Barclaycard PPI via Small Claims Court

Alpine_Star

dazza12 wrote: »

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?

I'll post as I see fit.

Insider101

brown1950 wrote: »

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.

I can honestly tell you that the "advice" given on Consumer Action Group is next to useless. And it is not even close to being impartial. It is basically an anti-bank forum run by rabble rousers with an axe to grind!

I accept that the tone of one or two of the regulars here can be a little blunt (I am a long time lurker first time poster). But that doesn't make the information they provide wrong.

If you want to be told what you want to hear then by all means go to CAG. If you want the facts stay here!

magpiecottage

brown1950 wrote: »

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

I am not sure that it has to be.

Section 14B of the Limitation Act says:

"14B Overriding time limit for negligence actions not involving personal injuries.(1)An action for damages for negligence, other than one to which section 11 of this Act applies, shall not be brought after the expiration of fifteen years from the date (or, if more than one, from the last of the dates) on which there occurred any act or omission—
(a)which is alleged to constitute negligence; and
(b)to which the damage in respect of which damages are claimed is alleged to be attributable (in whole or in part).
(2)This section bars the right of action in a case to which subsection (1) above applies notwithstanding that—
(a)the cause of action has not yet accrued; or
(b)where section 14A of this Act applies to the action, the date which is for the purposes of that section the starting date for reckoning the period mentioned in subsection (4)(b) of that section has not yet occurred;
before the end of the period of limitation prescribed by this section"

If the OP says he is complaining of negligence that occurred in 1997 that is clearly beyond the 15 year limit.

If, of course, he is claiming a deliberate misrepresentation that limit would not apply but he still has to produce evidence that a deliberate misrepresentation actually occurred.

That is likely to be an uphill task.

Whatever happens, the OP will not now be able to go to FOS unless Barclays agrees because of the court proceedings (or the Court orders them to). I think it is unlikely that will happen.

brown1950

magpiecottage wrote: »

I am not sure that it has to be.

Section 14B of the Limitation Act says:

"14B Overriding time limit for negligence actions not involving personal injuries.(1)An action for damages for negligence, other than one to which section 11 of this Act applies, shall not be brought after the expiration of fifteen years from the date (or, if more than one, from the last of the dates) on which there occurred any act or omission—
(a)which is alleged to constitute negligence; and
(b)to which the damage in respect of which damages are claimed is alleged to be attributable (in whole or in part).
(2)This section bars the right of action in a case to which subsection (1) above applies notwithstanding that—
(a)the cause of action has not yet accrued; or
(b)where section 14A of this Act applies to the action, the date which is for the purposes of that section the starting date for reckoning the period mentioned in subsection (4)(b) of that section has not yet occurred;
before the end of the period of limitation prescribed by this section"

If the OP says he is complaining of negligence that occurred in 1997 that is clearly beyond the 15 year limit.

If, of course, he is claiming a deliberate misrepresentation that limit would not apply but he still has to produce evidence that a deliberate misrepresentation actually occurred.

That is likely to be an uphill task.

Whatever happens, the OP will not now be able to go to FOS unless Barclays agrees because of the court proceedings (or the Court orders them to). I think it is unlikely that will happen.

If Barclaycard do not enter a defence by Tuesday then the OP can
enter judgement !

Alpine_Star

brown1950 wrote: »

If Barclaycard do not enter a defence by Tuesday then the OP can
enter judgement !

Maybe but judgments by default are by and large not worth the paper they are written on as the defendant can easily apply for a set aside if they can show that they have a real prospect of defending the claim. As the claim is clearly way outside the limitation period that shouldn't be difficult to achieve.

brown1950

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Maybe but judgments by default are by and large not worth the paper they are written on as the defendant can easily apply for a set aside if they can show that they have a real prospect of defending the claim. As the claim is clearly way outside the limitation period that shouldn't be difficult to achieve.

I understand what you say and indeed Barclays t/a Barclaycard have a history of set asides however it has been known for Barclays to overlook
a judgement.

TNSAFC18

brown1950 wrote: »

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

As yet BC haven't submitted a defence. They have until Tuesday to do so. I'm not holding my breath that they won't as in cases such as claims, they appear to leave it until the last minute, but they are cutting it fine.

TNSAFC18

brown1950 wrote: »

I understand what you say and indeed Barclays t/a Barclaycard have a history of set asides however it has been known for Barclays to overlook
a judgement.

So in the event this happens, what would you suggest? My intention was to contact them in writing and request they make me an offer in lieu of the judgement. Since posting the original thread I have also requested SAR & TCC but as yet I've received no copies. If they as most suggest go with a set aside, I will just await the next step.

brown1950

TNSAFC18 wrote: »

So in the event this happens, what would you suggest? My intention was to contact them in writing and request they make me an offer in lieu of the judgement. Since posting the original thread I have also requested SAR & TCC but as yet I've received no copies. If they as most suggest go with a set aside, I will just await the next step.

Barclaycard will enter a defence on Tuesday failing which if you apply for judgement Barclaycard will apply to the court and get a set aside pending their defence.

After the defence is served you will enter into the Barclaycard world
of miss information of various threats incl the usual one of paying their
high costs if you lose. As no doubt you are aware LIP are not liable to
costs in the Small Claims Court.

No doubt you will get good advice from the 'legal minds' on Legal Beagles and i wish you well with your cliam.

magpiecottage

brown1950 wrote: »

As no doubt you are aware LIP are not liable to costs in the Small Claims Court.

In theory. However, I recall a case where the wife of a barrister was taken to court and the barrister appeared in person to represent her.

At the end, the judge told the litigants that although he could not award costs against them there was nothing to stop the wife suing them for those costs.

The barrister clearly enjoyed telling me this the next day!

-taff wrote: »

Dig deep for some common sense and stop while you can......

I would say now is a good time to STOP digging!