Barclaycard PPI via Small Claims Court

brown1950

TNSAFC18 wrote: »

I recently made claims to both Barclaycard and LLoyds TSB relating to mis-sold PPI on credit card agreements I had with them. In the case of Barclaycard, I made 2 separate claims as I also had an Egg card.
In relation to both the Egg claim and the Lloyds claim, my claim was upheld and they duly compensated me.
However, in regard of the Barclaycard claim, which dated back to 1997, they defended the claim on the grounds of insufficient evidence to support my claim.
My claim was based on the fact that [FONT=&quot]at the time of the agreement commencing in 1997, I was in full time employment, a home owner with savings and through both my contract of employment and company pension scheme, had cover for sickness, critical illness, death in service and income support. I was still advised however that it was recommended that as a safety net, I should have PPI protection. As this was a financial institution advising me, I duly consented. However at no point between the start date and the present day have I been unemployed or on long term sick which would initiate a claim.
At no point in the first 2 claims was I asked to provide documentary evidence, but in the last claim I was ( my guess being that it went so far back).
However as I've changed jobs 3 times since 1997 and have moved house several times, I simply documented in writing all I could.
When informed of the decision I asked if I could appeal. I was informed that my only course was to go via the FSO which could take upward of 18 months.
Having done some research though, I find I can pursue them via the small claim process within the county court.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I submitted my claim through the Moneyclaim website and I'm now awaiting the likely decision by them to defend the claim.

Has anyone prior experience of this process and if so, what was the outcome.?

The way I looked at it was that the court fee alone was worth the cost if it meant these cowboys didn't get away scott free.:([/FONT]

Have Barclaycard enetered a defence ? Have you got to the AQ stage?
Has the claim been transferred to your local court ?

Alpine_Star

TNSAFC18 wrote: »

I recently made claims to both Barclaycard and LLoyds TSB relating to mis-sold PPI on credit card agreements I had with them. In the case of Barclaycard, I made 2 separate claims as I also had an Egg card.
In relation to both the Egg claim and the Lloyds claim, my claim was upheld and they duly compensated me.
However, in regard of the Barclaycard claim, which dated back to 1997, they defended the claim on the grounds of insufficient evidence to support my claim.
My claim was based on the fact that [FONT=&quot]at the time of the agreement commencing in 1997, I was in full time employment, a home owner with savings and through both my contract of employment and company pension scheme, had cover for sickness, critical illness, death in service and income support. I was still advised however that it was recommended that as a safety net, I should have PPI protection. As this was a financial institution advising me, I duly consented. However at no point between the start date and the present day have I been unemployed or on long term sick which would initiate a claim.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]At no point in the first 2 claims was I asked to provide documentary evidence, but in the last claim I was ( my guess being that it went so far back).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]However as I've changed jobs 3 times since 1997 and have moved house several times, I simply documented in writing all I could.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When informed of the decision I asked if I could appeal. I was informed that my only course was to go via the FSO which could take upward of 18 months.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Having done some research though, I find I can pursue them via the small claim process within the county court.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I submitted my claim through the Moneyclaim website and I'm now awaiting the likely decision by them to defend the claim.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Has anyone prior experience of this process and if so, what was the outcome.?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The way I looked at it was that the court fee alone was worth the cost if it meant these cowboys didn't get away scott free.:([/FONT]

As a rule of thumb litigating PPI complaints invariably ends in failure. This is because the law (which is all the courts are concerned with) was not designed to deal with the mischief of insurance mis-selling. The FOS is far better as unlike courts they can base their decision on what in their opinion is fair and reasonable. It is also questionable whether using the courts would be any quicker.

Notwithstanding it is very unlikely that you will get around the limitations act for a claim this old.

CAG will ignorantly advise you that you can circumvent the time bar by relying on sec 32 of the act but this is cavalier nonsense.

See the case study of Holyoak v Lloyds and read it carefully http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a3dd684e-bb83-452e-bb27-52899ec1035e

Alpine_Star

dazza12 wrote: »

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.

There is no such thing as a litigant in persons court.

antrobus

Alpine_Star wrote: »

....See the case study of Holyoak v Lloyds and read it carefully http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a3dd684e-bb83-452e-bb27-52899ec1035e

Interesting.

