Barclays apply for costs in charges case

[Amethyst]

From Englander10 on Penaltycharges forum

englander10 - Today

Barclays update.

Sorry to say this but it's not good news. Barclays solicitors have filed an application to apply for costs of over £8000 as my case has cost them a lot of money. The problem is that the risks are now too high and I have had to agree an out of Court settlement for a much lower figure with them rather than pursue the full claim on the agreement that they do not file for costs. My solicitors fees are higher than than the partially returned charges so I have cut and run now before its too late.

The problems are that Reg 5.1 of UTCCR doesn't have enough case law and neither does Section 140 of the CCA(1974) and I don't want to be paying £50000 just to win back £2500

The Supreme Court documents have made it clears that charges are as essential part of the current bank account contract and Reg 6 of UTCCR allows them to charge. There is no point in me fighting for the full amount as they would apply to have my case transferred to the High Court if I continued any further.

Colin Passmore is defending Barclays = Colin Passmore acts for Barclays in Supreme Court challenge | The Law Gazette

Englander was in court today

A hearing for the Barclays strikeout claim application has been set for the 5th March and I have been advised to attend by the Court.

Barclays solicitors have asked a full amended POC to served on them well before this hearing. I did ask the Court if I could send the amended POC to send 4 weeks after this hearing but the sooner I do, the sooner the claim gets dealt with whichever way the final judgment is made. Barclays will be sending a QC up so I am expecting a total battering.

My solicitor has advised me that it may be best for me to argue under the amended CCA(1974) rather than the UTCCR(1999) as the burden of proof is on the defendant not me.

Will update with further info as I can get it (or Kafka will )

[Kafka]

Re: Barclays apply for costs in charges case

Some further info below. It seems that they are just jacking up costs with disregard for reality (like their default charges) of what is needed, just to present a ridiculous case that will frighten off claimants from continuing to fight for their money back.

There is simply no need to employ these people to fight LIPs, especially if - as they claim - there is no case left to fight anyway. In my opinion its a blatant case of attempting to pervert the course of justice by using their wealth. Unfortunately I suspect that the courts will allow them to do this because they have shown so many times that they don't want to have to keep dealing with charges claims. Its perhaps surprising that they are so determined to avoid bank charges claims, yet they still put up with all the claims needing processing for regulated agreements, when they could be sorted easily by the OFT if they were prepared to regulate to enforce the requirements on the 2006 report that have been essentially ignored.


Yes they have forwarded their evidence. Their counsel charges £3000 VAT hearing fee, their two solicitors charge separately. The Senior Partner charges £425 VAT per hour for 3 hrs work and the trainee solicitor charges £100 VAT per hour for 20 hours work.

Barclays are very well covered here and costs can be awarded to winners in a strike application hearing.

There is no where is to go now. I was amazed that Barclays were prepared to pay so much to strike out application .... until they filed for costs !!!!

I think the only way forward is take your complaints to FOS. The Banks have got the declaration they want as I have agreed an out of Court settlement I cannot proceed any further. I have lost my Court Fee and the returned charges (less than £500 from Barclays) were due to them being wrongly applied/admin error and nothing to do with unfairness. I spend nearly £600 VAT legal costs (4 hrs at £150per hour) just to prove that I am owed £480 due to a technical error. A huge difference to the £2500 claimed!

[Amethyst]

Re: Barclays apply for costs in charges case

Did he, do you know, actually go through the strike out hearing ?

If so he will be the only one I know of who has attended a strike out hearing and not been allowed to continue.

Or did he pull out at the sign of the costs application before going in to the hearing ?

Do you also know how much his claim was, I know he mentioned £2500 but is that after his solicitor costs and the £400 technical error charges ?

[Kafka]

Re: Barclays apply for costs in charges case

Next bit...

You are probably right, but the problem is I couldn't to pay a counsel to fight them at the hearing and that's what I would have needed. Most solicitors wont touch bank charge cases because of the SC ruling.

The problem with my case was that I was asked to prove that I could pay the defendant's costs if I lost, and I was taking a huge personal risk. It has taken three experienced legal professionals backed with the financial might of Barclays Bank to finally push me away. I am a trained debt collector backed by a solicitor from a small firm in small town - there's no match. There have been lots of letters sent between both parties and that's why the fees have gone up. Barclays solicitors did offer the incorrectly charged £480 back from the start but I refused, and the basis of their costs claim is that I persuing most of my original claim based on arguments rejected by the SC ruling. Barclays have thrown everthing at defending my claim and I am now extremely distressed with the whole thing I've even driven my wife mad about the whole thing, she means more to me than bank charges and I have to put her first.

I am now going to complain to the FOS about the other £2020 as there are no costs involved.

------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Perhaps easier if you clarify on the original thread at PC then summarise here?

I don't want to put him to more probs as he seems to have taken a battering here, though you have to admire the courage of getting this far! This is most interesting as an example of what we can probably expect from all of the banksas they get increasingly desperate not to lose any ground on bank charges before they can con the courts into refusing to deal with them regardless of the issues.

