help with court wording please

[Jangles65]

My husband is in hospital and I really don't know if I am doing the right thing taking shop direct to court, I don't even understand some of the things I have written. Can anyone help me with the wording. I really would rather not look a plonker for them.

(thread littlewoods admit no CCA)



PARTICULARS OF CLAIM


1. The Claimant ("the Agreement") with the Defendant which was opened on or around 04/07/1999
Account numbers
Kays-XXXXXXX
Littlewoods – XXXXXXXX

2. On several occasions the clamant has been mislead and aledgedly agreed to purchase from the Defendant Payment Protection Insurance ("the Insurance")
Agent Balance Care was originally applied to the claimants Littlewoods account in September 1998.
Account cover plus was applied to the claimants Kays account in August 1999
The defendant states (letter 25/07/07) that the insurance was upgraded on a number of occasions. Extra Care in May 1999 and Extra Care 500 in January 2001 and extra care advantage in January 2004.
The claimant cancelled the above insurance when the claimant was made aware of it by its appearance on a statement from the defendant. The Claimant maintains that no agreement for insurance to be added to the accounts was made with full knowledge of the purpose of the insurance

Claimant claims that the insurance on the littlewoods account was cancelled on the 26/11/2005 when it appeared on a statement, when cancelled the claimant made it clear to the defendant that the insurance was not appropriate to the claimants needs. Further insurance as above was subsequently added to the accounts without agreement or understanding by the claimant.

The claimant submitted requests for copies of the original signed agreements for both accounts under section 77 and 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. On the 25/07/07 the defendant stated in a letter their inability to supply a signed and dated credit agreement for both the claimants credit accounts.

3. The Claimant contends that:

a) The Claimant did not request the insurance. The claimant maintains that the defendant misled the claimant.
i) The Insurance imposed upon the Claimant were neither defined nor explained.
ii) The Insurance was mis-sold, as the Claimant would never be in the position to make a claim due to employment with the local authority.

b) The Claimant contends that the Defendant fraudulently passed incorrect details to the insurer to obtain these same Insurances from the insurer. The Claimant believes this grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing. The Claimant contends that that Insurers are under an obligation to ensure the policy they are selling is appropriate to that customer and contends the Defendant has not fulfilled this requirement. The Claimant believes this grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing. The Claimant also contends that the Defendant never once attempted to ascertain the Claimants’ position to assess whether such as product was suitable. If any assessment had taken place it should have been considered wholly unnecessary and unworthwhile.

c) If the Court finds that incorrect details were not passed as a result of fraudulent behaviour then the Claimant contends that incorrect details were passed to the insurer through the Defendants’ mistake as to facts.

d) The Claimant further contends that if the Insurance was applied correctly, that the Agreement was not executed in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

4. Accordingly the Claimant asks:

a) The Court finds that the Defendant acted in a way grossly contravening ordinary principles of fair dealing and reopens the credit bargain to perform restitution to rectify the unjust enrichment performed, to the detriment of the Claimant by the sum of £803.29 plus 8% interest by conferring a benefit under an ineffective transaction.

b) If the Court is unable to perform restitution, then the Claimant seeks damages of £803.29 by virtue of the Defendants’ actions, be they fraudulently or mistakenly, in obtaining the Insurances which offered no benefit to the Claimant.

c) Alternatively, the Claimant seeks damages of £803.29 in regards to the Defendants clear breach of the Claimants human rights as prescribed by Article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 whereby the Defendants actions did cause the Claimant to suffer personal loss to the sum of £803.29

d) Court costs; small claims route £30.00

e) The defendant ceases to process information about the Claimant

f) The defendant removes negative entries/defaults to the claimants credit record.

g) interest on the charges applied thereon to the Claimant’s account (“the principal claim”), at the annual rate of 8 %. £253.07

The Claimant’s case for claiming this rate is based in equity, and a legal requirement for fairness and balance.

The Claimant deems the Defendant’s principal indebtedness to the claimant to be unauthorised, since it is comprised of insurance charges that were imposed upon the Claimant, they were not explained and were in fact mis-sold due to the Claimants employment situation.

The defendant admitted on the 25/07/07 that no credit agreement exists and therefore cannot enforce the debt, The defendant is still processing the claimants information and directly contravening the claimants rights under the Data Protection Act 1988(s10)

[hellhasnofury]

Hello Jangles.

Please don't think that know one is looking at your post. I have sent out for assistance, so hopefully somone will have a look for you, to check it is ok.

Sorry to hear about your husband, I hope he is doing well. There is no rush to do this, do it when you feel up to it.

speak soon

[tomterm8]

hellhasnofury contacted me by PM.

I tried to post earlier, but...um... I was in the process of turning from blue to pink, and so couldn't

This is a "revised" POC. Please take into account that (a) I have not got a great deal of experience with PPI claims and (b) I'm not a lawyer, and you need to check facts etc yourself and make sure you are comfortable with your own argument.

What I've tried to do is change the "flow" of the argument, to make it clearer what you are saying and remove bits that it would be very difficult and expensive to prove in court:


PARTICULARS OF CLAIM


OK, I’ll run through this changing stuff




1. I opened the following accounts with the Defendant

Account numbers
Kays-XXXXXXX – on or around DATE
Littlewoods – XXXXXXXX – on or around DATE

2. According to the defendant, I agreed to purchase from the agent of the Defendant Payment Protection Insurance ("the Insurance"):

a. Agent Balance Care was originally applied to the claimants Littlewoods account in September 1998.

b. Account cover plus was applied to the claimants Kays account in August 1999

3. The defendant states (in a letter dated letter 25/07/07) that the insurance was upgraded on a number of occasions Which account?
3.1 Extra Care in May 1999
3.2 Extra Care 500 in January 2001
3.3 extra care advantage in January 2004.

