Hello everyone! Though I should update what is going on with my case . . . Well the last you heard from me my proof hearing was on the 19-Dec. Very close to the proof hearing I found that I had fly abroad for a few weeks and would not be back in time. So I asked a friend to go to court and ask for it to be postponed. Egg did not argue. New proof hearing date was 12-March . . .today!!! So I am just back from court and surprise . . .it has been postponed again due to lack of court time, till June ! But to be fair, the only other case the being heard, the pursuer had flown in from South America. After my hearing Egg’s lawyer asked me to have a coffee with him. No great revelation he just stuck to his points and I to mine. One interesting thing he did say was the by providing data to Credit reference agencies Egg is NOT giving it to third party as they are agents of Egg and as such Egg is not breaching and Data Protection Act rules. In regards to the default notice not being received by me, he stated that it is “Not always required”?!?! As long as they have that they sent it there is nothing to say that Egg have prove that it was delivered . . . So there you have it my story nearly 2 years on from my first letter to Egg! Ohh forgot to mention I am chasing egg for about £350 worth of unlawful charges in addition of default removal. My default was for about 2k'ish now my credit file shows the default as settled with the amount that egg defaulted me on. They told me today taken the unlawful charges (£350) amount off the total defaulted balance on my credit file. Now I have just had a brainwave. If they admit that the defaulted amount was wrong (which I think they have done by taking the £350 off my CRA file) then they admit that the default notice they issued to me was incorrect (as it had wrong amount). Now does this mean that the default notice was invalid?

Well I am just back from the preliminary hearing against egg (again) Spoke to the Lawyer before things go t started. She said that Egg are now happy to move to a full hearing. I agreed. Spoke to Sheriff, who unnervingly said that Summery Clause may not be the right way for the default removal. But he will get someone to find out. The first date was 12-dec but egg lawyer said she has been asked to make it any other day apart from 12-dec. So it is 19-Dec. A day before my birthday! This did disturb me, as it seems Egg want to go the whole way fighting. I have also received their defence will put that up in a day or so.

Well I am just back from the preliminary hearing against egg. The solicitor for egg showed up. She was nice enough, spoke to me beforehand and advised that egg are going to ask for a 2week delay to answer all the points in my summons. She asked me if I would agree. I said no as I have been communicating with egg for well over a year, where all the points in the summons have been raised many times. Also the summons was served on egg 4 weeks ago and that should have been sufficient time to answer the points. We were then called to stand before the Sheriff. He advised me that it would help the court if egg were able to answer all the point before the Hearing. I against laid out my argument against granting them more time. But he sided with egg and set another preliminary hearing for 2 weeks time on 9-Oct. More waiting . . .:o

Thanks Yasmin, The return date was 18th Sept. Egg responded 20mins before close of play on the 18th I am due in court on the 25th to arrange date for preliminary hearing. hondamad

Hi Yasmin, Wanted to wish you best luck. My own preliminary hearing against egg is on 25-Sept. hondamad

Hello, Just wanted to give David Travis's direct line number 0161 869 6055. I called him and was slightly unnerved as he sounded like a decent guy. Last think i expected from citi especially after some of Mr Smith's letters. Hondamad

Well done!!! :D:D Can’t wait for the full details. . .

Well Done !!! :grin: hondamad

Hi Tracy, Congratulations on receiving the full refund. :D:D Tried to PM you but your inbox is full. hondamad

Hi midland90, Do not get upset. Mr. Smith has a knack of winding people up. I know I have received many letters from him and have tried my best just to laugh them off. He cannot ask for full payment, as I am sure that he knows, when the amount outstanding is in dispute. Can I ask what stage in the letters are you at? Have you sent him the usual letter plus the letter before action? If you have any questions I will help as best as I can. I am currently talking citi to court and hope to meet Mr. Smith on Tuesday for my preliminary hearing. Hondamad

Hi megan, Excellent idea Happened to me, I received the Decree/Warrant, as citi did not file a defence. I then sent them a letter prior to getting the bailiffs to serve them and they responded by saying ohh we never actually received the original summons. If you or the mods need my case number to compile a list let me know. hondamad P.S. I would advise anyone who receives an out of court settlement should apply for a Wasted Costs Order. Click on the link to find out more!

