David v BarclaysGoliath ***WON***

[oneofakind]

Well, I've started the ball rolling....

 

After months of humming and haaing, sent the Data Request letter last week. Seems the hard part is the waiting. 5 weeks to go....

 

Did ANYONE get a speedy result from 'big B'? (I don't expect so...)

 

Best of luck to everyone claiming.

 

D.;-)

[carter56]

hi d i to am waiting for my statements to come back so i will follow your link and see how you get on my link is carters56 vs barclays

good luck

linda

[iskanda]

Well, I've started the ball rolling....

 

After months of humming and haaing, sent the Data Request letter last week. Seems the hard part is the waiting. 5 weeks to go....

 

Did ANYONE get a speedy result from 'big B'? (I don't expect so...)

 

Best of luck to everyone claiming.

 

D.;-)

 

I gave my local branch a call and asked them for copy statments going back 6 years, and received them within 5 days. With the exception of the phone call, it didn't cost me a penny. Might be worth giving it a go?

[oneofakind]

Never tried that! I've been informed in the past that copy statements cost £5 EACH, so never gave that approach a thought. Thought I was getting quite a bargain at £10 for six dozen.....

[oneofakind]

Took a few minutes to copy over this item from Radio 4 'Moneybox', broadcast last week. Could be a useful addition to someone's bundle, maybe?(This is straight from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/money_box/transcripts/07_01_27.txt , and you can hear it as an audio file on the moneybox web page)I can't see any errors, but if YOU do, please shout up!Cheers, D.--------------------------------------------------------------------STUDIO: As we’ve reported on Money Box before, customers trying to reclaim bank penalty charges which may be illegal are having to go to the courts to get them back. But although the banks force them into court, they then don’t defend the action and pay up before a judgement is reached. Now Money Box has learned that some judges are losing patience with the banks’ approach. Bob Howard reports.HOWARD: I’m outside Brentford County Court in West London, one of 220 throughout England and Wales. So far this year, this court alone has seen seven cases listed involving customers trying to reclaim charges from their banks. All of them were settled before the hearings. Now a judge in Lincoln has issued an order to at least one bank, threatening to throw its case out before it’s even due to be heard unless it can prove it intends to contest the case in court. ORDER: The court of its own notion is considering striking the defence out as an abusive process on the basis that it has settled all previous claims of this nature. If the defendant objects to this course of action, it is to file at court within fourteen days a schedule setting out a list of all claims it has pursued to trial and all claims it has settled.HOWARD: The words of Judge Toombs. He told Money Box he couldn’t speak about “ongoing cases”, but it’s believed he’s made at least six of these orders. So far it seems the banks have decided to pay out rather than have to list all the claims against them and their outcome. Marc Gander from the Consumer Action Group website says the orders are “significant”.GANDER: This judge seems to be giving the banks either between 7 to 14 days basically to explain themselves and to demonstrate that they are going to be serious litigants or the case will be struck out. The people who claim are led basically a song and dance through the procedural obstacles of small claims litigation, which can take anything between 3 to 4 months, but finally this judge is putting a stop to it.HOWARD: Karen is one of the bank customers who’s benefited from one of Judge Toombs’ orders. She went to court to reclaim £250 in charges which Lloyds TSB put on her credit card account.KAREN: It means a heck of a lot because the judge is finally standing up to the banks and the banks’ solicitors and saying come on, stop wasting our time – either pay up at the beginning or let’s have somebody in court and bring your defence into court. If this judge’s order is going to make the banks think twice about taking it as far before they actually settle or in fact turn up in court and answer to a case, then that will be wonderful.HOWARD: Peter Cable from Newark in Nottinghamshire has received the same order, also against Lloyds TSB. He’s claiming back £2,400. He hopes other judges will follow suit. CABLE: I think it would be a wake up call for the banks. It would certainly make the banks realise that they have to treat this issue seriously and it’s not just an annoying instance that they hope will go away. I believe this is now an attempt to call their bluff and say are you serious, in which case we’ll deal with it; if not, don’t waste our time.HOWARD: The banks have always insisted that their charges are both lawful and fair. Lloyds TSB says it has now settled Karen and Peter’s claims, but in a statement it questioned the judge’s right to threaten to strike out its defence.STATEMENT: The judge made his order without a hearing, so we were not given a chance to make representations. We believe that the order was legally flawed. We judge cases on an individual basis and in this case made a decision to settle. Had we not settled, we would have applied to set the order aside.HOWARD: Judge Toombs’ actions have certainly caught the attention of other district judges as they decide how best to deal with the thousands of bank charge cases reaching their courts. Judge Paul Collins speaks on behalf of county court judges in London.COLLINS: It’s obviously in the interests of consumers that there should be clear guidance as to how these cases are to be dealt with. Nobody can approve of the situation which exists at the moment, which leaves so many people in the dark as to what the banks’ real intentions are going to be, and I think I’m speaking for all judges who deal with these cases when I say it would be very desirable to have a test case to see whether or not the arguments being put forward by the banks are sustainable or not. And the present position must be a matter of frustration to judges and I agree with them. HOWARD: Judge Collins has tried to hasten a ruling by referring his bank charge cases to a higher court. Yet again, they’ve all been settled before they could be heard. Here at Brentford County Court, the great bank charge claims bonanza goes on with another five cases already listed for next month.LEWIS: Thanks, Bob.---------------------------------------------------------------------