4. I cancelled the above insurance when I became aware of them by checking a statement from the defendant. I maintain that no contract was made for insurance to be added to the accounts.

5. I aver that the insurance on the littlewoods account was cancelled on the 26/11/2005 when it appeared on a statement, when cancelled the claimant made it clear to the defendant that the insurance was not appropriate to the claimants needs. Further insurance as above was subsequently added to the accounts without agreement by the claimant.

6. As a consequence, I submitted requests for copies of the original signed agreements for both accounts under section 77 and 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. On the 25/07/07 the defendant stated in a letter their inability to supply a signed and dated credit agreement for both the claimants’ credit accounts.


7. The court will be aware, that under the consumer credit act 1974 s127(3), without a signed document, these credit agreements are rendered unenforceable on the part of the creditor, and that therefore there appears to be no consideration for these contracts.

8. Further, there was no attempt on the part of the defendant to inform me of the terms of these insurances, or to establish whether they were appropriate to my circumstances, or to disclose the terms of the insurance before any contract was made. The defendant has provided me with no evidence that it ever sought to make me aware that it was upgrading or changing terms of any insurance, and

9. I contends that:

a) I did not request the insurance cover, and that by adding and upgrading this cover that the defendant misled the claimant.
i) No policy document was sent before this agreement was allegedly made, and the terms of said insurance neither defined nor explained.
ii) The Insurance was mis-sold, as the Claimant would never be in the position to make a claim due to his/her employment situation.

b) I aver that the Defendant passed incorrect details to the insurer to obtain these same Insurances from the insurer. I believe this grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing. I contend that that Insurers are under an obligation to take reasonable care to ensure the policy they are selling is appropriate to that customer and contend the Defendant has not fulfilled this requirement.

10. I believe that by failing to inform me of the terms of this agreement, or to establish that the insurance was appropriate to me, the defendant has contravened ordinary principles of fair dealing. I contend that the Defendant never once attempted to ascertain the Claimants’ position to assess whether such as product was suitable.

11. The Claimant further contends that if the Insurance was applied correctly, that the Agreement was not executed in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974; and therefore any contract of insurance was void.

15. Accordingly the Claimant asks:

a) I seeks damages of £803.29 by virtue of the Defendants’ actions, be they fraudulently or mistakenly, in obtaining the Insurances which offered no benefit to the Claimant.

b) Court costs; small claims route £30.00

c) interest on the charges applied thereon to the Claimant’s account (“the principal claim”), at the annual rate of 8 %. £253.07

[hellhasnofury]

Oh my god tomterm, thank you so much for that you are a star. I do really think pink does suit you and very well deserved too
I did try and click your scales, but obviously I clicked you before, they would not let me.

Again thank you

[Jangles65]

Thank you thank you thank you

I have no reason but to go for it, they are sitting so smug I have to have a go.

thank you also hell, fingers crossed

[hellhasnofury]

Originally Posted by Jangles65

Thank you thank you thank you

I have no reason but to go for it, they are sitting so smug I have to have a go.

thank you also hell, fingers crossed

Oh I am so glad you are smiling tonight, I was a bit worried that you might give it up. I have read many post by tomterm and been very impressed at his/her calm and informative posts. I am so glad that they are now a site helper, recognition well deserved I think.

So now you have the amended poc. Take a big breath and do it when you are ready.

Keep smiling we are all there with you.

Keep the faith

[tomterm8]

It is often worth just pausing, taking a few days to reflect... letting a few friends / loved ones read it before making any final decision. After all, whatever anyone here posts, it is YOUR life, and you should only file the claim if you are satisfied with it, and happy with the procedure.

for example, have you written any letters before actions etc?

... Thanks, hell

[Jangles65]

just occured to me that in 1998 I was not even working! thats got to be fuel for the fire. This will be in on monday, I need to attach the excel sheets and pay £30 is that right?

Yes tomterm, I think I have done everything, I have followed through with the ombudsman, who could not investigate and the traiding standards have the information at the moment. Do I have anything to lose? My husband is in hospital so won't be able to show it to anyone really, I was just going to suck it and see!! I feel really stupid that I have been paying the insurance but if I did buy it over the phone I was not made aware of the ins and outs. I have asked twice for S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and not been provided with anything that says I agreed to buy insurance.

what do ya think?

[tomterm8]

Originally Posted by Jangles65

just occured to me that in 1998 I was not even working! thats got to be fuel for the fire. This will be in on monday, I need to attach the excel sheets and pay £30 is that right?

Yes tomterm, I think I have done everything, I have followed through with the ombudsman, who could not investigate and the traiding standards have the information at the moment. Do I have anything to lose?

In the main, it's just court fees, and possible costs for the other side. Not honestly sure how much it costs to file since they changed the fees... ask at court.

This is a small claims case, and so I don't believe the costs will be all that
high if you lose...

did buy it over the phone I was not made aware of the ins and outs. I have asked twice for S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and not been provided with anything that says I agreed to buy insurance.

My husband is in hospital so won't be able to show it to anyone really, I was just going to suck it and see!! I feel really stupid that I have been paying the insurance but if I what do ya think?

Hm... i wonder who the normal site helper is on this forum? Would be worth checking it over with him / her just to be sure...

it's worth checking out the stickies at the top of the forum...

[Jangles65]

Hello
Thank you for your help in this, how do I find out who the site helper is ?

[Jangles65]

Not sure how to change the heading or to contact the site helper?

[tomterm8]

Sorry, what with the site going "odd" I didn't see your post.

I've asked someone to have a look at the thread

[Lula]

if you loose in the small claims you are not liable for costs, if you want to know the latest court fees then go to www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk

[ukaviator]

Hello Jangles

You would need to add a reference to the Limitations act as you are going back to 1998. If you were se