S14 LA 1980 - Special time limit for negligence actions where facts relevant to cause of action are not known at date of accrual - doesn't apply because the action is founded on the allegation of misrepresentation not negligence.

S32 LA 1980 - Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or mistake - doesn't apply because there was no fraud, concealment or mistake; plaintiff could "easily have discovered the alleged wrongdoing" by the bank "through reasonable due-diligence", i.e. by reading the "documents that had been provided to him".

Of course a decision in the Sunderland County Court doesn't set a precedent, but it is peruasive.

All of which rather suggests OP was given the correct advice. Take your complaint to FOS rather than the small claims court.

Alpine_Star

antrobus wrote: »

S32 LA 1980 - Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or mistake - doesn't apply because there was no fraud, concealment or mistake; plaintiff could "easily have discovered the alleged wrongdoing" by the bank "through reasonable due-diligence", i.e. by reading the "documents that had been provided to him".

Yes what the judge was referring to was the part of s32 of the Act that provides that ''the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it''.

In other words the limitation period starts not when you did or claim to have discovered it but when, with reasonable diligence, you should have done.

roonaldo

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Yes what the judge was referring to was the part of s32 of the Act that provides that ''the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it''.

In other words the limitation period starts not when you did or claim to have discovered it but when, with reasonable diligence, you should have done.

just referring it to this case, the OP said

[FONT=&quot] I was in full time employment, a home owner with savings and through both my contract of employment and company pension scheme, had cover for sickness, critical illness, death in service and income support. I was still advised however that it was recommended that as a safety net, I should have PPI protection.[/FONT]

which he was aware of in 1997 in this case

dazza12

Alpine_Star wrote: »

There is no such thing as a litigant in persons court.

I never actually said that such a court exists. If read in the context intended, it was meant as the court nearest the Litigant in Person. As the OP would be the one litigating, and is an individual, the District Judge would normally refer to the individual as a Litigant in Person.

I missed out the word 'nearest' between 'Person' and 'Court'. Was it really worth the post?

brown1950

TNSAFC18 wrote: »

I recently made claims to both Barclaycard and LLoyds TSB relating to mis-sold PPI on credit card agreements I had with them. In the case of Barclaycard, I made 2 separate claims as I also had an Egg card.
In relation to both the Egg claim and the Lloyds claim, my claim was upheld and they duly compensated me.
However, in regard of the Barclaycard claim, which dated back to 1997, they defended the claim on the grounds of insufficient evidence to support my claim.
My claim was based on the fact that [FONT=&quot]at the time of the agreement commencing in 1997, I was in full time employment, a home owner with savings and through both my contract of employment and company pension scheme, had cover for sickness, critical illness, death in service and income support. I was still advised however that it was recommended that as a safety net, I should have PPI protection. As this was a financial institution advising me, I duly consented. However at no point between the start date and the present day have I been unemployed or on long term sick which would initiate a claim.
At no point in the first 2 claims was I asked to provide documentary evidence, but in the last claim I was ( my guess being that it went so far back).
However as I've changed jobs 3 times since 1997 and have moved house several times, I simply documented in writing all I could.
When informed of the decision I asked if I could appeal. I was informed that my only course was to go via the FSO which could take upward of 18 months.
Having done some research though, I find I can pursue them via the small claim process within the county court.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I submitted my claim through the Moneyclaim website and I'm now awaiting the likely decision by them to defend the claim.

Has anyone prior experience of this process and if so, what was the outcome.?

The way I looked at it was that the court fee alone was worth the cost if it meant these cowboys didn't get away scott free.:([/FONT]

Lets hope Barclaycard don't issue a defence by next Tuesday- If not you
can then apply for judgement.

magpiecottage

brown1950 wrote: »

Lets hope Barclaycard don't issue a defence by next Tuesday- If not you
can then apply for judgement.

Of course Barclays may have written back and timebarred it anyway.

brown1950

magpiecottage wrote: »

Of course Barclays may have written back and timebarred it anyway.

Yes of course but at the present time no defence has been entered !