Barclays High Court litigation documents

Med

Ah-I couldn't post a picture of an ePDQ facility

ePDQ MPI enables you to take full responsibility for collecting cardholder details by creating and hosting payment pages on your own server and allows your website to communicate with our ePDQ payment engine.

I couldn't find a picture to tell everyone what this is so words will have to do. When I referred to a debt-I was referring to document 325 where it appears you owe money to the high court according to such a document. And document 331 very much states you owe money, and if you do not pay you could be made insolvent. And I know you will proceed to tell me that Barclays have not proceeded with the order (whatever the reasoning for that is unknown as neither ourselves or yourself is Barclays) but I somehow think that with a court judgement outstanding, they have a legal right to pursue you for the debt as per the order. I for one would not like to live my life knowing the court had ruled in their favour and I owe money to the amount that the court says you do.

First, thanks for pointing out the document numbers that you have read. You are absolutely right about Barclays having a legal right to pursue the debt. I contacted Barclays in January 2009 to inform them of my intentions to set up a website. I also invited them to raise any issues that they might have about it at that time. Again though, to date, they have failed to do so. I respect the fact that you would not choose to do what I did in the High Court. I do think that had you experienced the same from Barclays that I did prior to the proceedings, you might think differently.

What you got to laugh at here, sorry for the pun, is the fact Barclays offered you 10 grand and you end up owing them just shy of 100 grand! That's justice for you.....

Not that I agree with Barclays but to be honest there is a point whereby you, as the claimant, have to realise they would never accept liability for loss of earnings and maybe the 10 grand would have been the best outcome... did that not cross your mind at all?

Just my opinion but the word 'greed' keeps springing to mind

The best outcome for me would have been to have either won or lost the claim without the judgment being obtained by fraud.
I disagree with the fact that you think I have been, or am being greedy. I’m not, I am just prepared to stand up for myself.
Thank you though for being honest enough to say that you do not agree with Barclays.

Ok you claimed for an unspecified amount and then tried and failed to convince barclays and the court this should be close to £1M.

As for not facing bankruptcy, you have been issued a statutory demand which is the first step in bankruptcy proceedings. No doubt you will complain to someone about this, try and get it set aside, fail, appeal, fail and then come up with some convoluted reason to appeal again. Or you could pay the money you owe barclays (if you have it). Failing that you may save a lot of time and hassle by making yourself bankrupt.

Continue your current behaviour and eventually a judge will get that fed up of you that he places you on the list of Vexatious litigants. Which you'll probably try to appeal!

You should have walked away at the 10k offer. You didn't and are now £100k indebted to them. You alledge they obtained the judgement by fraud, but haven't managed to submit one scrap of evidence to convince either an appeal judge, or the judge at your set aside hearing.

You are now changing what you are writing. First you said that I was facing a bankruptcy petition, but when I then corrected you, you’ve changed it by saying that I am now facing bankruptcy. For the record, I’m not facing either. Yes I admit that Barclays have issued a Statutory Demand, but anyone can issue a Statutory Demand on someone. It does not mean that just because someone is presented with a Statutory Demand, that they face bankruptcy.
With regards to being a vexatious litigant, you do not seem to have read either my original post or the website correctly. My issues are that Barclays obtained judgment by fraud and that I think that it is wrong that a lawyer is free to conduct himself or herself during litigation without any fear of consequence. I personally do not feel that it is right that a solicitor is allowed to deceive the High Court during legal proceedings so that they can win a case. This undermines the whole concept of a civil justice system. With regards to my current behaviour, I think you are confused about what a vexatious litigant actually is. The fact that I have set up a website and posted a message on this forum does not mean that I am being a vexatious litigant. Again, you seem to be getting confused about what you are writing.
And with regards to your comment regarding not convincing the court about the judgment being obtained by fraud, with respect, that is the whole point of me setting up the website.

Vexatious litigant came to mind also. I agree with others, the claimant should have walked away when Barclays lodged the £10,000 Part 36 offer with the court.

A litigant who will not accept a High Court judgment being obtained by fraud is not a vexatious litigant. Similar to the above, you appear to be confused with the concept regarding a vexatious litigant.
Where does it say that Barclays lodged the Part 36 offer with the court?

