Hello I wonder if anyone has had the same experience as me. I cancelled my British Telecom account over 12 months ago but they messed up and forgot to switch off my line and then tried to charge me for the time it was still connected. I disputed this but BT ignored me and passed the debt of £90.00 to a DCA. The DCA sent me a letter demanding £116 with no explanation as to the extra on the bill. They wrote to me about 3 times and I ignored them because I am prepared to fight this in court as I have proof of when I cancelled and the fact that BT messed up. Since then BT have actually cleared and closed my account and my balance is now zero. However the DCA have written to my place of work, I have no idea how they found out my work address. The letter was not marked "Private & Confidential" so consequently it was opened by the person who deals with the post. This has caused me some embarrassment and distress at work. The DCA are threatening further action. I don't care about the threats, I can deal with that but I am now of a mind to bill them for the distress caused to me and demand compensation. I wondered though if this was possible and if so how do I arrive at a suitable financial figure for compenation. Also who should I complain to about this company (OFT, ICO, Trading Standards?). I have also checked my credit file on experian and equifax, there is no record of my works address on them and Equifax also shows that my BT account is clear. Many Thanks Geo

Thanks for your advice. I do not have a problem with compiling the defence as such, the problem is that there ia also a claim in the same county court from me to get my charges back from GE money. They have responded by starting possession proceddings. If it comes to having to pay the alleged arrears then I will in full, I can actually pay these anyway but the issue is that I have refused to pay them because they are made up of unlawful charges. So in addition to my court claim for unlawful charges I was wondering if my defence at the possession hearing should also include that these are unlawful charges and that I have asked GE money to prove to me that the charges they have levied are proportionate and not penalty's. I should point out also that I was never given any warning that they would be starting a repossession it just dropped on my dorrmat. I was still awaiting a response to my LBA, sent in December, and a follow up to my LBA giving them more time to cough up, sent in January.

Hi Just wondered how you claim was progressing. I have put a claim in to GE money for my mortgage arears fees back and they have retaliated by applying for a possession order. They owe me more in fees than I owe them in alleged arrears. See my thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?295845

Just wondered if anyone who is better versed in these things can offer any advice as I am getting quite desperate about what my next steps are with the possession hearing looming.

I have now received notification of a possession hearing in five weeks time. GE want to repossess my home for just over £600 of alleged arrears and yet they owe me £700 of unlawful charges which they are clearly refusing to admit to. I think this is a case of getting in before I had chance to put my claim in to the court. I have put my claim in but I doubt that it will be heard before the possession hearing given that GE will have to be allowed time to put in a defence. So regarding the claim, shall I put in a defence that the "arrears" are unlawful charges or should I ask for a strike out or a stay pending my hearing for unlawful charges?. It is also worth pointing out that the court claim put in by GE does have false information: 1. They have told the court that my contracted monthly payment is higher than it actually is. 2. They have told the court that my arrears stood at £1100 and I have paid of £500 of these which is totally untrue 3. They have given the court a statement of account showing two missed payments that I know I have paid and have the stetement from GE to prove it The figure they have provided to the court simply do not add up. They have also added £300 of costs to the alleged arrears. This in my opinion is clearly an immoral action by GE to get me out because I rocked the boat with them over the charges they have added to my account and clearly they want to do this before I have chance to take them to court over the charges. To repossess my house for a mere £600 on and £80,000 mortgage which is bang up to date (except for the outstanding charges) to me is totally unacceptable. I hope the DJ sees this. So what are my next steps, can anyone help?

I have put my claim in today at the local County Court. Since GE are now taking me to court for repossession how does this work, probably I suppose it depends which hearing comes first. I have received no papers yet from GE for a court hearing but if I do when there is already a claim pending for unfair charges then should I use this as a defence or submit a counter claim? Any ideas anyone?