Ohh that sends a shiver down my spine :p:p But seriously I am looking to meeting him or Mr Smith if they come this far north. I want to be able to say once and for all if Mr Smith really does look like Richard Gere hondamad

Well bang on 9am today received another special delivery letter from Mr Davies this time with the cheque included!!! I should say that the chq is not for the amount i am claiming but the difference between £25 they charged and £12 OTF figure.

Hi Robertxc, Yes this is the preliminary hearing. hondamad P.S. mega34 I agree, however the judges must catch on sonner or later (I hope). vbmenu_register("postmenu_919179", true);

Ok receved their defence today. . . Hondamad21 vs. Citi Financial Europe Plc The defendant is a credit card company . . . The defender admits that the pursuer had a credit car account with the defender . . . The Defender avers that the agreement with the pursuer contains terms entitling the Defender to levy fee for late payment exceeding credit limit and returned payments, and avers that the pursuer was aware of and agreed to the same before entering into the agreement. The defender denies that the same are unenforceable at law, being penalty charges designed to penalise the pursuer for breach of contract and to generate profit for the defender rather then being liquidated damages designed to compensate the defender for the actual loss occurring to the defender as a result of the breach, whether under the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 or otherwise, and puts the pursuer to proof of this by specific reference to the relevant sections of the statutes and specific citation of case law relied upon. The defender denies that it unlawfully debited the pursuers account between sept-02 and nov-o4. The defender avers that the Small Claims Summons dose not particularise either the amount of the claim (there is no “attached schedule” to the Small Claims Summons containing these, in spite of what the pursuer states therein) or the dates upon which the amount claimed arose and puts the pursuer to strict proof of the amount of his claim. (There was an attached schedule; I am not sure why they did not get it.) The defender admit that, between sept-02 and nov-04, the pursuer breached the agreement on no fewer then 28 separate occasions and, accordingly, the sum £570 was debited to the pursuers account by way of late payment, returned payment and overlimit fees (26 fees at £20 and 2 fees at £25), as per the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement. The purser is claiming as a money claim a sum equivalent to that which he claims was unlawfully debited to his account over the term of the agreement in late payment, returned payment and overlimit fees. The claim is entirely based on the recent OFT statement on the alleged unfairness of such default fees. The OFT stated that the level at which default fees, though not the principle of the default charging itself, was unfair in the contest of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. It also reported that the fees were, in its opinion, a penalty contrary to common law principles of damages for breach of contract. The defender has agreed to abide by the OFT report and adopt a lower level of default fees which it has set at the new industry standard of £12. Over the lifetime of this account the pursuer has set its default fees at £25 and £20. The defender has made an ex gratia refund of a sum exceeding the difference between (i) the current default fee of £12 and (ii) the default fee at £25 and £20 incurred by the pursue, which amounts to £234. A cheque for this sum has been sent to the pursuer. (One was sent to me a couple of months ago and I returned it, In the covering letter of this defence Mr Travis avers that he has sent me a cheque of £234, but I did NOT find it enclosed) The defender avers that the pursuer’s claim is not a money claim but a damages action and further avers that the pursuer’s interest calculation is not applicable to this action or, if it is applicable, that it is wrong and the defender puts the pursuer to proof that the interest is owed. The defender is currently defending almost 150 similar claims in all three jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. It has successfully defended many of these claims, the most being recent being that of Potter v Citifinancial Europe plc in the Salford County Court this month, for which District judge Hovington gave a full written judgment. Although the defender fully respects the fact that Scotland is an entirely separate jurisdiction to England and Wales, the statutes considered in that case and referred to in pursuer’s claim are equally applicable in Scotland. Accordingly, the defender believes that this case should be of persuasive effect to the Court and encloses a copy of this said judgment for consideration. Save as otherwise admitted, he claims in the pursuer’s Small Claims Summons are specifically denied. I am going to write a letter tonight telling Mr Travis that a, I have not received any chq apart for the one sent a few months ago which i rejected and sent back. I will as him to cancel the chq, as I have no intentions of cashing it. b, Why he is set me a chq for the same amount that I have rejected previously? c, Giving him a copy of the schedule and stating that it has been sent to his colleague my Mr Smith many times in nearly all my letter to him. Once again any advice if much appreciated!!! My Court date is 19-Jun