Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Tracey284 V Citicards


Guest Tracey284
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6124 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Guest Tracey284

I have just had the usual fob off letter from Citi Card who state the OFT etc, and that they have changed their charges in line, but they quoted a recent court case in Northern Ireland that they were involved in, claimant v Citifinancial Europe Plc, in which the fairness of the charges was challenged. The court dismissed the case, implicitly finding that the charges are fair and in conformity with the OFT guidance and common law principles of contractual damages.

 

This was in reply to my LBA. Any advice would be welcome please. I am due to send the court letter out on 4 October.

 

Thanks so much in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I have just had the usual fob off letter from Citi Card who state the OFT etc, and that they have changed their charges in line, but they quoted a recent c ourt case in Northern Ireland that they were involved in, v Citifinancial Europe Plc, in which the fairness of the charges was challenged. The court dismissed the case, implicitly finding that the charges are fair and in conformity with the OFT guidance and common law principles of contractual damages.

 

This was in reply to my LBA. Any advice would be welcome please. I am due to send the court letter out on 4 October.

 

Thanks so much in advance.

 

Your court letter is the LBA - where are you at

Read http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/9085-citi-cards-request-repayment-8.html#post271505 and maybe PM Martin 3030 if you are still unsure.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Guest Tracey284

Not sure what you mean about removing claimant's name. I have a question re monument and want to set up a thread. Shall I continue in this one or set up a new one. How do I set up a new one please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Tracey284

About to issue MCOL but cannot find address of Citi Cards or CitiFinancial Europe Plc that is not a PO address. Can anyone help please? Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tracey

 

Have you sent a PM (private message) to Martin3030, regarding your claim.

If not, then I suggest that you do that as soon as possible.

If this has been useful to you, please click on the scales at bottom left of post. Thanks.

 

Advice & opinions of Rooster-UK are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Please use your own judgment.

-------------------------------------------------------

LOOK! Free CAG Toolbar.

Follow link for more information.

 

------------------------------------------------------

Please donate,

Help us to help others.

 

 

LINKS....

 

Forum Rules.

FAQs....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Tracey284

Thanks for the advice. Have issued MCOL today for one of the Citi Card accounts that we hold. Will wait to see where we get with this one before continuing with second claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Guest Tracey284

Okay - so the copy of the Defence arrived this morning and I am going to type it out below, but there are some points that I do not agree with which I will set out in red after the particular point.............

 

1. The Defendant is a credit card company whose registered office is at 87 Castle Street, Reading, RG1 7DX.

 

2. The Defendant admits that the Claimant has a credit card account ("the Agreement") with the Defendant which currently has a debit balance of £xxx.xx.

 

3. 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 for returned payments and avers that the Claimant was aware of and agreed to the same before entering into the Agreement.

 

4. The Defendant denies that the same:

 

4.1 exceeded the Defendant's losses

 

4.2 are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as contrary to common law and/or invalid under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 or common law

 

and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of this by specific reference to the case law relied upon and/or the exact citation and application to the facts of the relevant parts of the sections of laws and regulations relied upon.

 

5. The Defendant denies that it has unlawfully debits the Claimant's account. The Defedant avers that the Particulars of Claim do not particularise the exact dates upon which the amounts claimed arose and puts the Claimant to strict proof of this. (They have received the full printout of the dates and amounts of the claim)

6. The Defendant avers that, between 2000 and 2006, the Claimant breached the contract on no fewer than 38 occasions and that charges of £xxx, not £xxx as pleaded, were debited to the Claimant's account by way of late payment, overlimit and returned payment fees, as per the Terms & Conditions of the Agreement and were paid by the Claimant thereby consenting to the same. (It seems that they have worked out the late payment charges were £72 more than I have claimed andthe payments weren't paid thereby consenting, they took them without asking!)

7. 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 overlimit 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 default fees, though not the principle of default 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.

 

8. The Defendant has agreed to abide by the OFT report and adopt a lower lever of default fees which it has set at the new industry standard of £12. Over the lifetime of this account the Claimant has set is default fees at £25, £20 and £15 (The Claimiant did not set the default fees, the Defendant did!)

9. The Defendant has made an ex gratia refund of £xxx, which is a sum exceeding the difference between (i) the current default fee of £12 and (ii) amount at which each default fee claimed wascharged to the Claimant, by refunding the same to the Claimant's account (Nothing ever offered or received)

10. The Defendant avers that that Claimant's claim is not a money claim but a damages actin and further avers that the Claimant's interest calculation is not applicable to this action or, if it is applicable, that is is not pleaded with any particularity and puts the Claimant to strict proof that this interest is owed and is calculated properly. (If they have not seen the claim of amounts (point 5) then how do they know whether or not the interest cacluation is correct? This was calculated and submitted)

11. 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 there you have it, any comments or help in my response would be gratefully appreciated. Do I have to wait for the AQ before replying or do I reply directly to this letter from Mr. Brian Smith Solicitor CitiFinancial Europe Plc?

