ombudsman mortgage fees

magpiecottage

brown1950 wrote: »

Court proceedings HAVE been issued against Barclays PLC

Issued but not completed.

Mediation is a STANDARD PROCEDURE PRIOR to a small claims court hearing.

So is FOS - and it is free.

In this case Mediation failed despite Barclays PLC making two offers of settlement.

If the claimant loses, or gets an award of less than the offer, there is an increased risk of the bank being awarded costs.

Will Barclays allow their fee's to be scrutinized in Court ?

Or will they settle the court claim prior to Trial ?

That is something only the court can answer.

However, if the courts are not specialists in financial services disputes. As a solicitor specialising in financial services said to me a couple years ago, they will therefore consider a FOS decision as a very strong "steer".

In this case, OP has obtained such a FOS decision and the bank is entirely within its rights to bring that to the court's attention.

Please do not SHOUT at us.

brown1950

magpiecottage wrote: »

Issued but not completed.
So is FOS - and it is free.
If the claimant loses, or gets an award of less than the offer, there is an increased risk of the bank being awarded costs.
That is something only the court can answer.

However, if the courts are not specialists in financial services disputes. As a solicitor specialising in financial services said to me a couple years ago, they will therefore consider a FOS decision as a very strong "steer".

In this case, OP has obtained such a FOS decision and the bank is entirely within its rights to bring that to the court's attention.

Please do not SHOUT at us.

Note :-

Costs will not be an issue in this Small Claims Court action unless
Barclays Bank PLC can show this claim is vexatious- which it is clearly not.
Part 36 offers are not applicable in a Small Claims Court. So again
costs are not an issue.
Barclays in their POC have not drawn the attention of the court to the FOS decision - perhaps this is because a judge would have to
decide this case on actual law ?

At the end of the day it will be for Barclays to decide if they want to go to Court with this one - do they want their charges scutinized in Court ?

magpiecottage

I think, on matters of law, the opinion of the solicitor I referred to previously is likely to be more reliable than yours - the more so because he was talking about it in the context of taking cases to court that were at least fifteen times the small claims limit.

We do not know what the OP is claiming, so we do not know if that is within the small claims limit either.

The Ombudsman must take account of all the relevant rules. This includes FCA Principle 8 which says that they must resolve conflicts of interest between different clients fairly. If they are unduly lenient to some customers then other customers have to pick up the cost - and they are entitled to ask why they should pay for dealing with the consequences of somebody else's delinquent loan.

brown1950

magpiecottage wrote: »

I think, on matters of law, the opinion of the solicitor I referred to previously is likely to be more reliable than yours - the more so because he was talking about it in the context of taking cases to court that were at least fifteen times the small claims limit.

We do not know what the OP is claiming, so we do not know if that is within the small claims limit either.

The Ombudsman must take account of all the relevant rules. This includes FCA Principle 8 which says that they must resolve conflicts of interest between different clients fairly. If they are unduly lenient to some customers then other customers have to pick up the cost - and they are entitled to ask why they should pay for dealing with the consequences of somebody else's delinquent loan.

Lets wait and see if Barclays will allow their charges to be scrutinized in
Court or will they settle the claim prior to trial.?

magpiecottage

brown1950 wrote: »

Lets wait and see if Barclays will allow their charges to be scrutinized in
Court or will they settle the claim prior to trial.?

Okay - but the case you refer to would not set a precedent and they may choose to settle purely because the cost of defending outweighs the cost of settlement.

They also do not have the benefit of FOS ruling in their favour in the case you refer to - unlike the OP's.

brown1950

In other words 'Barclays do not want their charges tested at trial '

Lets hope your right and Barclays settle this and other claims in the pipeline
out of court.

molerat

Not at all. Barclays could win the case but [STRIKE]the judge may not award costs so[/STRIKE] it could cost them more to defend and win than pay up. Simple business case.

brown1950

molerat wrote: »

Not at all. Barclays could win the case but the judge may not award costs so it could cost them more to defend and win than pay up. Simple business case.

Obviously you have not read the previous posts ! I repeat :-

''Costs will not be an issue in this Small Claims Court action unless
Barclays Bank PLC can show this claim is vexatious- which it is clearly not.
Part 36 offers are not applicable in a Small Claims Court. So again
costs are not an issue.

molerat

But it in any case it will cost them a lot of money to go to court, just paying up may be the cheaper option.

Thrugelmir

brown1950 wrote: »

In other words 'Barclays do not want their charges tested at trial '

Based on your perception that a lender is merely issuing a piece of paper. You appear to lack the business knowledge to understand why charges at set at what appear to be high levels. I'm sure that the appropriate regulatory bodies do monitor such charges for a level of reasonableness.