Jumping in here, OP I would consider your post to be spam and therefore am tempted to report it as such.

Reading the particulars of the case (if all said are indeed on the server) then I am inclined to agree with judgement and I do not see why an appeal was needed. This seems to me that you have a grudge to settle and was looking for a scapegoat and Barclays just happened to be there at the wrong time.

I was going to comment on the business model but instead I will reserve judgement as according to you I am not an expert (although I have several years experience in IT).

Obviously if my post breaks any of the forum rules, then it should be removed. There is an email address at the top of every forum page where you can report these things. If you view my post as abuse and feel that it should be removed, then I advise you to contact the forum administrator. I am certain that they will remove the thread should they feel the need to.

An amusing read!

To think he turned down £10k and has now ended up with £100k's worth of egg on his face!

I don’t feel embarrassed at all. I cannot see how losing a High Court claim because a Defendant obtained the judgment unlawfully is something to be embarrassed about?
To be honest I would be more embarrassed to be Barclays Bank, and/or its lawyers, and to be put in a position by a litigant in person where I had no alternative during High Court proceedings other than to obtain the judgment by fraud.

How is it spam? Look at the website the OP linked to - i'm quite certain there aint no spam involved, is there?

Beggars belief - exactly what I said!

I may have joined 2 months ago but I think my contribution and help to others on here speaks for itself - I certainly do not go around shouting 'spam' from the rooftops especially if i'd not actually contributed with anything constructive in the first place and definitely not if I had bothered to click the link and seen the CV website which clearly shows there is nothing 'spammy' whatsoever about the post!

Yea the OP is a bit daft but that doesn't make him a spammer now does it? Even for a Bank Manager your brain should allow such logic to exist...

I’m not daft. I do agree though that you appear to have contributed and helped a lot on the forum.

This link has nothing to do with "Budgeting and Bank Accounts" in the sense it's applied on this website.

Again, if you also feel that my post is an abuse of the forum, then you should report the thread to the email address shown at the top of the page.



For those of you who do appear to be reading through the documents on the website, thanks for taking the time to do so. For information, document number 345 has been added recently.

Hazzanet

Med wrote: »

A litigant who will not accept a High Court judgment being obtained by fraud is not a vexatious litigant. Similar to the above, you appear to be confused with the concept regarding a vexatious litigant.

Where does it say that Barclays lodged the Part 36 offer with the court?

It is my opinion that you have been vexatious to some extent through the "repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions".

Document 177 states the Part 36 offer which (sh/w)ould have been made available to the judge had the ruling fallen in your favour and when deciding quantum and who would be dealing with the costs. Document 219 clearly explains what the Part 36 offer is and the consequences of not giving it the consideration it was due.

I remain of the opinion that the Part 36 should have been accepted and a line drawn underneath the whole saga.

Scousebird_2

Hazzanet wrote: »

It is my opinion that you have been vexatious to some extent through the "repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions".

Document 177 states the Part 36 offer which (sh/w)ould have been made available to the judge had the ruling fallen in your favour and when deciding quantum and who would be dealing with the costs. Document 219 clearly explains what the Part 36 offer is and the consequences of not giving it the consideration it was due.

I remain of the opinion that the Part 36 should have been accepted and a line drawn underneath the whole saga.

At last-reasoning!

eth01

Med wrote: »

First, thanks for pointing out the document numbers that you have read. You are absolutely right about Barclays having a legal right to pursue the debt. I contacted Barclays in January 2009 to inform them of my intentions to set up a website. I also invited them to raise any issues that they might have about it at that time. Again though, to date, they have failed to do so. I respect the fact that you would not choose to do what I did in the High Court. I do think that had you experienced the same from Barclays that I did prior to the proceedings, you might think differently.



The best outcome for me would have been to have either won or lost the claim without the judgment being obtained by fraud.
I disagree with the fact that you think I have been, or am being greedy. I’m not, I am just prepared to stand up for myself.
Thank you though for being honest enough to say that you do not agree with Barclays.