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tracey,

 

Have you posted this on your Citicards thread? If not, please do so, we can keep track of your claim and offer help there.

 

Having looked through what they have sent, it is a standard defence, nothing to worry about at all.

 

Press on, nearly there :D

PLEASE READ THE FAQ's

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tracey have merged all your posts and put them here in Citi thread with a retitle.

 

All of the points you highlite are known defence criteria as used by Citi.

Lets have a look at this and advise after that.

 

Is this account open or closed ?

If closed has it been passed to DCA ?

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay - so the copy of the Defence arrived this morning and I am going to type it out below, but there are some points that I do not agree with which I will set out in red after the particular point.............

 

1. The Defendant is a credit card company whose registered office is at 87 Castle Street, Reading, RG1 7DX.

 

2. The Defendant admits that the Claimant has a credit card account ("the Agreement") with the Defendant which currently has a debit balance of £xxx.xx.

 

3. 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 for returned payments and avers that the Claimant was aware of and agreed to the same before entering into the Agreement.

 

4. The Defendant denies that the same:

 

4.1 exceeded the Defendant's losses

 

4.2 are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as contrary to common law and/or invalid under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 or common law

 

and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of this by specific reference to the case law relied upon and/or the exact citation and application to the facts of the relevant parts of the sections of laws and regulations relied upon.

 

5. The Defendant denies that it has unlawfully debits the Claimant's account. The Defedant avers that the Particulars of Claim do not particularise the exact dates upon which the amounts claimed arose and puts the Claimant to strict proof of this. (They have received the full printout of the dates and amounts of the claim)

 

6. The Defendant avers that, between 2000 and 2006, the Claimant breached the contract on no fewer than 38 occasions and that charges of £xxx, not £xxx as pleaded, were debited to the Claimant's account by way of late payment, overlimit and returned payment fees, as per the Terms & Conditions of the Agreement and were paid by the Claimant thereby consenting to the same. (It seems that they have worked out the late payment charges were £72 more than I have claimed andthe payments weren't paid thereby consenting, they took them without asking!)

 

7. 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 overlimit 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 default fees, though not the principle of default 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.

 

8. The Defendant has agreed to abide by the OFT report and adopt a lower lever of default fees which it has set at the new industry standard of £12. Over the lifetime of this account the Claimant has set is default fees at £25, £20 and £15 (The Claimiant did not set the default fees, the Defendant did!)

 

9. The Defendant has made an ex gratia refund of £xxx, which is a sum exceeding the difference between (i) the current default fee of £12 and (ii) amount at which each default fee claimed wascharged to the Claimant, by refunding the same to the Claimant's account (Nothing ever offered or received)

 

10. The Defendant avers that that Claimant's claim is not a money claim but a damages actin and further avers that the Claimant's interest calculation is not applicable to this action or, if it is applicable, that is is not pleaded with any particularity and puts the Claimant to strict proof that this interest is owed and is calculated properly. (If they have not seen the claim of amounts (point 5) then how do they know whether or not the interest cacluation is correct? This was calculated and submitted)

 

11. 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 there you have it, any comments or help in my response would be gratefully appreciated. Do I have to wait for the AQ before replying or do I reply directly to this letter from Mr. Brian Smith Solicitor CitiFinancial Europe Plc?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

Point 5 They usually do say this but you can show you did.

 

 

Point 6 Many of Cities defences with other claims have overstated the amounts,this again not unusual.

 

Point 8 God knows how they work this one out ?

 

Point 9 This is looking like a standard reply that obv is not applicable to you

 

 

Point 10 Absolutely correct what you say.

 

All in all nothing new then ...................

the bungling continues.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Tracey284

Hi there and thanks for your help. Account currently open but hasn't been used in absolutely ages. Presumably next stage is for me to receive the AQ which I will then ask for help in completing please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there and thanks for your help. Account currently open but hasn't been used in absolutely ages. Presumably next stage is for me to receive the AQ which I will then ask for help in completing please.

 

Yep - post on here when you get AQ.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it appears that they have finally got the message that our case did not set a precedent,is not applicable to England,and is subject to an appeal.

 

We didn't get a mention once in that "defence" ;)

 

If you fame is fading must be time to up the profile again:smile:

 

AFAIK they have been only writing about you in letters not defences.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Tracey284

Hi Guys and the AQ arrived today and it has been transferred to the area where the claimant lives (thank goodness!) It has to be completedand returned with £100 by 13 December 2006. Please can I have some guidance on completing the AQ. Their defence is stated in my earlier thread. Thanks Tracey284

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tracey I have had 1/2 bottle of best Australian red...... but...

do you have to pay £100 for AQ...... I think you are below threshold

check with others before you part with your hard earned

KBO

If you can't fight, wear a big hat.

