smt37 vs Morgan Stanley/Goldfish/Barclaycard ** ORDER TO PRODUCE CCA CPR31.16 WIN ***

[42man]

Great news !! very well done to all !!

[42man]

I'd be interested to see how you laid out the court papers/POC's....

[the_shadow]

I'd be interested to see how you laid out the court papers/POC's....

 

I think he stated earlier in the thread he just followed pt2537's thread and instructions to the letter

 

S.

[GARY68]

nice one SMT37,

wonder how much they were charging for the barrester? and what was his reaction to producing the agreement ,

it would be great if you could supply some details of how long you were in for and what the judges general view seemed to be regarding the aggreements/rogue debter sinario.

Excellent news and im following with interest,again well done:)

Gary

[angel_1]

hiya smt

 

Very Good Result, and on such a sunny day as well, let the sun shine on all our cases:D

 

well id actually given them a bit more and they have gone past my first letter so off to do my second one now - thanks for the update and once you have caught your breath back we shall all look forward to more info

 

You will now be known as the "The First One",,,,,,

 

laters all keep positive

angel x

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi SMT,

 

Well done. That is absolutely brilliant news. Look forward to reading more later.

 

DDxx

[diddydicky]

good news well done!

[militantconsumer]

Brilliant smt, can't wait for the full report!

 

I wonder if they will start dealing with this properly now.

 

I'm pretty sure Barclays will have massive provisions in their accounts against all these alleged debts anyway, so it won't make any difference to them if they end up writing them all off.

[alfwithhair]

Fantastic news - Barclaysharks will be reeling now - everybody will be on the band wagon

[beachcomber60]

Fantastic news - Barclaysharks will be reeling now - everybody will be on the band wagon

 

 

I think barclayshark will be working overtime in their mail room/legal department over the next few months!

[citizenB]

Excellent news. Well done everyone.

[pt2537]

WHHOOOOO HOOOOOOO Great result, i feel really vindicated with this result.

 

i can now say that i was called reckless, mad, unhelpful and lots of other names for suggesting that people follow the CPR approach under 31.16 by quite a few people who clearly didnt understand the principles and proceedures. I use CPR 31.16 regularly and i knew that it would be successful if used properly

 

im really pleased that my thread helped, you need to always show a lender has breached a pre action protocol and as long as you can do this then you should be safe

 

It would be helpful SMT if you could be so kind as to post up a report so as to give people an insite into you own experience.

[underdog13]

Congrats Smt:)

[smt37]

OK. Sorry for keeping everyone waiting...

 

My application followed pt's example to the letter and in my case, Barclaycard had not been able to locate my agreement at all. In nine months, they sent me a card carrier, and two other people's CCA's. However, in my witness statement, I only referred (and enclosed) the correspondence since the first CPR request.

 

Barclaycard contacted me by telephone a few days before the hearing and made an offer to pay back the application fee (£70) if they could have another 21 days to find the agreement. I asked them to send it to me in writing and they e-mailed it. Unfortunately, the offer was on the condition that the hearing would be vacated and Barclaycard would notify the court. I refused the offer because I wanted the Court Order - otherwise I would have to start the whole process again if they couldn't find it in 21 days and asked for another 21 days and so on.

 

The day before the hearing, Barclays e-mailed me to explain that they had instructed a barrister to attend and would be seeking an order for costs. The schedule of costs was attached and was just under £1,000! The barrister was instructed from some top chambers in London and had plenty of experience, so I have to admit, at this stage, I was a little worried that I might have a fight on my hands and could lose the costs if I had missed something that he might have found - a carve out or loophole or something.

 

I arrived at the court early with a folder containing notes, all correspondence and a diary of the correspondence. The barrister arrived shortly afterwards and introduced himself to me. We both sat in the waiting area and didn't talk to each other. This is my second time in court because I won a set-aside against First Credit last year, so I knew the procedure.

 

We were both called in and the usher introduced us to the judge and we sat opposite each other with the judge to my left and the barrister's right. We were all within passing distance of each other. The judge admitted she had not had time to read the witness statement and asked if we would mind waiting for a minute or two for her to familiarise herself with the application. At this point, the barrister offered to sum up the case for her. He went ahead and explained in very brief detail that I had made the CPR request and Barclays did not object to the application, but they were having trouble finding the agreement and that they had bought the debt from another company and there were some "administrative issues" with the handover.

 

The judge asked me why I wanted to get the agreement and I simply explained that due to the current climate, I was under threat of redundancy at work and wanted to know my situation with unsecured creditors. I said that at the time I entered into any agreements, I was not aware of my rights and now I am, so I was checking everything.

