cary anne v barclaysc"WON"

[carey anne]

Hello

Can anyone offer any advice? Im claiming approx £4500 from Barclays, Ive recently submitted a letter to the court informing them that charges are a breach of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. I also sent a copy of this to Barclays. Ive just had a call from Barclays regarding this letter,ive been told that they've received a number of similar letters and that basically the info being posted on sites such as this regarding the Soc Security Act is a mistake & and that act doesnt is doesnt cover penalty charges. He said the court would back Barclays on this one.
Is this just another 'nasty tactic' - my impression is yes but i dont know all the nitty gritty regarding this law

any help would be appreciated
thanks

[Steward]

You can use Google to search the web using these links below:-

[monopoly23]

You need to start a new thread here in the Barclays forum. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...barclays-bank/

Copy your above post, and paste onto your new thread.

There will be people there that will have specific answers to your question

[carey anne]

Hello

Can anyone offer any advice? Im claiming approx £4500 from Barclays, Ive recently submitted a letter to the court informing them that charges are a breach of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. I also sent a copy of this to Barclays. Ive just had a call from Barclays regarding this letter,ive been told that they've received a number of similar letters and that basically the info being posted on sites such as this regarding the Soc Security Act is a mistake & and that act doesnt cover penalty charges. He said the court would back Barclays on this one.
Is this just another 'nasty tactic' - my impression is yes but i dont know all the nitty gritty regarding this law

any help would be appreciated
thanks

[smutley]

I will be very interested to get clarification on this as well...

[steven4064]

Ive just had a call from Barclays regarding this letter,ive been told that they've received a number of similar letters and that basically the info being posted on sites such as this regarding the Soc Security Act is a mistake & and that act doesnt cover penalty charges.

He would say that wouldn't he.

He said the court would back Barclays on this one.

We shall see.

[Lula]

Caryanne

Basically they are just trying to scare you, if you google the act it will tell you everything, ai have asked someone to move this over the Barclays forum for you, Also a name change of carey anne v barclay.

[livelylad]

Thread moved to Barclays.

[Lula]

lol where you sitting there lively?

[livelylad]

yes

[steven4064]

He's not called livelylad for nothing!

[carey anne]

Hi
Thanks for moving the post for me, i'v not used a forum before. I checked the Soc Security Act again and it does say every charge on benefits and every aggreement to charges such benefits shall be void, so im sure the call was a scare tactic. My parents only income is benefits, last year they were nearly forced into reposession as a result of escalating debt due to bank charges!! I cant believe the legal department would actually call and lie to scare me into withdrawing my claim for them, if i werent looking out for them they would be in such a state. Im so angry at the banks, people of benefits should not be treat like this!

Anyway, if they court decides to remove the stay what would i need to include in the court bundle- is it just the Soc Security Act and all the statements etc?

[saintly_1]

Have a look at the irst post on this thread
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...le+for+dummies

Just click on the link above

[carey anne]

Does this mean that people on benefits should never incurr penalty charges on any account they may hold (like a mortgage account or credit card) or is it just accounts that have benefits directly paid into them?

[steven4064]

Carey Anne

In the SSAA 1992, when it says 'charges' it does not mean charges like bank charges, it means things like attachment of earnings. However, the act also says "assignment" and "agreement to assign".

I (and others) believe that bank T&Cs that taolk about (bank) charges constitute an "agreement to assign" benefits - that agreement is void under the SSAA 1992 (and the Tax Credits Act 2002). Therefore the bank are taking money under an agreement that is void - ie dosn't exist. The words I am using in my POC are

The Claimant contends that the charges constitute an assignment of money by the Defendant and to the Defendant contrary to

a) s187 Social Security Administration Act 1992 regarding Income Support and Child Benefit, and

b) s45 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 regarding Child Tax Credit,

and are thereby illegal. The Claimant contends that the contract terms that the Defendant relies on to justify debiting these charges are void by virtue of the same sections.

You could use similar words in a lba as well.

[carey anne]

Thanks Steven, thats really helpful and maybe explains why Barclays legal phoned the other day in response to a letter i sent them referring to the act, he and said there has been mistakes on the internet regarding the Soc Sec Act and its use to claim back these charges. I was told that it didnt mean penalty charges. I guess the exact wording is really important in all correspondance to them.

I'm claiming money on behalf of my parents, their entire income is from benefits. Do you really think we can win if it goes to court?

[steven4064]

I'm claiming money on behalf of my parents, their entire income is from benefits. Do you really think we can win if it goes to court?

I can't guarantee that ATM - I think the charges are assignments contray to the Act(s) but I am not a lawyer. However, I am going to try to get a case before a court (we have stripped down our POC so that this is the only issue - ie no mention of penalties, UTCCR1999, interest (except s69) so that there is nothing (else) contentious. Also we are going to ask for an injunction to prevent the bank taking charges in future - that should prevent them settling out of court.

[carey anne]

hi steven

Ive done a new POC and included the info you provided. Im still not 100% sure about the whole thing because im claiming charges applied to a mortgage, credit card and current account. I agree with the T&C argument but everything ive read even the Woods V RBS case refers to benefits that are paid into a current account and charges applied to that same account, not just someone in receipt of benefits and being charged on separate accounts as in my parent's case! Also it's my father who is on Severe Disablement Allowence etc and the account is in my mothers name. I feel this whole argument re. the SSAA1992 is becoming really complicated and there are so many points open to debate.

Also apologies if this is a stupid question but can i just submit a new Poc on it's own or do i need to send of the N244etc. Can i request in the new Particulars if i loose under the SSAA92 argument can i still keep my claim in court under my old PoC referring to UTCCR 99?

Thanks

[steven4064]

Th trouble is that Woods v RBOS was a case in the Scottish Sherif's court and is not a precedent in England and Wales and, it deals with a process called arrestment which is a concept in Scottish Law and doesn't apply in E & W either.

A new POC requires a New N1 and a N244 which is the application to make an ammendment.

[carey anne]

Hi

Im going to submit the new POC today. I have three copies again, do i just take one copy of the N244? Also, i havent included photocopies of all the bank statements again i have simply stated on the new PoC that all the evidence is attached to the original Poc ( as i am claiming for 3 accounts so there's heaps of statments). Will this be ok?

Has anyone had a response from the court yet regarding the new PoC and SSAA1992?

Thanks

[steven4064]

I have three copies again, do i just take one copy of the N244? Also, i havent included photocopies of all the bank statements again i have simply stated on the new POC that all the evidence is attached to the original Poc ( as i am claiming for 3 accounts so there's heaps of statments). Will this be ok?

Yes, this is fine. Send N244, new N1, new POC and any covering letter to the court and to the defendant's solicitors.

Has anyone had a response from the court yet regarding the new PoC and SSAA1992?

Not yet