Sweeney v Barclays

[Paule]

I am posting up the main documents relating to this case.

The rest of the bundle is made up of the judgements from the test case, which are on the forum anyway.

As there are a fair few files to upload, I am keeping the thread closed until I have posted them all (24 in total with personal info now removed) to that there is continuity.

I have attached a PDFs of all the posted documents to this post as well for ease

PKea

[Paule]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

[Paule]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

[Paule]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

[Paule]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

[Paule]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

[Paule]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

PDF of Documents Part 1

[Paule]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

PDF of Documents Part 2

[Paule]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

Thread is Open Now

PKea

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

Where is Sweeneys Particulars of claim?
His letters are penalties in law argument....

[Amethyst]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

Thanks so much for doing this peeky and for going to collect the docs, def owe you a few x Fair bit of reading then. Not suprised the judge didnt bother.


7 & 8 of this page http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x...tatementp2.jpg
25 on of http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x...tatementp5.jpg

Strike out application by Barclays ?


Original POC ? http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x...aClaimForm.jpg (is that it?)

[Paule]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

Original POC ? http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x...aClaimForm.jpg (is that it?)

Thats it, basically 'look at my preliminary letter' is his POC.

My opinion is
It was always going to be struck out just on that in my opinion,as many cases have been, even before the Test Case.
It has basically all been done online via MCOL
Not the great case we all thought it was going to be.
Reading the witness statement highlights that he is using business claim tactics and mixing them with personal claim tactics, when it suits.

PKea


Bit of light reading anyone?

[Amethyst]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

I definately think it has been worth the effort to get hold of this information (and bloody hell what effort I'm kernackerd and I didnt have to drive to get it lol)

I have had to put my current opinion on the main thread, simply because knowing there arent any major weird factors and its a bog standard straightforward claim as the majority of business claimants have put in, I couldnt push anyone to court on it, unless a) they could afford to lose with costs and b) they could go through all the terms of barclays contracts and say exactly what the differences are (and there really arent any) and why the judgment in business claims in common law should differ from personal accounts claims.

Theres really no regulation for this type of term we can find at all. In 2005 the law commission tried to get small businesses (sole trader etc) included in consumer regulations but it came to nothing, being cynical it was just as the bank charges issues were getting off the ground.....

Maybe I'm just tired but i can't pick holes in any of barclays defence....will look tomorrow with fresh eyes. Hoping others will be able to. I think we will put the witness statement public after the weekend ?

It was always going to be struck out just on that in my opinion,as many cases have been, even before the Test Case. AGREE but he got through that bit with the stay and subsequent stay lift.
It has basically all been done online via MCOL
Not the great case we all thought it was going to be.
Reading the witness statement highlights that he is using business claim tactics and mixing them with personal claim tactics, when it suits.Can anyone see a different outcome had his POC been just based on penalties?

[Paule]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

From my chat with him at his house he basically said that the Judge didnt read through the bundle, which may be the case if he has been keeping himself abreast of the test case.

I did try to encourage him to register on the site so he could give us a bit more background and his opinions on the case.

If we forget the huge Barclays bundle and base it solely on his claim, ie his POC, then the Judge probably based his decision on that alone.
Personally I have never agreed with using MCOL for claims as they inherently lead to truncated POCs like this and people forget to post off the full details and list of charges to MCOL.
I also got the impression that he wasnt on any forums and therefore just used the templates available without asking for any assistiance throughout his claim.

PKea

[Amethyst]

Re: Sweeney v Barclays

I agree the lack of POCs would have meant a probable strike out on that basis alone.

the argument on penalties is the bit we have to look at tho. I think.