You are now changing what you are writing. First you said that I was facing a bankruptcy petition, but when I then corrected you, you’ve changed it by saying that I am now facing bankruptcy. For the record, I’m not facing either. Yes I admit that Barclays have issued a Statutory Demand, but anyone can issue a Statutory Demand on someone. It does not mean that just because someone is presented with a Statutory Demand, that they face bankruptcy.
With regards to being a vexatious litigant, you do not seem to have read either my original post or the website correctly. My issues are that Barclays obtained judgment by fraud and that I think that it is wrong that a lawyer is free to conduct himself or herself during litigation without any fear of consequence. I personally do not feel that it is right that a solicitor is allowed to deceive the High Court during legal proceedings so that they can win a case. This undermines the whole concept of a civil justice system. With regards to my current behaviour, I think you are confused about what a vexatious litigant actually is. The fact that I have set up a website and posted a message on this forum does not mean that I am being a vexatious litigant. Again, you seem to be getting confused about what you are writing.
And with regards to your comment regarding not convincing the court about the judgment being obtained by fraud, with respect, that is the whole point of me setting up the website.



A litigant who will not accept a High Court judgment being obtained by fraud is not a vexatious litigant. Similar to the above, you appear to be confused with the concept regarding a vexatious litigant.
Where does it say that Barclays lodged the Part 36 offer with the court?



Obviously if my post breaks any of the forum rules, then it should be removed. There is an email address at the top of every forum page where you can report these things. If you view my post as abuse and feel that it should be removed, then I advise you to contact the forum administrator. I am certain that they will remove the thread should they feel the need to.



I don’t feel embarrassed at all. I cannot see how losing a High Court claim because a Defendant obtained the judgment unlawfully is something to be embarrassed about?
To be honest I would be more embarrassed to be Barclays Bank, and/or its lawyers, and to be put in a position by a litigant in person where I had no alternative during High Court proceedings other than to obtain the judgment by fraud.



I’m not daft. I do agree though that you appear to have contributed and helped a lot on the forum.



Again, if you also feel that my post is an abuse of the forum, then you should report the thread to the email address shown at the top of the page.



For those of you who do appear to be reading through the documents on the website, thanks for taking the time to do so. For information, document number 345 has been added recently.

Just to inform you: Barclays don't like to compensate.

davethorp

Scousebird wrote: »

At last-reasoning!

There's been reasoning throughout the thread with the exception of posts from the OP

davethorp

Med wrote: »

You are now changing what you are writing. First you said that I was facing a bankruptcy petition, but when I then corrected you, you’ve changed it by saying that I am now facing bankruptcy. For the record, I’m not facing either. Yes I admit that Barclays have issued a Statutory Demand, but anyone can issue a Statutory Demand on someone. It does not mean that just because someone is presented with a Statutory Demand, that they face bankruptcy.
With regards to being a vexatious litigant, you do not seem to have read either my original post or the website correctly. My issues are that Barclays obtained judgment by fraud and that I think that it is wrong that a lawyer is free to conduct himself or herself during litigation without any fear of consequence. I personally do not feel that it is right that a solicitor is allowed to deceive the High Court during legal proceedings so that they can win a case. This undermines the whole concept of a civil justice system. With regards to my current behaviour, I think you are confused about what a vexatious litigant actually is. The fact that I have set up a website and posted a message on this forum does not mean that I am being a vexatious litigant. Again, you seem to be getting confused about what you are writing.
And with regards to your comment regarding not convincing the court about the judgment being obtained by fraud, with respect, that is the whole point of me setting up the website.

You may want to check out http://www.insolvencyhelpline.co.uk/legal_issues_explained/statutory_demand.php which provides full information on what a statutory demand is and that it is the first step in issuing bankruptcy proceedings.

Regarding your current behaviour I meant your numerous appeals, appeals disguised as applications, applications, complaints and all the rest of how you conducted yourself throughout the case. You make allegations that barclays have obtained the judgement by fraud but to date have not been able to submit one scrap of evidence to support your allegations to a judge (and on that basis you are lucky Barclays haven't taken libel action against you).

I was the first to mention Vexatious Litigant but clearly many of the other fellow impartial observers on this forum agree. The best course of action for yourself would be to pay Barclays if you can afford to do so and if not go bankrupt. Failing that you may want to try and invent a time machine so you can go back in time and drum some sense into yourself when Barclays offered you the £10000

DFrancis_3

Haha. That is truly amazing.