[oneofakind]

Well, that was BEAUTIFULLY formatted before I posted it.......

[sandbag]

Ha ha - well at least you tried - very interesting read tho.

Regards Sandbag.

[oneofakind]

Well, here we go. Got two fat bundles through the letterbox holding six years worth of printouts for my two accounts. Now I just have to wade through them, and get cracking on my spreadsheet.....

 

Can anyone advise if it's best to treat the two accounts as completely separate claims, or just lump them together?

 

Any thoughts greatly appreciated.

 

D.

[Advoc8]

As long as you modify the letters / particulars to refer to both accounts (and obviously as long as they're both in your name) you can deal with them together.

[oneofakind]

Thanks for that. Means I don't have to do everything twice!D.

[dar£n]

Can anyone advise if it's best to treat the two accounts as completely separate claims, or just lump them together?

Once again I walk in 'Advoc8's' footsteps, he always beats me with his well informed info.

As stated it is okay to 'bundle' accounts together, I have done it with mine.

Barclays will respond referring to only one, watch this, any replies make sure you always refer to all accounts involved, I simply put them as the main heading [Re: A/c xxxxxxxxx & xxxxxxxxx]

[oneofakind]

Well, finally got the spreadsheet thing cracked, and my prelim. letter goes off tomorrow. I used Bankfodder's template, which it's hard to find fault with, and just tweaked it a bit to fit my own case.

 

Anyone else at the same stage, so we can compare notes?

 

Best regards to all,

 

David.

[oneofakind]

Well, surprise, surprise, no response to initial request.

 

And they stuffed me for more charges in the meantime (no surprise:evil: !)

 

So LBA went yesterday, with suitably amended claim and schedule.

 

Best to all,

 

David.

[oneofakind]

Transcript of a recent Radio 4 'Moneybox' programme.

 

I first posted this a while back, but got the formatting all wrong. Just looked at it again today, and decided to fix it. Hope this works ok:oops:

 

Can anyone tell me why my signature shows when I preview a post, but not when I view the thread normally?

 

Am I doing something stupid, or is that the way it's supposed to work?:-?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...s/07_01_27.txt , Cheers, D.

--------------------------------------------------------------------STUDIO: As we’ve reported on Money Box before, customers trying to reclaim bank penalty charges which may be illegal are having to go to the courts to get them back. But although the banks force them into court, they then don’t defend the action and pay up before a judgement is reached. Now Money Box has learned that some judges are losing patience with the banks’ approach. Bob Howard reports.

 

HOWARD: I’m outside Brentford County Court in West London, one of 220 throughout England and Wales. So far this year, this court alone has seen seven cases listed involving customers trying to reclaim charges from their banks. All of them were settled before the hearings. Now a judge in Lincoln has issued an order to at least one bank, threatening to throw its case out before it’s even due to be heard unless it can prove it intends to contest the case in court.

 

ORDER: 'The court of its own notion is considering striking the defence out as an abusive process on the basis that it has settled all previous claims of this nature. If the defendant objects to this course of action, it is to file at court within fourteen days a schedule setting out a list of all claims it has pursued to trial and all claims it has settled.'

 

HOWARD: The words of Judge Toombs. He told Money Box he couldn’t speak about “ongoing cases”, but it’s believed he’s made at least six of these orders. So far it seems the banks have decided to pay out rather than have to list all the claims against them and their outcome. Marc Gander from the Consumer Action Group website says the orders are “significant”.