 

I then explained that I had requested the document nine months ago and proceeded to explain the diary of I asked for this under s.78 of the 1974 Act and on [date] they sent me the card carrier. I explained to them on [date] that I wanted the agreement and they sent me someone else's agreement on [date] and son on, up until I requested the application under the CPR (twice) and then felt I had no choice but to make the application to the court for the order due to Barclays acting in such a frustrating manner.

 

The judge turned to the barrister acting for Barclays and said something like "It seems that Barclays are having trouble locating the claimant's agreement. If it cannot be found, then clearly his next step would be to apply to the court again for an injunction against Barclays applying for an enforcement order, so Barclays might want to consider writing off the debt now rather than waste any more of the court's time?"... To which the barrister said "Err... well, I'm not in a position to comment on that on behalf of my client". At this point, I knew I was on the right track!

 

The barrister then made a play on the offer made by Barclays a few days before the hearing and said that I had refused the offer and so the were requesting an order for costs. I butted in and explained that I understood that the offer was subject to vacation of the hearing and I didn't feel I should have to wait more time or start the process again as nine months is more than a reasonable time in total and 42 days in total for the pre-action requests. The barrister showed the judge the offer letter and she agreed with me and said "I agree with SMT37. The offer does not agree to the order. If you had accepted the order, then I would have agreed to your application for costs. However, you did not, so I will award costs to SMT37. We then agreed on the cost of the application £70, so it cost Barclays over £1,000 in total to attend the hearing and get nowhere!

 

...and that was it. The judge thanked us for our time and we left.

 

I have to admit, I spent a lot of time preparing for the hearing and had a number of counterarguments ready in case the barrister challenged the track or the costs, however, I didn't need them!

 

When I get my £70 back, I guess I'll be using it to apply for the injunction against the enforcement order, unless of course, Barclays write it off, in which case, I'll be using it for the application with Natwest or RBS next...

 

Many thanks to everyone for the discussion and help.

[pt2537]

OK. Sorry for keeping everyone waiting...

 

My application followed pt's example to the letter and in my case, Barclaycard had not been able to locate my agreement at all. In nine months, they sent me a card carrier, and two other people's CCA's. However, in my witness statement, I only referred (and enclosed) the correspondence since the first CPR request.

 

Barclaycard contacted me by telephone a few days before the hearing and made an offer to pay back the application fee (£70) if they could have another 21 days to find the agreement. I asked them to send it to me in writing and they e-mailed it. Unfortunately, the offer was on the condition that the hearing would be vacated and Barclaycard would notify the court. I refused the offer because I wanted the Court Order - otherwise I would have to start the whole process again if they couldn't find it in 21 days and asked for another 21 days and so on.

 

The day before the hearing, Barclays e-mailed me to explain that they had instructed a barrister to attend and would be seeking an order for costs. The schedule of costs was attached and was just under £1,000! The barrister was instructed from some top chambers in London and had plenty of experience, so I have to admit, at this stage, I was a little worried that I might have a fight on my hands and could lose the costs if I had missed something that he might have found - a carve out or loophole or something.

 

I arrived at the court early with a folder containing notes, all correspondence and a diary of the correspondence. The barrister arrived shortly afterwards and introduced himself to me. We both sat in the waiting area and didn't talk to each other. This is my second time in court because I won a set-aside against First Credit last year, so I knew the procedure.

 

We were both called in and the usher introduced us to the judge and we sat opposite each other with the judge to my left and the barrister's right. We were all within passing distance of each other. The judge admitted she had not had time to read the witness statement and asked if we would mind waiting for a minute or two for her to familiarise herself with the application. At this point, the barrister offered to sum up the case for her. He went ahead and explained in very brief detail that I had made the CPR request and Barclays did not object to the application, but they were having trouble finding the agreement and that they had bought the debt from another company and there were some "administrative issues" with the handover.

 

The judge asked me why I wanted to get the agreement and I simply explained that due to the current climate, I was under threat of redundancy at work and wanted to know my situation with unsecured creditors. I said that at the time I entered into any agreements, I was not aware of my rights and now I am, so I was checking everything.

 

I then explained that I had requested the document nine months ago and proceeded to explain the diary of I asked for this under s.78 of the 1974 Act and on [date] they sent me the card carrier. I explained to them on [date] that I wanted the agreement and they sent me someone else's agreement on [date] and son on, up until I requested the application under the CPR (twice) and then felt I had no choice but to make the application to the court for the order due to Barclays acting in such a frustrating manner.

