Billy Pilgrim

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Billy Pilgrim last won the day on June 3 2020

Billy Pilgrim had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Billy Pilgrim

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The issue to me is that in the contract default section it says the arbitration costs are owed back to the creditor. And while the reallocation of the AAA fees is clearly disallowed per the contract, there is nothing specifically saying arbitrator’s cost is exempt from reallocation. So my concern is that the contract leaves me on the hook for the arbitrator’s cost regardless if the claims asserted by me are valid. AAA seems to make a distinction between the AAA fees and the arbitrator’s compensation (i.e. cost).
  2. Hello, I have an open thread involving PRA suing me for a Barclay’s card here, but I wanted to create a separate thread to bring attention to some nuances in the Barclays credit card agreement. Specifically, there are relevant parts to the agreement which are outside of the arbitration section and may be missed by some people (myself included). First of all, the arbitration section has verbiage that states: "Under no circumstances will we seek from you payment or reimbursement of any fees that we incur in connection with arbitration.” Now while the sounds all warm and funny, it’s import
  3. Sorry for the wall of text above. Basically the cc agreement says in one place: “As permitted by applicable law, you agree to pay all collection expenses actually incurred by us in the collection of amounts you owe under this Agreement (including court or arbitration costs and the fees of any collection agency to which we refer your Account).” And in another place says, in a place where it discusses filing fees and fees paid to the administrator: "Under no circumstances will we seek from you payment or reimbursement of any fees that we incur in connection with arbitration.” My
  4. The alleged agreement is a 2014 Barclay's card agreement, which is 11 pages long so not going to post the whole thing. The relevant sections are the "default" and "arbitration" sections: Default/Collection Costs. Unless otherwise prohibited by law, your Account will be in default and we may demand immediate payment of the entire amount you owe us if: 1) in any month we do not receive your Minimum Payment Due by the Payment Due Date; 2) you make Purchases, initiate Balance Transfers, use a Check, or obtain Cash Advances in excess of your credit line; 3) you fail to comply with this Agreem
  5. Okay, filed my claims against PRA and have gotten PRA’s response back (the arbitrator allowed them to respond a second time). The PRA attorney is claiming, in line with their established intention to seek cost compensation, that my claims are “patently frivolous” and also that my exercising of my arbitration rights constitutes harassment. The heart of the issue is language in the credit card agreement in the “Default” section, which states : “As permitted by applicable law, you agree to pay all collection expenses actually incurred by us in the collection of amounts you owe under this Ag
  6. The AAA Assistant Vice President had a correspondence with one of PRA's attorneys regarding PRA's standing with AAA, and the PRA higher-up was following up to the correspondence. I'll send you a PM with more details.
  7. I may have a rogue attorney in my case as they are going against PRA's recently articulated policy to pay their arbitration costs in AAA cases (see my post directly above). Not to mention going directly against the CC agreement by seeking arb fees.
  8. Speaking of new policies, on March 20 PRA had posted a document to my AAA case from its Managing Counsel of the Litigation and Compliance Department to the Assistant Vice President of AAA regarding PRA's standing with AAA, stating that PRA was going to "pay the costs of arbitration." So I guess no more arbitration cases being closed due to "non payment" in consumer cases where PRA is a party.
  9. The stipulated agreement was pretty boilerplate, saying "PRA and debtor jointly stipulate to dismiss the case without prejudice". When I got it was that there was nothing in regards to the order to arbitrate, so I was concerned at the time due to this, and the fact that the judge on the case is very slow with approving motions. I was concerned I would still have to go into arbitration, and then 6 days later PRA filed its motion to dismiss with prejudice. Looking back, I agree I should have taken the offer (and have it notarized). I'll upload it in a few when I have a chance.
  10. Yup, there appears to be three of them. The MTD without prejudice was never filed though as I never signed the stipulated agreement they sent me. The MTD w/o prejudice was dated Jan 16, the original MTD with prejudice was filed Jan 22, and the MTD with prejudice they sent me was dated Feb 10. I'll make an updated timeline when I have time, but it will be soon. Right now I need to get my amended claims in to AAA as they/re due by June 1.
  11. IMO it was the original attorneys wanting to get a dismissal, and going about it strangely, and then PRA having a change of strategy once the current lead attorney was assigned to the case. Which is what I argued when I opposed PRA's motion to vacate. In regards to the mixing up of the cases, PRA originally filed their MTD with prejudice January 22, then sent me a MTD with prejudice dated February 10th. So if cases were mixed up, it was done twice, which is why I am hesitant to embrace that line of reasoning.
  12. Even after mailing me a settlement offer of a joint dismissal without prejudice? PRA did change lead attorneys on the case.