunch of scammers causing a whole load more of wasted time and stress. In my mind, they've been caught, quite rightly. And they should be made to pay back properly what they've taken. rant over

Not sure what the award is, they said refund interest on balances above 7k, which was the limit in 2013. but there has been multiple increases to the 2016 16k limit. account has always been pretty much racked up the entire period. so quite difficult to calculate. regarding pra how does that leave the claim? given that everything since 2013 is pretty much irrelevant? is the default notice even ligit, how could they even enforce a 'left over'? seems all messy to me. TBH, i feel a claim against Barclaycard in the wings.

Hi everyone, quick update. Still heard nothing from courts or pra, mcol still shows last entry as defence received. I have however heard from the FOS who have found in our favour and have requested that Barclaycard put my brother back to the position he would have been in 2013! all negative info to be removed from credit file also. Barclaycard have already agreed. the FOS said that they could only go back to 2013 as there wasn't enough evidence to prove irresponsible lending prior, but that doesn't mean there wasn't, just that they couldn't make a judgment. So i now have no idea of the process or where that leaves everything, will have to wait and see. Also not sure if we still end up owing Barclaycard anything or not. Will keep you all upto date. thank you all for your help on this, I will of course be making a donation!