 

The judge turned to the barrister acting for Barclays and said something like "It seems that Barclays are having trouble locating the claimant's agreement. If it cannot be found, then clearly his next step would be to apply to the court again for an injunction against Barclays applying for an enforcement order, so Barclays might want to consider writing off the debt now rather than waste any more of the court's time?"... To which the barrister said "Err... well, I'm not in a position to comment on that on behalf of my client". At this point, I knew I was on the right track!

 

The barrister then made a play on the offer made by Barclays a few days before the hearing and said that I had refused the offer and so the were requesting an order for costs. I butted in and explained that I understood that the offer was subject to vacation of the hearing and I didn't feel I should have to wait more time or start the process again as nine months is more than a reasonable time in total and 42 days in total for the pre-action requests. The barrister showed the judge the offer letter and she agreed with me and said "I agree with SMT37. The offer does not agree to the order. If you had accepted the order, then I would have agreed to your application for costs. However, you did not, so I will award costs to SMT37. We then agreed on the cost of the application £70, so it cost Barclays over £1,000 in total to attend the hearing and get nowhere!

 

...and that was it. The judge thanked us for our time and we left.

 

I have to admit, I spent a lot of time preparing for the hearing and had a number of counterarguments ready in case the barrister challenged the track or the costs, however, I didn't need them!

 

When I get my £70 back, I guess I'll be using it to apply for the injunction against the enforcement order, unless of course, Barclays write it off, in which case, I'll be using it for the application with Natwest or RBS next...

 

Many thanks to everyone for the discussion and help.

Fantastic, this is a fabulous account of events, very very helpful and i hope will assist others with standing up to the might of the financial institutions.

 

the injunction is the correct route to go, should you need any assistence then i will be happy to oblige in the drafting of the application:)

[tosh1]

subbing

[diddydicky]

absolutely brilliant what is more satisfying is that the trolls will read this and i feel that few other cases will even get this far in future ( certainly not barclayshark anyway)

[underdog13]

 

We then agreed on the cost of the application £70, so it cost Barclays over £1,000 in total to attend the hearing and get nowhere!

 

 

Well done Smt:)

 

Barclays have ignored my CCA request for 5 months now......

 

Barclays sent my friend an 'agreement' with his MBNA card number on it, not his Barclaycard number:rolleyes: Someone's been on the sherry:lol:

[louloujs]

Subbing with interest, in same situation with Sharkleys and others. Feel somewhat vulnerable not knowing whether any of them might pull out an enforceable CCA at the last minute so going to bite the bullet and CPR the particularly dubious ones.

 

Knees knock at the prospect of a court appearance but not nearly as loudly now that I've read the finer points of this case, so a huge thank you for taking me on such an enlightening journey.

 

LL

[noomill060]

Excellent news and well done. Laurence Evans will not be a happy bunny.

 

They sent me someone else's MSDW application form as well!

[noomill060]

I followed the logic of PT's multiple agreement argument as part of my own POCs.

 

It worked.

 

Barclay's solicitor told me at Court, that I should take up the Law!

 

Thanks again PT. I kept out of the recent goings on on the other thread, not wanting to enflame the situation further, I was disgusted with the ignorant comments made against you. Thanks for staying.

[Muffintop]

WHHOOOOO HOOOOOOO Great result, i feel really vindicated with this result.

 

i can now say that i was called reckless, mad, unhelpful and lots of other names for suggesting that people follow the CPR approach under 31.16 by quite a few people who clearly didnt understand the principles and proceedures. I use CPR 31.16 regularly and i knew that it would be successful if used properly

 

Sounds excellent news and the read up of the hearing very usefull. I went down the cpr 31.16 route but they did not respond, what should I do next?

Edited April 23, 2009 by slick132
sorted the quote section

[pt2537]

I followed the logic of PT's multiple agreement argument as part of my own POCs.

 

It worked.

 

Barclay's solicitor told me at Court, that I should take up the Law!

 

Thanks again PT. I kept out of the recent goings on on the other thread, not wanting to enflame the situation further, I was disgusted with the ignorant comments made against you. Thanks for staying.

Hello Noomil me ol'e mate,

 

 

cheers, im grateful for your support, it can be real fun filleting all these Barclaycard donkeys cant it.

 

i do like it when they send expensive barristers who actually dont get briefed very well and then end up getting their well educated arses kicked by lay persons. brings a smile to my face every time

[GARY68]

Hi smt

great details again well done,

can you confirm please that barclaycard have never sent even a application form with your signature on it as a agreement to which they could pull out of the hat,or do they realise that wouldnt work without the prescribed terms,

what I mean is could they produce this application form as proof of the debt in front of the judge?

Gary

[Wilma Shoozfit]

Abolutely brilliant news!

 

Well done SMT and thanks to PT for brilliant advice.