Thank you for the advice. I intend to get the claim done this weekend, however I have today had a letter from GE saying that they have commenced proceedings for repossession of my house and I will shortly be receiving a date for a court hearing from their Solicitors. I am just wondering how I should respond. I should point out that all my arrears were paid, the outstanding "arrears" are just the total of the charges they have levied which of course are increasing every month. My mortgage is £140 per month, charges are now at £680 which GE say are arrears, they intend to add £375 for legal fees plus court and solicitors costs.

My draft POC p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }a:link { } Particulars of Claim Part 1 Introduction This is a Secured Loan Charges claim not a Bank Charges claim. The Charges which are the subject to this claim have nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling against the Personal Current Account providers - Eight British banks and others. ( OFT v Abbey etc.) Because this claim is not affected by the Supreme Court decision, all parts of this claim remain open for determination by the Court, Penalties, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999(UTCCR), misrepresentation and breach of statutory duty. This claim is brought as the Claimant believes that the charges levied by the Defendants are in fact penalties applied for breach of contract on the part of the Claimant. This claim is brought for the refund of money paid under a mistake and for restitutionary damages and/or interest under s.69 county court Act 1984. This claim is brought under reg.6 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR) and alternatively under reg.5 UTCCR. Alternatively this claim is brought on the basis of a contractual misrepresentation by the Defendants. This claim is also brought for the Defendants breach of Statutory Duty. The Claimant's position is that either the Monthly Arrears charges, failed Direct Debit Charge Fees, Default notice charges that the Defendants impose on its customers are not part of their core business and are so excessively high that they are wholly disproportionate to their costs and are therefore unfair under reg.6 UTCCR, or That the Defendants occupy a dominant position in relation to the Claimant and have operated their dominant position contrary to the requirements of good faith by misrepresenting the true nature of its charges per reg.5 UTCCR, or That the Defendants have made contractual misrepresentations. Part 2 The Parties The Defendants are a sub-prime secured loan provider offering loans secured on clients property.The Defendants were formerly known as iGroup. They are now part of GE Money Home Lending. The Defendants are regulated by the Financial Services Authority and are subject to the obligations contained in the FSA Conduct Of Business Sourcebook and Mortgage Conduct Of Business Sourcebook, implemented under the Financial Services And Markets Act 2000. The Claimant arranged his secured loan through a broker that offered the Defendants as a secured loan provider which would lend a sum of £ to the Claimant. This loan was secured by a legal mortgage on the Claimant's home. The Claimant entered into a secured loan agreement Account number xxxxxxxx with the Defendant on xxxxxx .The secured loan was provided under the Defendants’ own standard Terms and Conditions. A copy of the loan agreement and terms and conditions are attached. Between xxxx xxxx and xxxx xxxx the Claimant incurred failed direct debit fees, default notice charges and monthly arrears fee charges totalling £xxx.00. The Claimant has asked the Defendants for a detailed breakdown or costings analysis of these charges but the Defendants have failed to prove them. The Defendants charges are expressed by them to be their costs for dealing with an account whilst in arrears, and their administration costs in representing failed direct debit payments. The Defendants will not supply any detailed breakdown of the charges proving their actual costs. Part 3 The Defendants’ dominant position. The Defendants are a sub-prime secured loan company and part of the GE Money group. The Defendants operate on their own standard terms and conditions which are imposed upon the customer. There is no opportunity for the customer to object to, or to renegotiate any aspect of the mortgage contract. There is no element of mutuality or reciprocity within the contract. The Defendant sub-prime secured loan company occupies a dominant and superior position to the Claimant because they are fully informed as to the true nature and level of the operations (or activities), and also the true cost of dealing with Customer Late Payment episodes, and yet refuse to reveal or disclose in any way the mechanisms involved or the true costs associated with Customer Late Payment episodes. The Defendants reserve to itself the right to levy charges it describes as “Direct Debit recall charges”,“Administrative Charges”, “default notice charges” and “Monthly Arrears Charges” and will not disclose the level they are calculated to either, instead relying on them being stated in the Terms and Conditions of the secured loan contract. However the Defendants levy these Charges against its Customers without any proper explanation as to how the costs are derived and so that the Customer is obliged to accept the Defendants generalised explanation of their charges at face value. The Customer is therefore obliged to repose faith in the integrity and straight dealing of the Defendants because of the Defendants superior position in the contract. The Defendant secured loan company have also largely ignored the Claimants letter before action sent by recorded delivery, received by the Defendants on xxth xxxx xxxx. The remaining points raised in my Letter Before Action are not addressed, the Defendants stating “Having looked at our records I can see that your concerns have been previously addressed and we have issued our final response to you regarding the fees.”, and “Our position remains the same on the points you have raised. I am unable to consider your complaint further and must once again refer you to the Financial Ombudsman Service should you remain dissatisfied.” No further response has been received by the Claimant in respect of the Letter Before Action. The Defendant secured loan company reserves to itself the right to levy Charges it describes as “Monthly Arrears Charge ”, “Administration fee”, “Direct Debit recall charge”, “default notice charge”. Part 4 The Defendants’ misrepresentation. The Defendants refer to