Jump to content

kano24

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. You are looking at at least 6 points for driving with no license/insurance and a fine i the region of about £200.
  2. Hi all, I would appreciate some advice. I currently have an IVA that is due to end in a a few months time. I have recently been succesful in reclaiming just under £4000 worth of bank charges from Lloyds TSB. Having been in contact with the supervisor of my IVA, they are of the oppinion that the money I have recieved is a windfall, and I need to pay it into my IVA for the benefit of all my creditors. I am not of the same oppinion. I would a agree that something like a lottery win would be a windfall but I can't see how the paying back of unlawful penalty charges can be seen as though. I would be grateful for any comments from anyone with any legal knowledge on this. Many Thanks Paul
  3. eggop, Thanks for that. It is a very goog point that any money refunded would have to be distributed fairly amongst all creditors. Even though I have not techically paid all of the money that I am claiming, Citicards have defaulted me on the amount. Even if they only get paid a partial sum of the money through my IVA contributions, it is still money that they had no right to put onto my account as it was unlawfull. I have just got to make sure I can try and get all the points out in the court room. Im not afraid to admit I am getting a bit nervous now!!
  4. Hi Guys, I sent off a letter at the beginning of the week objecting for the claim to be struck out. Have today recieved a Notice of Hearing. This will take place on 22nd May. Just a bit worried now about being able to put forward a positive argument in respect to the IVA situation. Any help and advice would be much appreciated!
  5. OK, got a letter from the court. States: The court is proposing to strike out the claim in this case of its own initiative on the grounds set out in the schedule hereto If you object to such an order, you must file your reasons at the court in writing by 4.00pm on 24th April 2007 in which case there will be a hearing to decide the matter at which you will need to present your arguments. "The claiment has not paid the charges he seeks to recover. They are included in his Individual Voluntary Agreement. He cannot recover that which he has not paid in the first place." I really need some help and advice now guys. Yes I have an IVA in place but part of the IVA is to pay back to citi money for a debt that is made up of mostly unlawful charges. If they hadn't of put unlawful charges on my account then I may never have had to have an IVA in the first place. By them placing unlawful charges on my account, it has not helped my financial situation It has partly caused me to set up an IVA and has damaged my credit rating. Can anyone out there help me put the above into a legal argument that I can write down and present to the court?? I need to get this in by Tuesday so any help you can give me asap would be appreciatted
  6. Els, Didn't realise yours was today! Best of luck mate Kano
  7. Ok, sent the AQ and have recieved a letter from the court today stating "It is ordered that the claiment submit a full reply to the defence including specifically if there is an IVA in place. In default claim will be struck out." What do you think of that?
  8. Elsinore, Have you got a court date yet? Im just about ready to submit my AQ. Thanks again for your advice regarding their defence they sent to me.
  9. Ok, below is the defence recieved from Citi. Appologies for any spelling mistakes, had to re-write it all by hand! The defendant avers that the agreement with the claimant contains terms entitling the defendant to levy fees for late payment, exceeding the credit limit and returned payments, and avers that the claimant was aware of and agreed to the same before entering into the agreement. The defendant denies that the same are a disproportionate penalty or invalid under s4 UCTA 1974 or para 8, sch 2(1)(e) UTCCR 1999 or unenforceable at common law and puts the claimant to proof of this by specific reference to case law relied upon. The defendant denies that it unlawfully debited the claimants’ account during the term of the agreement. The defendant avers that the particulars of claim do not particularise either the individual amounts making up the claim or the dates upon which the amounts claimed arose and puts the claimant to strict proof of the amount of his claim. The defendant avers that the claimant’s contract terminated in November 2002. The defendant believes that the claimant is claiming for charges earlier than 2000 and the defendant avers that it has a Limitation Act defence to any charges levied prior to 6 years before the claim form issue date of December 2006. The defendant admits that, between December 2000 and October 2002, the claimant breached the contract on 16 occasions and the sum of £390, not £1025 as pleaded by the claimant, was debited from the claimants’ account by way of late payment, returned payment and over limit fees as per the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement The claimant 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 and over limit fees. This 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 the default fees, though not the principle of default fee charging itself, was unfair in the context 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 defendant 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 claimant has set its default fees at £25 and £20. The claimants’ account with the defendant was consistently in