Barclaycard PPI via Small Claims Court

dunstonh

I was simply asking advice and although your points may be valid, the claim hinges on the basis that I neither needed PPI given the cover I already held, nor was I advised that if such protection was taken, it was available elsewhere.

There has never been any requirement to tell you that it is available elsewhere. Not in FSA guidelines and certainly not in law.

Whether you needed it or not is irrelevant in law.

The Egg claim was paid out without and further questions posed toward me.
However, Lloyds asked me all the same questions which I answered in my communication to BC and concluded that I had a claim.

Totally irrelevant.

Yes you're right by the way, I have been lucky not to lose either my job or my health, but I don't see the relevance of you making the comment you have, nor do I think it was necessary.

You cannot start legal action on the basis that years after the event you havent suffered a claimable event. I have never claimed on my household insurance. Are you saying I should take my insurer to court as I havent needed to use it?

Alternative forums have followed the course I am with major success and all I sought was further information.

Stick to those forums then. Ask them to point to the published cases online.

TNSAFC18

dunstonh wrote: »

There has never been any requirement to tell you that it is available elsewhere. Not in FSA guidelines and certainly not in law.

Whether you needed it or not is irrelevant in law.


Totally irrelevant.



You cannot start legal action on the basis that years after the event you havent suffered a claimable event. I have never claimed on my household insurance. Are you saying I should take my insurer to court as I havent needed to use it?



Stick to those forums then. Ask them to point to the published cases online.

Clearly I've caught you on a bad day mate. Your posturing attitude is neither helpful to me as an individual or the forum on the whole. Accept the fact that unlike you, others are such as I clearly require help in these matters.
If I gave IT advice on forums the way you do on here, I'd be shot down for my attitude.

roonaldo

TNSAFC18 wrote: »

You don't miss what you never had. I fully expect BC to defend the claim, but as the adverts say, we're you sold an agreement that you either didn't want or didn't need, I was!!

I wouldnt go by an advert, they are CMC's touting for business. I wouldnt also go by what other websites have said as very anti bank and not very knowledgable, particularly CAG who dont like non admin posting on the forum. There has been little success of people winning ppi back through the courts. You've waited since 1997, so why not just take the complaint to fos to and wait little longer.

I would take into account what dunstonh has said, the basis of your annoyance with it is that you havent needed to claim on it, this is nothing to do with PPI mis-sales.

Forgetting everything else (other upheld complaints are irrelevant, what happened in the future is irrelevant) , in 1997 why was this mis-sold?

Also bear in mind you will have to supply the statements if you want to them to pay out back to 1997.

TNSAFC18

At last a genuine response. Thank you for not being vague or patronising.

roonaldo

TNSAFC18 wrote: »

At last a genuine response. Thank you for not being vague or patronising.

sorry I should have just said many have won in court, you wont need evidence, the cheque will be with you next week...but that would be a lie.

i and most will just suggest to take the FOS route, you can always take it court after if FOS dont side with you. a firm I have worked for had a few people try to take them to court over PPI, I dont think anyone won.

TNSAFC18

Seriously I appreciate your answer, it leaves me with things to contemplate.

Pink1808

If I was you I would take to the FOS my husband has a Barclaycard and a Egg one with them at the moment and both have been looked at within 6 months unlike my Halifax one which has been with them 1 year and they havent even looked at that yet, so guessing they have a team for every lender and some get seen quicker than others. And on the other note FOS is free and if they rule in your favor they have to pay you and FOS so they loose out in the end.

Hope this helps

brown1950

TNSAFC18 wrote: »

Clearly I've caught you on a bad day mate. Your posturing attitude is neither helpful to me as an individual or the forum on the whole. Accept the fact that unlike you, others are such as I clearly require help in these matters.
If I gave IT advice on forums the way you do on here, I'd be shot down for my attitude.

Don't worry this has been the norm with this particular poster. Lots of biased advice ! From my experience and many others on numerous forums Barclaycard would defend any action you take however despite their 'legal team' putting a claimant through 'hell' even claiming you could be subject to their high legal costs (yea right in a small claims court- don't think so) Barclaycard will eventually offer to settle prior to the court hearing date.
My advice is to go over to CAG forum or Legal Beagles forum for friendly / accurate help.

Stupid_Question

brown1950 wrote: »

Don't worry this has been the norm with this particular poster. Lots of biased advice ! From my experience and many others on numerous forums Barclaycard would defend any action you take however despite their 'legal team' putting a claimant through 'hell' even claiming you could be subject to their high legal costs (yea right in a small claims court- don't think so) Barclaycard will eventually offer to settle prior to the court hearing date.
My advice is to go over to CAG forum or Legal Beagles forum for friendly / accurate help.

Yes, ignore the advice of experienced, qualified posters and listen to unqualified people with an axe to grind.

Have you ever noticed how on CAG they froth at the mouth with how evil the banks are and how it'll all be written off at court. The second it starts to go a bit wrong they all disappear.

Just because it's not what you want to hear, doesn't mean it's wrong.

dunstonh

TNSAFC18 wrote: »

By the way, my initial question was has any other forum members followed this course of action and what was the outcome?
However your clearly interpreted that as you're a financially inept !!!!!! who I should make an example of !!!

i do think it is silly to go to court and not use the FOS. The FOS is more consumer friendly and ever so slightly biased to consumer and free to use. If you go to court and lose then the FOS is closed to you.

There have not been many reported successes in court. That answered your question. What you can find sees mostly failures. Including against the likes of Black Horse who get 99% of their complaints overturned by the FOS.

You clearly want people to tell you that you are going to win and its all easy and the banks are a big bad monster and go for it. That is a silly way to give you advice though as you are taking the approach with the least success. Your reasons are rubbish as well. You need to get better ones. Not suffering a claimable event is a joke of a reason. You are going to court. You are going to be making an allegation of a breach of law. yet nothing you have said indicates any such thing. The basis of your case is flawed. You need to focus on something stronger.

What you should have done is refer it to the FOS. Let them rule on it at no cost to you. You are more likely to win your case with them