their Terms and Conditions of the Claimants secured loan account. They refer to Monthly Arrears Fees of £40, Direct Debit recall charge fees of £25, Default notice charges of £35. The Defendants have provided copies of guides to charges showing contradictory fee scales for returned direct debits, administration fees and issue of default notices. The Defendants have failed to provide any detailed audited costings analysis for any of these charges. The Defendants continue to state that these charges represent a true estimate of the actual costs involved in dealing with the Claimants late payment episodes. The Claimant is confused as to how his account has been charged these fees, and the Claimant believes that these charges are automatically applied by the Defendants computer system, thus disproving the Defendants claims. A study commissioned by the BBC in 2006 found that the episodes of the type for which the Defendant imposes default fees typically cost a maximum of £4.50 per episode. The OFT conducted a study into the fairness of the level and application of unauthorised charges in April 2007. The subsequent OFT July 2008 report found a number of concerns they believed needed addressing: 1. Low levels of transparency over charges and costs, coupled with a high proportion of banks’ total revenues made on charges and costs. 2. The complexity of the charges makes it harder for consumers to control the costs they incur. 3. A significant group of consumers underestimate the level and frequency of banks’ charges, and 4. A general perception among consumers, not completely unfounded, that switching is complex and risky, contributing to low levels of switching between banks. (Although this study applied particularly to banks, it is submitted that the principles of the study and the results are applicable to other companies within the finance industry which operate excessive charging regimes.) The Financial Services Authority has imposed large fines on other sub-prime lenders with similar charging regimes to the Defendants. GMAC were fined £2.8 Million in October 2009 for not treating customers fairly. Kensington were fined £1.23 Million in April 2010 for similar unfair treatment. The Claimant believes that if the FSA found GMAC's and Kensington's charges for customers whilst in arrears to be unfair, it follows that the Defendants similar charging regime is unfair. Claim that the Defendants charges are actually concealed penalties for breaches of contract. The Defendants have charged varying amounts for the same breaches of contract. Yet they are unable or unwilling to substantiate these charges by way of detailed costings analysis. The Claimant believes that the Defendants apply these charges as penalties for breach of contract. The Claimant respectfully asks the Court to determine whether the Defendants charges are penalties. The Claimant believes that the charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit. Claim under regulation 6 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR) 1999. The Defendants Charges are not part of their core business. They are incidental or remedial Charges and are unfairly high. They are therefore invalid under UTCCR. Claim under regulation 5 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR) 1999. The Defendants have abused their dominant position by misrepresenting the nature of their charges. This is contrary to the requirement of good faith, and as a result of this the Claimant has suffered detriment. Therefore it is submitted that the Defendants charging regime is invalid. Contractual Misrepresentation. The Defendants have misrepresented the nature of their Charges, the Claimant relied upon the Defendants representations because he believed that he had caused losses to the Defendants, and that he had an obligation to indemnify the Defendants for those losses. If the Claimant had appreciated the excessive nature of the Defendants Charges, he would have investigated making his mortgage arrangements elsewhere. Breach of Statutory Duty. The Defendants are regulated by the Financial Services Authority under The Financial Services And Markets Act 2000 and are subject to obligations contained in the FSA Conduct Of Business Sourcebook. Under Regulation 4.2 of the Sourcebook the Defendants are required to ensure that they communicate with their clients fairly, clearly and in a way which is not misleading. The Claimant believes that the Defendants specialist Contentious Litigation Department, designed to obstruct customers access to information that they seek, is a clear breach of their obligations. Under Regulation 12.4.1R of the Mortgage Conduct Of Business Sourcebook the Defendants are required to ensure that any arrears charges they apply should only cover their actual costs of dealing with an account whilst in arrears. The Defendants have failed to comply with their obligations. By misrepresenting the nature of it’s charges both in it’s Terms and Conditions, and in it’s correspondence to the Claimant, the Defendants have breached their statutory obligations. The Claimant respectfully asks the Court to order standard disclosure when issuing this claim as the Defendants have continually refused to supply any requested information. The Claimant respectfully asks the Court to order the Defendants to lodge in court full and detailed financial vouching for the Defendants actual losses sustained by the Claimants mortgage arrears, together with their full financial accounts revealing how much income the Defendants generate from their monthly secured loan Arrears Charges, compared to their actual costs of administering the Claimants missed monthly secured loan payments. The Claimant would be most grateful to the Court if the disclosure extended to all charges including legal and litigation fees charged by the Defendants. The Claimant respectfully asks permission of the Court to amend his claim once in receipt of all information from the Defendants. The Claimant claims: 1. The return of all charges paid in the sum of £xxxx.00 , 2. Court costs, 3. Restitutionary damages to be determined by the Court, or 4. Interest under section 69 of The County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum to the date of issue, which is £xxx.xx and continuing until the date of judgment at a daily rate of xxp. 5. A declaration that the Defendants have breached their obligations contained in the FSA Sourcebooks. 6. Removal of any and all incorrect and defamatory information submitted to Credit Reference Agencies by the Defendants regarding the Claimants alleged arrears on the secured loan.

