Barclaycard PPI via Small Claims Court

brown1950

Very puzzled why Barclaycard settled this court claim especially as they normally defend any such PPI claims. I know of a LIP very recently who took Barclaycard to court on a claim for £25,000 and wanted Barclaycard to explain in full their calculations. Barclaycard only wanted to settle at £8,000 ! LIP lost and Barclaycard were awarded £6,000 costs. LIP was however allowed by the Court to refer his claim to FOS. Judge awarded
the case to Barclaycard on the basis his court was not the place for such actions.

[Deleted User]

magpiecottage wrote: »

The fact remains, though, that cases actually reaching court are generally lost.

Yes, the whole thing is just an example of how to reclaim the hard way. The poster concerned could just as easily have lost the court case and been left out-of-pocket by costs. He was fortunate, I think, that Barclays offered to re-investigate but only on the proviso that he dropped the court action. I think if he hadn't threatened to call their bluff and reveal their stance (holding him to ransom) to the court, then Barclays would have defended the action.


As numerous others already advised, the simplest (and free) method would have been to refer the complaint to FOS.

Alpine_Star

brown1950 wrote: »

I know of a LIP very recently who took Barclaycard to court on a claim for £25,000 and wanted Barclaycard to explain in full their calculations. Barclaycard only wanted to settle at £8,000 ! LIP lost and Barclaycard were awarded £6,000 costs. LIP was however allowed by the Court to refer his claim to FOS. Judge awarded
the case to Barclaycard on the basis his court was not the place for such actions.

The judge was right.

The LiP was ill-advised to treat the court system as an alternative complaints body.

That principle was established in Andrews & Others v Barclays Bank.


http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2012/B13.html&query=dylan+and+andrew+and+barclays&method=boolean

Was this another CAG inspired disaster?

magpiecottage

brown1950 wrote: »

Very puzzled why Barclaycard settled this court claim especially as they normally defend any such PPI claims. I know of a LIP very recently who took Barclaycard to court on a claim for £25,000 and wanted Barclaycard to explain in full their calculations. Barclaycard only wanted to settle at £8,000 ! LIP lost and Barclaycard were awarded £6,000 costs.

That rather contradicts your other advice although of course in the case you cite the small claims limit was not accepted.

LIP was however allowed by the Court to refer his claim to FOS.

Except, of course that the bank may then be able to persuade FOS that it has already been to court and so the Ombudsman should not consider it and/or that it is more than six months since it issued its final decision and therefore the complaint is timebarred.

Either way it reinforces the point that court is an unnecessary risk.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I think, that Barclays offered to re-investigate but only on the proviso that he dropped the court action. I think if he hadn't threatened to call their bluff and reveal their stance (holding him to ransom) to the court, then Barclays would have defended the action.

Possibly. However, the OP said that he took the policy out in 1997. If the court action started more than fifteen years after that then Barclays could have simply timebarred it using Section 14B of the Limitation Act 1980.

brown1950

magpiecottage wrote: »

That rather contradicts your other advice although of course in the case you cite the small claims limit was not accepted.

Except, of course that the bank may then be able to persuade FOS that it has already been to court and so the Ombudsman should not consider it and/or that it is more than six months since it issued its final decision and therefore the complaint is timebarred.

Either way it reinforces the point that court is an unnecessary risk.

Possibly. However, the OP said that he took the policy out in 1997. If the court action started more than fifteen years after that then Barclays could have simply timebarred it using Section 14B of the Limitation Act 1980.

Claims of less than £10,000 = Small Claims Track = minimal costs.
Over £10,000 = Fast Track = Open to unlimited costs
So if you are to take PPI claims via the Courts only do so for under £10,000.

Judge and Barclaycard both agreed the LIP could take his claim to the FOS.

OP dodged a 'bullit' with Barclaycard not claiming the Limitation Act ?
I agree but some litgants have been able overcome the 'Limitation Act' defence with a date they found out about the action and not when the action was caused. Some judges allow and some don't !

Alpine_Star

brown1950 wrote: »

I agree but some litgants have been able overcome the 'Limitation Act' defence with a date they found out about the action and not when the action was caused. Some judges allow and some don't !

Can you name one example where a judge has allowed a PPI case to be heard where the Limitations Act is cited as a defence?

Alpine_Star

brown1950 wrote: »

Claims of less than £10,000 = Small Claims Track = minimal costs.

Do you consider nearly £2.5k to be minimal? And this case hasn't even been heard yet.


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?297438-Unwanted-PPI-on-4-Lloyds-loans&p=4369414&viewfull=1#post4369414

magpiecottage

brown1950 wrote: »

I agree but some litgants have been able overcome the 'Limitation Act' defence with a date they found out about the action and not when the action was caused. Some judges allow and some don't !

That would depend on whether Section 14A or Section 14B was being used.

Section 14A says six year from the original event or three years from when the claimant knew, or ought reasonably to have known, they had grounds to claim. When the three years start is open to some interpretation.

Section 14B allows a 15 year limit to be applied regardless. If the action began before it expired then the Barclays could not have applied it. We know that the policy commenced in 1997 so the limit passed some time last year.

So it is possible that they had been waiting for a judgement since before the 15 years expired.

brown1950

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Do you consider nearly £2.5k to be minimal? And this case hasn't even been heard yet.


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?297438-Unwanted-PPI-on-4-Lloyds-loans&p=4369414&viewfull=1#post4369414

I was talking about exposure to court costs and your case refers to court fee's which every claimant has to pay (unless you are on state benefits or a low earner)

Alpine_Star

brown1950 wrote: »

I was talking about exposure to court costs and your case refers to court fee's which every claimant has to pay (unless you are on state benefits or a low earner)

''£1,000 costs to be paid to the defendant''