 

GANDER: This judge seems to be giving the banks either between 7 to 14 days basically to explain themselves and to demonstrate that they are going to be serious litigants or the case will be struck out. The people who claim are led basically a song and dance through the procedural obstacles of small claims litigation, which can take anything between 3 to 4 months, but finally this judge is putting a stop to it.

 

HOWARD: Karen is one of the bank customers who’s benefited from one of Judge Toombs’ orders. She went to court to reclaim £250 in charges which Lloyds TSB put on her credit card account.

 

KAREN: It means a heck of a lot because the judge is finally standing up to the banks and the banks’ solicitors and saying come on, stop wasting our time – either pay up at the beginning or let’s have somebody in court and bring your defence into court. If this judge’s order is going to make the banks think twice about taking it as far before they actually settle or in fact turn up in court and answer to a case, then that will be wonderful.

 

HOWARD: Peter Cable from Newark in Nottinghamshire has received the same order, also against Lloyds TSB. He’s claiming back £2,400. He hopes other judges will follow suit.

 

CABLE: I think it would be a wake up call for the banks. It would certainly make the banks realise that they have to treat this issue seriously and it’s not just an annoying instance that they hope will go away. I believe this is now an attempt to call their bluff and say are you serious, in which case we’ll deal with it; if not, don’t waste our time.

 

HOWARD: The banks have always insisted that their charges are both lawful and fair. Lloyds TSB says it has now settled Karen and Peter’s claims, but in a statement it questioned the judge’s right to threaten to strike out its defence.

 

STATEMENT: The judge made his order without a hearing, so we were not given a chance to make representations. We believe that the order was legally flawed. We judge cases on an individual basis and in this case made a decision to settle. Had we not settled, we would have applied to set the order aside.

 

HOWARD: Judge Toombs’ actions have certainly caught the attention of other district judges as they decide how best to deal with the thousands of bank charge cases reaching their courts. Judge Paul Collins speaks on behalf of county court judges in London.

 

COLLINS: It’s obviously in the interests of consumers that there should be clear guidance as to how these cases are to be dealt with. Nobody can approve of the situation which exists at the moment, which leaves so many people in the dark as to what the banks’ real intentions are going to be, and I think I’m speaking for all judges who deal with these cases when I say it would be very desirable to have a test case to see whether or not the arguments being put forward by the banks are sustainable or not. And the present position must be a matter of frustration to judges and I agree with them.

 

HOWARD: Judge Collins has tried to hasten a ruling by referring his bank charge cases to a higher court. Yet again, they’ve all been settled before they could be heard. Here at Brentford County Court, the great bank charge claims bonanza goes on with another five cases already listed for next month.

 

STUDIO: Thanks, Bob.---------------

[oneofakind]

Been reading Bankfodder's opinions on claiming back beyond 6 years.

 

The main argument seems to be that if the Banks acted deceitfully in denying the right to claim back charges, then the 6-year limit would be inapplicable.

 

Sounds good to me! I had some MAJOR problems in the years before 2001, and I shudder to think how much I lost in charges.

 

Anyway, my original DPA request only resulted in 6 years worth of info, so this is going to Barclays today:

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

 

LETTER BEFORE ACTION

Section 7 – Data Protection Act 1998

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Accounts: xxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx.

 

I am in receipt of the documents that you have supplied in response to my Data Protection Act information request dated 25/01/07. I believe the disclosure of personal data to be incomplete in that you have not supplied information covering the period from the opening of the accounts to January 2001.

My Request clearly asked for documents relating to 'my banking history with your organisation', not just the last 6 year period.

 

Accordingly, I must tell you that you have not yet complied with your obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998.

I must insist that you supply the information I have requested, or supply me with a valid reason why you cannot do so.

 

The time for compliance with my request has now expired. If you do not comply fully with my Subject Access Request within 7 days of receipt of this letter, I shall be forced to apply to the County Court for an order to enforce compliance, together with damages at the discretion of the court.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Oneofakind.

-----------------------------------------------

 

Will let you know what happens.....

 

Meanwhile, it's MCOL time next week!

 

D. :-D

[oneofakind]

Can anyone answer this for me?

 

If I don't get a settlement in the next 10 days, next stop is court claim.

I'm not in work at the moment, and may well qualify for reduced or waived court fees. To claim relief on fees, I have to send the relevant form to the court with my actual claim.

 

Question is: is there a facility to claim fee relief through a MCOL claim ? Or will I have to claim in person?

 

I was planning to use MCOL for convenience, but wouldn't like to get right to the 'submit claim' page and find I've wasted my time.

 

:confused:

[oneofakind]

Bump?

