Barclaycard PPI via Small Claims Court

brown1950

TNSAFC18 wrote: »

Not at all, but evidently the tone of his post is that of someone trying to be helpful rather than someone like yourself who purely looks to belittle a poster.

exactly- i agree with your comment- being friendly on this website
seems to be alien to many of the full time helpers.

magpiecottage

I appreciate that the OP does not like the tone of DunstonH but essentially he is correct.

If the OP goes to court then he will have an uphill task. This is partly because he will need to prove misrepresentation but also, since it took place more than fifteen years ago, that it was deliberate (i.e. fraudulent) and not merely negligent. Otherwise Barclays will be able to rely on Section 14B of the Limitation Act 1980 in its defence to timebar the claim against it.

This is, of course, not what the OP wants to read but that does not make it wrong.

-taff

brown1950 wrote: »

exactly- i agree with your comment- being friendly on this website
seems to be alien to many of the full time helpers.

but it's ok, becasue you're there to redress the balance....and I expect you missed the deleted post by the OP that wasn't exactly friendly......

brown1950

Stupid_Question wrote: »

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.

Another helpful post ! :T Axe to grind ?? Tell me more ?

brown1950

dunstonh wrote: »

This is a consumer site based on money saving.

What you are doing is paying for something that has a lower success rate than the free of charge method. How does that fit in with the ethos of this site?

No-one is trying to belittle you. Just pointing out that you appear to be taking a case to court when you shouldn't be and that you have significant flaws in your reasons. You may well succeed. Statistically, its against you but you are just making it so much harder for yourself.

You have thanked the one person on this thread that agrees with the approach (and he is a troll that seeks out threads like this) yet turned against those that do not agree you.

Let's assume it goes to court and the judge asks you what laws you believe are broken and what evidence do you have to support your allegations. What are you going to supply the judge?

As for costs, there are cost issues. The defendant can seek reasonable costs if they win (typically no more than £200). They can also have the case transferred to their local court. So, that will involve transport costs for you. Maybe an overnight stay depending on distance and time of case.

Troll - I don't think so ! I noticed this website 4 weeks ago and
it soon appeared to me the advice certain helpers (? } were giving
was at best dubious and in the majority of cases bias towards the banks / etc .

On this website we have at least 4 helpers who are posting between 5 and 20 post a day - (do they have a day job ?) on their
own section of this website ? You have to ask yourself this question ' Are they giving free advice every day ?' Well from what i can see the answer has to be no !
I have mentioned other websites like GAG and Leagle Beagles who in my opinion will give you impartial advice.

roonaldo

brown1950 wrote: »

I have mentioned other websites like GAG and Leagle Beagles who in my opinion will give you impartial advice.

such as the impartial and incorrect advice in this thread, and this person is 'site team'
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?398410-£27-000-First-National-Bank-secured-loan-repaid-in-1998

dunstonh

Dunston, with respect, your advice is given in a way that is neither friendly, courteous or (at times) respectful. And that can only be to the detriment of this site surely, because in the case of the OP, you have given wholly correct information that is indisputable in its validity, yet it is not accepted simply because of its presentation and delivery. And lets face it, its far away from being the first time is it.

Some people dont like to be told facts. They want woolly answers that support their point of view. A sort of "there, there, dont worry, the big bad bank is horrible and they must pay you back blah blah". There is no point posting that way as it does no-one any favours. I post in many threads giving reasons why they should complain or encourage them to complain. However, I do typically focus on certain types of threads where the success rate is likely to be lower or the person is more likely to fail. Telling people they are likely to fail and why or the issues they need to overcome and why is not always accepted by people who dont like to hear opinions and facts that differ from their point of view.

In the case of this thread, remember that the OP has had posts removed on this thread by the board team. I have not. Yet it is me you complain about. You ignore the poster that is well known on this board for making personal attacks and taking it OT (just as he did in this thread). He frequently posts misinformation and constantly attacks those that give the correct information to cause trouble. Why no mention of him?

And I have no doubt they would agree with you too if you delivered your correct advice in a slightly more people-friendly manner. All this thread has become is an argument about how you gave advice. Not really what the discussion should have been about is it...

I was not the that took it that way. The OP did through his responses (both those you can now see and those that have been deleted by the board admin).