I'll put my POC up after the weekend Many Thanks

I was in arrears with my mortgage and managed to clear these off but as a result have £600 of charges on my account which GE money say are arrears, I say they are not and are the total of the unfair charges they have levied on my account. I am refusing to pay these charges so they are adding £40 per month to my mortgage in admin fees for been in arrears, they have also reported me as 5 months in arrears with experian, equifax (who incidentally won't put a notice of correction on my file about this being purely charges). Anyway I threatened GE Money with court action and so far they have refused to refund any of these fees which they say are fair and lower than other companies charge. I have sent them an LBA but again they have replied saying that they will not refund any charges and the matter is now closed, if I do not pay they will commence proceedings for repossession. So I now need to take them to court, I have drafted out a particulars of claim but wondered if anyone else had got as far as taking them to court and if so what success (or not) did they have. I could alternatively go to the Financial Ombudsmen. Any advice would be appreciated.

My defence is: If the original signed credit agreement is not produced then the debt is not enforceable by a court, even though according to the OFT guidleines a DCA can continue to chase the debt by other means. So I would be requesting that a copy of the original agreement be produced in court. I have never recceived a DN from this company, nor the original creditor. In the POC the claimant refers to my defaulting, but without any specific date, however they now claim they do not have to produce or provide a copy of the DN becuae the loan agreement (fixed term) expired in 2006 anyway. I am supposed to have defaulted, according to the POC in 2008. The claimant wants to claim interest after judgement under the terms of the original agreement, I have a letter from the claimant agreeing to freeze interest on the loan as long as regular payments are made, which they have been The claimant wants to claim interest under S69 of the County Court Act in addition to contractual interest but I thought this was not allowed if the claim was for a CCA agreement.

Thanks I thought as much, I have never had any DN from this company although they say in the POC that I have, but they have failed to provide even a copy of this document in the CPR request. Going through the old papers last night I also found a letter of agreement from 2006 that states they would accept reduced payments and freeze any interest or charges as long as regular payments were maintained, which they have been without any missed payments whatsoever, in fact I have increased my payments since then so I reckon that they would be unable to charge any interest anyway. I need to put in my defence so any suggestions on wording would be appreciated.

