Court date: 14th August 2007 (over £2,800 claim) - mikejames1 vs Barclays

[mikejames1]

I suppose ultimately it's that the charges, regardless of your T&C's are considered unlawful but will check about, is it just the T&C's for when I opened my account then?

 

I think I opened my account when I was 16, so in 1999 or 2000.....

[mikejames1]

don't have time to get my T&C's in now so am gonna go without

 

shouldn't be a major I don't think plus if essential can always try & add early next week before the whole things kicks off

[MoneyKing]

Please add the Terms and conditions, incase your case gets heard and without these you do not have a ground to stand on!

 

Download from here:

 

Barclays T&C Databse

RapidShare: 1-Click Webhosting

[mikejames1]

many thanks for that link

 

I will print the Terms & Conditions off & add them as Part 2 to my Barclays bundle which is being sent tonight to Barclays & then deliver Part 2 by hand to the COurt on monday

 

Then the bundles will all match & be correct

 

Thanks again

 

By the way, my account was opened around 99/00 so do I just need those T&C's or prefarably all from that date onwards?

[mikejames1]

Funny how in the T&C's from 1998 it states:

 

"from 1/11/98"

 

"Fees over unauthorised .......... are

 

£25 for unpaid item, transaction....."

 

So although these are in the T&C's we still are stating that they are deemed unlawful really

[pjdavies2000]

yes - that's what we are counting on!

 

Peter

[mikejames1]

right

 

barclays were sent the bundle

court have received bundle (delivered by hand)

i have my bundle

 

HERE WE GO!!

 

someone at my work went in to the court vs HSBC yesterday & apparently the judge said that he believed if stand alone trial, it would swing in her favour but was stayed for 6 months because of the test case which is unfortunate

 

6 months isn't too bad though (as long as test case decision is good!)

[saintly_1]

What court is this ?

[mikejames1]

Oxford County Court

[pjdavies2000]

right

someone at my work went in to the court vs HSBC yesterday & apparently the judge said that he believed if stand alone trial, it would swing in her favour but was stayed for 6 months because of the test case which is unfortunate

 

Then how can the judge justify a stay!??!

 

Surely if he/she has said that the weight of evidence is in her favour then the test case is neither here nor there?

 

ARGHHHHH!!!!

 

this is getting to be insane!!!!

 

(although sounds good for the test case!)

[mikejames1]

I will get some more information from her when she is back at work because it would frustrate the hell out of me if the judge said I am coorect about the banks being unfair, THEN stay it!

[vincymum]

Good luck for tomorrow.

May the law be with you.

[mikejames1]

cheers

[saintly_1]

Good Luck ....... post back as soon as you can

[mikejames1]

will do

 

have just printed off the 3 copies of the objection and will give it a go

 

I feel much better that a woman I work with only had her charges, no court bubndle against HSBC and the judge ripped the solicitor of HSBC to shred, especially when he refused to pay the court fees..... haha!!

[mikejames1]

right i'm off to court!!

[smutley]

Good luck!!

[MARTIN3030]

Will be interesting.

 

Note to anyone wanting updated info on the Courts current position.A thread is running for this,see here;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/109936-find-out-here-if.html

[mikejames1]

just back

 

Court Bundle was fine and judge commented on my good preparation & how much work I had put into it

 

Barclays argued well but then ultimately went to a stay

 

I then put forward my objections including the injunctions. Barclays made some very good points I must admit because they cannot confirm that they will not close your account or charge you more as if they do this & I then completely abuse my account, they're stuck with this case injunction.....

 

Anyway, long story short

 

the judge went against my objection & allowed a stay however stated I would have LOST which actually scared the crap out of me.

 

Unfortunately the reasons passed me as I was a little unsettled by what could have happened but it was basically that the penalty charges formed part of my aggreement or something but it's not that, it's the AMOUNT?

 

Anyway I am happy he stayed it now (I think to help me keep with the other people) but the fact I would have lost has really worried me... I know I'm OK now, just really quite suprised by it all!

 

ps. the hearing was adjurned for half an hour when I presented the objection so barclays could gather some feedback......

[mikejames1]

and my girlfriend who works at a solicitors says this means I probably will eventually lose....?

[Mister Twister]

Sorry your case was stayed and hopefully the OFT test case might make it easier for you to win once the stay is lifted.

 

Was this a back to back hearing or were you in court on your own?

 

I don't understand the reason you would have lost - I am in court next week and this has got me worried.

[mikejames1]

back to back hearings, a few with barclays

 

he was interested in the human rights act objection to teh stay & other details, i don't think he was particularly won over by my requested injunctions though

 

do I get any post hearing feedback or anything?

 

i know I should have asked for him to expand but at that point I was in shock!

[mikejames1]

anyone else got any thoughts on this?

[clubber]

I wouldn't get over concerned about the judges comments that you would have lost... there was no order made... and presumably B's did not enter a court bundle and their initial (usually summary) defence would not be sufficient for a case to be heard. I have read other threads where judges have commented they would have found in favour of the claimant so there you go. Your judge was scare mongering in my opinion, although your solicitor friend is better placed than me, and what the J said is purely academic, you haven't lost and in the game like the rest of us!!! Chin up and think of accrued interest!!

 

Clubber

[pjdavies2000]

And Bs wouldn't have asked for it to be stayed if there was ANY chance of them winning - they want to reduce the amount of claims they will have to pay out on - not increase them!

 

You'll be ok, the judge was probably just narked off!

 

Peter