Perhaps when you have been around much longer than a few weeks you will be in a better position to judge things correctly.

Cockney_Wideboy

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I find it remarkable that you only post here to make personal attacks on other posters. Why not just correct the balance if you see mis-information and post in the manner you deem more appropriate?

You haven't read my previous reply very carefully have you. I completely agree with the information that Dunston has given and have nothing to add to it. And even if slightly biased towards the side of the financial institution, Dunston always gives sensible advice. It is his schoolmaster/naughty child delivery I have an issue with.

I myself have a claim currently with the FOS against Barclaycard for PPI and - as in the case of other ongoing claims - I use the valuable testimony of others in on this site in a similar position to myself to better understand situations and circumstances - and hopefully apply them to my own situation. I am aware that each situation is unique and there is often little correlation between one case and another, despite seemingly similar circumstances. However, I have had a couple of successes so far from the FOS (out of two) and it gives me hope and anticipation that my other complaints will succeed - including my Barclays complaint.

Anyway; after reading this thread, what value do you think I have gleaned from this discussion - and indeed anybody else who reads it? And furthermore - is this the type of discussion that users should expect to see?

The ONLY advice I could add to the OP (other than cease their somewhat ill-fated use of the SCC and go immediately to the FOS) would be to specifically highlight cost vs benefit. Not been mentioned at all so far and we both know that it is a key complaint reason that the FOS seem to highlight. In the 3 upholds I have had so far, it is a key feature of each of them. This is of course backed up by reasons why I would not and did not have a requirement for PPI (excellent sick pay, critical illness, redundancy, personal resources etc).

Respect and power does go to some ppl's heads wouldnt you say?

Cockney_Wideboy

dunstonh wrote: »

Some people dont like to be told facts. They want woolly answers that support their point of view. A sort of "there, there, dont worry, the big bad bank is horrible and they must pay you back blah blah". There is no point posting that way as it does no-one any favours. I post in many threads giving reasons why they should complain or encourage them to complain. However, I do typically focus on certain types of threads where the success rate is likely to be lower or the person is more likely to fail. Telling people they are likely to fail and why or the issues they need to overcome and why is not always accepted by people who dont like to hear opinions and facts that differ from their point of view.

In the case of this thread, remember that the OP has had posts removed on this thread by the board team. I have not. Yet it is me you complain about. You ignore the poster that is well known on this board for making personal attacks and taking it OT (just as he did in this thread). He frequently posts misinformation and constantly attacks those that give the correct information to cause trouble. Why no mention of him?



I was not the that took it that way. The OP did through his responses (both those you can now see and those that have been deleted by the board admin).

Perhaps when you have been around much longer than a few weeks you will be in a better position to judge things correctly.

I may not have posted very much and of course only recently, but I have been lurkin on here for many months since the start of my own PPI claims. And yes I can see that you prefer to answer those whose claims are; shall we say, less than hopeful? I probaly would too if I am honest with you - far more interesting to comment upon

It is these thought that maybe require more diplomacy and tact - that is of course if you want your valuable advice to be accepted. Or maybe you don't care if it is or not? I personally would like the time I have taken to advise others, to not be wasted. Otherwise whats the point?

Of course I did not see the deleted posts - and yes I did see one or two replies from the OP that werent exactly mature. But I can to an extent rationalise these against the nature of the responses recieved. I mean; Taff's replies were bordering on the rude and mocking. And he hasn't made himself appear a decent person at all. One could argue that yours and Taff's replies forced the OP into a siege mentality. Not beyond normal human behaviour in such a situation now is it?

I am not familiar with the OP and cannot comment upon their behaviour on this forum. All I can say is that for somebody new to the forum, if they read this thread, they could quite easily come to the conclusion that this forum is about belittling those that are misguided. Sure you can agree to an extent with that? What would YOU think if you were a first time user?

dazza12

dunstonh wrote: »

They can also have the case transferred to their local court. So, that will involve transport costs for you. Maybe an overnight stay depending on distance and time of case.

One small correction - If it's on the small claims track and you're an individual as opposed to a company, after the allocation questionnaire has been completed the case will be transferred to the litigant in person's court.

It's very rare for a Judge to agree the opposite, the process is intended to make it easier for individuals to access the court system at a lower cost.