I was surprised by the response I got when I phone payplan about my dilemma. They were the ones who advised me on dealing with my creditors. I phoned them today to tell them about my county court summons. To say they were't interested is an understatement, they told me that I should just fill in the financial statement and send it to the court as there was little point in defending the claim, they also told me that the creditor is not compelled to show any agreement or default notice in court anyway and they can add interest to the debt even after judgement so my defence is a waste of time and the courts time. Perhaps they are right and I am wrong.

The Solicitors have responded by return of post to my CRP31.14 request. They enclosed a copy of the signed agreement including T & Cs, a copy of the transfer agreement from the loan company and full statement of account. They say they are not legally obliged to send or produce a copy of the default notice because the debt should have been paid in 2006 anyway and the loan agreement has expired. However in the Particulars of Claim they say "the claimant defaulted in approximately August 2007" so how can I have defaulted if they now say the loan agreement expired in 2006? In that case why mention the default a year later? They say in the letter of response to the CPR request that because I have paid minimal amounts then I admit the debt and that my defence is spurious and will incur further costs having to be paid me because the creditor has to compile a response to the defence. I have never denied the debt, what I am defending is that this should not be going to court. I have never missed a payment (albeit minimal) and a court order at this stage would cause me considerable hardship. 1. The court cannot enforce the debt without the actual signed agreement being produced - I think I am correct on this. 2. They wish to charge contractual interest of 16% plus interest of 8% under section 69 of the CCJ, this in total amounts to more per year than I can afford to pay so the debt will never reduce. 3. They have made threats in the past of Charging Orders, for three years they have accepted reduced payments but now after all this time refuse to do so even though I have followed guidelines by debtplan and sent regular financial statements so I think they are in breach of OFT guidelines here over threats and demanding more money thath the creditor can afford. 4. If I get a CCJ I lose a part time job which involves me handling money and the contract specifically says I cannot work for this company if I have a CCJ, so I would immediatley lose a substantial part of my monthly income and not be able to pay any of my creditors or part of my priority debts including a mortgage. If I use this as my defence how can it be spurious? I could really use some help in compiling a defence now, I have only until 1st July to do this given that I was served papers at an incorrect address.

The Solicitors have responded by return of post to my CRP31.14 request. They enclosed a copy of the signed agreement including T & Cs, a copy of the transfer agreement from the loan company and full statement of account. They say they are not legally obliged to send or produce a copy of the default notice because the debt should have been paid in 2006 anyway and the loan agreement has expired. However in the Particulars of Claim they say "the claimant defaulted in approximately August 2007" so how can I have defaulted if they now say the loan agreement expired in 2006? In that case why mention the default a year later? They say in the letter of response to the CPR request that because I have paid minimal amounts then I admit the debt and that my defence is spurious and will incur further costs having to be paid me because the creditor has to compile a response to the defence. I have never denied the debt, what I am defending is that this should not be going to court. I have never missed a payment (albeit minimal) and a court order at this stage would cause me considerable hardship. 1. The court cannot enforce the debt without the actual signed agreement being produced - I think I am correct on this. 2. They wish to charge contractual interest of 16% plus interest of 8% under section 69 of the CCJ, this in total amounts to more per year than I can afford to pay so the debt will never reduce. 3. They have made threats in the past of Charging Orders, for three years they have accepted reduced payments but now after all this time refuse to do so even though I have followed guidelines by debtplan and sent regular financial statements so I think they are in breach of OFT guidelines here over threats and demanding more money thath the creditor can afford. 4. If I get a CCJ I lose a part time job which involves me handling money and the contract specifically says I cannot work for this company if I have a CCJ, so I would immediatley lose a substantial part of my monthly income and not be able to pay any of my creditors or part of my priority debts including a mortgage. If I use this as my defence how can it be spurious? I could really use some help in compiling a defence now, I have only until 1st July to do this given that I was served papers at an incorrect address.