[Amethyst]

Re: Barclays apply for costs in charges case

I couldnt work out how to post on that news comments page - does he have a normal thread?

Be good to see the strike out application, his defence to it and so on....I realise he's had enough but a shame if all that effort doesnt go to helping other people against Barclays.

[Surfer]

Re: Barclays apply for costs in charges case

I am defending a claim (not bank) on similar grounds and their solicitors have indicated that their fees will be in the region of about £5000. Iam assuming that it is a scare tastic especially as I have requested medtiation.

[Amethyst]

Re: Barclays apply for costs in charges case

Is the claim on the small claims track ? that does limit the amount of costs they can claim excepting certain circumstances - theres a thread in the Bank charge claims in courts system about costs which might help xx

[Surfer]

Re: Barclays apply for costs in charges case

Is the claim on the small claims track ? that does limit the amount of costs they can claim excepting certain circumstances - theres a thread in the Bank charge claims in courts system about costs which might help xx

The claimant is claiming approximately £7200 which I assume is the fast track.

[Amethyst]

Re: Barclays apply for costs in charges case

Yip it will be x

[Kafka]

Re: Barclays apply for costs in charges case

Englander10's case is an unusual one...

Barclays solicitors Simmons & Simmons know who I am and that's why they want to burn me alive. I have issued many County Court (small) claims on behalf of my firm before and have won most cases in default or have agreed an out of Court mediated settlement. This is the first time it has been for personal use and it would severly damage my firm's reputation if I am found out because of terms of my contract.

Simmons & Simmons wanted to mediate a £480 settlement from the start, but then their solicitors identified my legal and debt collection experience and argued that I had an advantage over other claimants and have since gone ballistic.

I've read the full SC ruling documents too and for the reasons above is why I have had to agreed to a settlement because I am not supposed to use my commerical litigation experience for personal advantage and face severe disciplinary action if found out, that's what Simmons & Simmons are trying to do - expose me to my firm.

[Amethyst]

Re: Barclays apply for costs in charges case

Ok thanks Kaf.

Bit crappy that if you happen to be intelligent and work in the field you cant use your knowledge and experience to sort out your own problems. Its not like a housing officer bumping themselves up the housing list is it !

Basically then, BArclays were scared and threw everything possible at it to stop him claiming.

[Kafka]

Re: Barclays apply for costs in charges case

Here's the latest post. I'll see if he will provide any more

I must add that once I read the counsel's sleleton argument for the hearing, which made reference to my ability to pay the defendant's fees, and my knowingly entering into an untested legal battle using Reg 5.1 of the UTCCR and CCA(1974) and using my commercial experience for personal gain ..... was outrageous but whether I would have won or not was not the point, costs would have probably been awarded against me whatever the outcome of the hearing was, so I had to agree to a mediated settlement before the hearing ... not to mention the personal attacks that could go on in the court room and be heard by laughing court staff who know me. The game was up and I could not face this potential humiliation as my hearing was listed as a back to back communal hearing.

[EXC]

Re: Barclays apply for costs in charges case

There is simply no need to employ these people to fight LIPs

To be fair, he's not a litigant in person is he?

Despite him referring to the claim being ''my case'' and using his professional experience in the matter ''for personal use'' he is in fact representing the claimant.

[BillandBen]

Re: Barclays apply for costs in charges case

I read that differently. I thought he meant that they knew he would use his professional knowledge in his own personal claim.

Ame, I did try a couple of times to get him to start his own thread but he never did.

[Kafka]

Re: Barclays apply for costs in charges case

To be fair, he's not a litigant in person is he?

Despite him referring to the claim being ''my case'' and using his professional experience in the matter ''for personal use'' he is in fact representing the claimant.

Yes that is true, but I think the principle still applies. The banks are managing to convince some county courts that all bank charges claims are invalid and have no prospect of success and they are dismissing many claims and pocketing the fees for doing nothing for justice. The question then arises - should the courts permit the banks to deliberately inflate their costs by hiring expensive legal teams to fight the claims that press on, when this is designed to obstruct access to justice by using wealth so the parties are not on an equal footing? The banks' threats of recovering high costs make this tactic very clear.

If the courts accept that such teams are needed to fight new and complex legal arguments, then they should not be simultaneously granting summary dismissal of claims because they are supposed to have no merit even in revision.

Perhaps some courts are simply glad to grab any opportunity to avoid dealing with charges claims. The waiver was used shamelessly by many courts to avoid dealing with unrelated charges claims and in my own case, the Senior Circuit Judge himself stayed a credit card claim last October, citing the Test Case on bank charges. As with the waiver, we are witnessing a deafening silence from London on how the courts should deal with charges claims for fairness and consistency, and as usual, it is the victims that suffer. At the end of the day, the courts service is just a government agency that exists to provide a service of justice to the citizens and businesses of the land, yet they seem to be beyond any controls when they fail in that duty.