Tweet
Morning all - some advice please if possible.
I've been involved in a long running dispute with Barclays / Firstplus and have been pursuing disclosure of the details underpinning a reprimand handed down by OFT - other thread details specifics http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...sclosure/page3
A fellow complainer took the issues to court however his legal representation was questionable, at best. The court found in the banks favour. The main issue of contention was the fact that the OFT reprimand was not highlighted to the judge until the last minute (after the judge broke off to consider his verdict and it was queried why) - anyhow it was brought up, and the judge specifically asked the Barclays lawyers what the reprimand was regarding. He was about to give his verdict so as you can imagine wasn't overly open to considering additional evidence.
They stated under oath that it had nothing to do with the variation of interest rates. We knew that to be untrue but unfortunately the judge accepted what they said.
In the last few weeks we have gained sight of evidence that proves what they said was not true - I can't give any more specifics than that at this moment in time but be assured it does.
As well as other issues we have ongoing we'd like to revisit this statement made by the lawyers. The court transcript is available however it will cost £250 + VAT to get a copy typed. It's about 11,000 words. So, a few questions please.
Does that sound a reasonable quote based on £1.55 every 72 words?
Is there an alternate route to obtaining the transcript, i.e. a FoI request?
Is it possible to challenge that statement made without a copy if a FoI request is not possible, i.e. from memory of what the lawyers said?
What possibilities open themselves up should it be found that the lawyers were "not entirely truthful".
My concerns stem from the competence of the legal representation who only brought this to the table as an after-thought following instruction from the client, but I guess even if this doesn't change the judges decision in this particular case it would be rather satisfying to get some sort of justice for what was, in my opinion, an outright lie.
Thanks in advance.
I've been involved in a long running dispute with Barclays / Firstplus and have been pursuing disclosure of the details underpinning a reprimand handed down by OFT - other thread details specifics http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...sclosure/page3
A fellow complainer took the issues to court however his legal representation was questionable, at best. The court found in the banks favour. The main issue of contention was the fact that the OFT reprimand was not highlighted to the judge until the last minute (after the judge broke off to consider his verdict and it was queried why) - anyhow it was brought up, and the judge specifically asked the Barclays lawyers what the reprimand was regarding. He was about to give his verdict so as you can imagine wasn't overly open to considering additional evidence.
They stated under oath that it had nothing to do with the variation of interest rates. We knew that to be untrue but unfortunately the judge accepted what they said.
In the last few weeks we have gained sight of evidence that proves what they said was not true - I can't give any more specifics than that at this moment in time but be assured it does.
As well as other issues we have ongoing we'd like to revisit this statement made by the lawyers. The court transcript is available however it will cost £250 + VAT to get a copy typed. It's about 11,000 words. So, a few questions please.
Does that sound a reasonable quote based on £1.55 every 72 words?
Is there an alternate route to obtaining the transcript, i.e. a FoI request?
Is it possible to challenge that statement made without a copy if a FoI request is not possible, i.e. from memory of what the lawyers said?
What possibilities open themselves up should it be found that the lawyers were "not entirely truthful".
My concerns stem from the competence of the legal representation who only brought this to the table as an after-thought following instruction from the client, but I guess even if this doesn't change the judges decision in this particular case it would be rather satisfying to get some sort of justice for what was, in my opinion, an outright lie.
Thanks in advance.
Comment