[CAZKATJOE]

I wanted to do this as well but was unable, so you have to do it in person i think.

I paid in the end, that way Barclays end up paying for it and not the tax payers, so if you can do it that way

CAZ

[oneofakind]

Never thought of it that way, Caz.

 

thanks.

 

[CAZKATJOE]

I know it is hard, as i am a single parent on working families tax credit, so I could have got it free, but opted on the advise of someone else to pay and then Barclays pay for it.

However i luckily had the money saved in my money box (my emergency fund) so opted to pay, but this is not an option for everyone. So you can fill in the forms and get it free, if you do it in person.

Hope all goes well, Barclays should have been served my mcol claim today so just 28 days to go.

 

Good luck in what ever you decide, keep us all informed.

 

Caz:)

[oneofakind]

FINALLY - A RESPONSE !!

They've sent the standard letter, offering £570.

 

But since I've claimed on 2 accounts, and only one is mentioned in their letter (as expected!) I think they're WAY short.

 

Their offer is 77% of charges on the account their letter refers to.

Not bad.

 

45% of my claimed total from both accounts.

Not so good.

 

And 36% of what my court claim would be for (interest to today's date, no costs included)

 

their letter refers to 'the total amount you are seeking' which I guess means the 45% figure.

 

If they were to offer me 77% of my total claim, that's £960, I would think about it!

 

ARE YOU READING THIS, BARCLAYS?

Come on, PM me!

I'm getting back to them for clarification, but I imagine we all know what the answer is.

 

I'll give them 7 days, then go to court. Claim was due on 20th, so I'm not causing much delay.

 

Anyone care to comment?

 

David.

(still cool)

[oneofakind]

The plot thickens...

Rang Barclays on 0845 6090806 to clear up the one account/both accounts business. (Using the phone is against my normal advice, but hey...)

Spoke to a very helpful lady who assures me that the letter relates to one account only, and that their records show no dispute on the other account in question!

Very odd that, since my initial claim AND my LBA clearly refer to BOTH account numbers. SOC was a separate sheet for each account, brought together with a combined total.

 

Have I made a mistake in combining the two claims, or are they just messing me about???:-?

 

Anyone else found themselves in this situation?

 

My LBA said court action would start on the 20th; should I be carrying on regardless?

 

D:-? :-?

[oneofakind]

hokay, I need to find out exactly where I stand here.

 

I'm sending this tomorrow, unless someone can suggest something better?

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

Re: ACCOUNT NUMBERS: xx-xx-xx XXXXXXXX AND YYYYYYYY

 

Response to settlement offer.

 

Dear Mr. Spring,

 

Thank you for your settlement offer dated 17th April 2007, (Your Ref.********).

I am slightly confused as to the exact nature of this offer. My previous requests for repayment of charges clearly refer to BOTH of my current accounts. Your offer refers only to account no.XXXXXXXX.

 

Am I to assume that your offer is in relation to this account only (and that, therefore, a similar offer is pending for account number YYYYYYYY) or refers to my claim on BOTH accounts?

 

For clarification; I have claimed £AAA.00 on account XXXXXXXX

and £BBB.00 on account YYYYYYYY.

A Total claim of £1,A+B.00.

In order to avoid Litigation against you, I am prepared to temporarily accept the sum offered as partial settlement on the clear understanding that the remainder of the total sum claimed on both accounts (£DDD.00) is offered within the next 10 days.

 

Failure to comply with this request will result in legal action against you for full recovery, as detailed in my Letter Before Action dated April 3rd. In order to allow you time to clarify the situation, I will postpone legal action until May 1st.

 

Should such action become necessary, my claim will be in the amount of £E,EEE (as further charges have been levied since my initial request) plus costs, plus interest, which will total approximately £LOADS.00 (excluding costs).

I am sure we are both well aware how many similar claims are currently pending, and how many have been successful. I am sure you will recognise that a swift end to this case will be beneficial to both parties.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I wish to stress that I do not accept your offer under the terms stated in your letter. If, however, you agree to offer me a settlement of £1,A+B.00 in total, BEFORE May 1st, then I will take no further action.

 

I trust this clarifies my position.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

I didn't really want to give them any further time, but I think it's the right way forward here.

 

Anyone care to comment?

 

D.:-| :-|

 

 

[carter56]

sounds ok to me but good luck david let us know how you go on - linda

[oneofakind]

Thanks Linda.

I just needed someone to read it; make sure I haven't said anything stupid or expensive!

 

It's going now....

 

How's your claim?

 

D.