arrears and was charged off and an IVA was entered into whereby the claimant agreed to pay his creditors 52 pence per pound. This was assigned to Max Recoveries Limited (“Max”) in or around 2006. At the time the debt was sold to Hillsden, the balance of the account was £1652.27 in debit, i.e., outstanding from the claimant. Normally, the defendant would make an ex gratia refund of a sum exceeding the difference between (i) the current default fee of £12 and (ii) the fees incurred by the claimant. However, as the claimant entered into an IVA whereby the defendant agreed to accept a lesser sum in respect of his indebtedness, the defendant avers it is a breach of or inconsistent with the terms of the IVA for the claimant to seek to bring an action against a creditor with whom he has agreed to compromise his debt. The IVA is in full and final settlement of the contractual rights of both parties there under, whether they be the creditor’s rights to seek more or the debtor’s rights to pay less via some sort of pay off. The defendant avers that the claimants’ is not a money claim but a damages action and further avers that the claimants’ interest calculation is not applicable to this action or, if it is applicable, that it is wrong and the defendant puts the claimant to proof that this interest is owed. Specifically, the defendant notes that the claimant has claimed interest from the date each default fee was incurred, rather than the date of any payment of such default fee by the claimant. As the claimant is a credit institution and not a deposit taker, it cannot set off default fees against money held on account. As such, it cannot be held liable for interest on a notionally paid debt rather than an actual one. The claimant had a current outstanding balance on his account held by Max and, as such, never paid the balance of his account, including the default fees imposed to the defendant. It is averred by the defendant that it is only from the time of any such payment that interest could have accrued on such payment as if it were a debt. Save as otherwise admitted, the claimant’s particulars of claim are denied and each and every allegation in the particulars of claim is specifically denied. So, what do you think of that guys?
  10. Hi guys, Sorry I have been absent for a while. Computer packed up well and truly and have just bought a new one. To update you all on what has been happening, Citi got their set aside at the hearing but were ordered to file a defence within 14 days. This they did, at the final hour! I will post the full defence, hopefully tomorrow. I have also recieved AQ from the court that has to be submitted by the 11th March. Should I reply to the points in their defence now, or just wait until the hearing date?
  11. Response to the above letter recieved today. "I note the comments you make and also the fact that nearly all are incorrect. That is no mean feat but then why allow any facts to obscure your prejudices or those of the website from which you downloaded this letter, it being the second such letter I have recieved today. It appears that you intend to litigate by rote and simply take on the misrepresentations of others. I can assure you that my client defends almost all cases and that i have fought and won all of the cases I have allowed to go to court. You are correct in that, I do on occasion settle cases when I deem it uneconomical to attend a faraway court or when I deem it a tactical issue however, let me assure you that in your particular case I have ensured attendance at the County Court to deal with this case and then the subsequent full hearing. Furthermore, I note that you give no aknowledgement of the £1593.27 which was your indebtedness to my clients business before charge off nor the fact that you have entered into an IVA thereby, in my submission, compromising your right to bring such a claim. I regard these as material non-disclosures by you, the purpose of which was to mislead the court and I shall make representations to the court on this at the hearing and, more generally, about the fact that you have downloaded and used a precedent without giving it any thought and thereby allowed it to mislead the court about both my own and my clients record and the likely intentions in terms of this litigation. Given the above, and the fact that you have not particularised in your claim form nor even paid my client the monies you seek but have merely done what every other claiment has done, namely look at the statements and assumed that because the default fee is recorded that you have paid it, in your own case conveniently forgetting the account was sold for a sum far in excess of your claim, I shall not agree to your absurd suggestion regarding the directions. This is a small claim and I shall make representation that it be treated as such in opposition to your view that it be treated as a Mercantile matter. Some, rare, cases may merit such treatment, your own is certainly not such a one but is rather a complete waste of the Court's time. I have sent a copy of this letter to the court to ensure it is fully aware of the view I take of your claim and purported directions" Signed by one and only, Brian Smith! What do you make of that?
  12. dj, Thanks a lot for that. Will be sending it special delivery tomorrow
  13. Looks like my local court is less busy than yours dj59. I just recieved a letter this morning setting a hearing date for setaside on 1st february!!! Any Advice, will be much appreciated
  14. Got a letter from court today. Date for the setaside hearing is on 1/2/07!
×
×
  • Create New...