 

Halifax... 2 successful claims....£518

 

CitiCards..... judgement and cheque (26/7/07) .... won £900

 

RBS business..... .....stay lifted reissued N1..... won £2105

 

Midland1 business.1996/1997.. first letter (27/6/07)....£1470

 

First Direct...... first letter (30/6/07).... £839.... stayed

 

plus another 13 banks/business/cc's to come for £10,000 plus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Tracey284

Enjoy the other 1/2!!!

 

I do believe it is standard that I have to pay the £100 court fee but presumably will get it back when I win (hopefully) - please clarify this. Is the small claims track the most suitable track for this claim?:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I put in my AQ for Citi claim last week, and went through it with clerk. It is for approx £800. No mention of paying anything.

KBO

If you can't fight, wear a big hat.

 

Halifax... 2 successful claims....£518

 

CitiCards..... judgement and cheque (26/7/07) .... won £900

 

RBS business..... .....stay lifted reissued N1..... won £2105

 

Midland1 business.1996/1997.. first letter (27/6/07)....£1470

 

First Direct...... first letter (30/6/07).... £839.... stayed

 

plus another 13 banks/business/cc's to come for £10,000 plus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My claim against Citi is titled "Small claims track"..... seemed no problem at the county court.

KBO

If you can't fight, wear a big hat.

 

Halifax... 2 successful claims....£518

 

CitiCards..... judgement and cheque (26/7/07) .... won £900

 

RBS business..... .....stay lifted reissued N1..... won £2105

 

Midland1 business.1996/1997.. first letter (27/6/07)....£1470

 

First Direct...... first letter (30/6/07).... £839.... stayed

 

plus another 13 banks/business/cc's to come for £10,000 plus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Tracey284

Sorry, hit the wrong button............

On note H of the AQ it states that "You should note that if you donot pay this fee it might lead to your cliam being struck out (Rule 3.7)."

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your claim is under £1500 - then you do not pay any fee with AQ.

You ned to make mention in your AQ that Citi are routinely asking for the case to be transferred for to SAlford to be heard in secret.

 

Adapt this to suit your situation.

 

I refer to the defendants allocation questionnaire of which I received a copy form the court October 25, in which the defendant has made a request for the hearing of this case to be moved to Salford County Court.

I wish to object to the application for transfer on the following grounds.

1. The defendant’s application was made without notice to myself and I have not been given the opportunity to make representations.

2. I am an individual of limited means. I am a litigant in person and I am suing the defendant on my own account.

3. The defendant is a multi national company with access to huge financial resources whilst my finances are strictly limited.

4. Although the place of trial is at the discretion of the Court the normal and established practice is for the claims in which one of the parties is an individual, be transferred to that individual’s home court. In this case my home court is Bristol County Court.

5. The defendant, in their defence paragraph 10, had already admitted part of my claim and have now acknowledged the amount in issue is only £588.16

Order 26 to which the defendant refers to in thier application, normally is applied for the benefit of a claimant who is claiming as an individual.

The defendant refers to recent findings by the Office of Fair Trading, however it is clear that the Office of Fair Trading conclusions indicate very strongly that companies such as the defendant are acting in violation of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations. And therefore as the defendant continues its system of penalty charges in the face of the Office of Fair Trading report it is they who should justly face the burden of costs and not claimants in person who are merely seeking to enforce the law.

The defendant argues the virtue of having all cases transferred to the same court. There are presently at least sixteen cases, which have been transferred to the Mercantile Court in London so that the bank charges issue can be tested once and for all. The claimant respectfully suggests that if the Salford County Court will not return my case to the Bristol County Court that in the alternative this case should be transferred to the Mercantile Court in London to be heard before the designated Judge there along side all the other penalty charges test cases.

It is not in the interest Overriding Objective for my case to be tried in a court other than my home court of Bristol County Court.

I also understand that the defendants had asked that their evidence be received in secret without any opportunity for myself or any other person to have an opportunity to examine it in advance of the hearing. Furthermore I understand that it would not be possible to carry out any cross-examination in respect of that evidence and that I would have no opportunity to have the evidence scrutinised by my own expert or an independent expert, despite the fact that the defendant's evidence is likely to be of a technical nature.

I wish to object to the defendant’s request. It cannot be in the interests of the Overriding Objective to allow secret evidence to be taken during a small claim. Furthermore the question we are deciding is the lawfulness of the defendant's penalty charge system. The defendant claims that their evidence is" commercially sensitive". However the question of the defendant's penalty charge regime does not refer to their core business. Whilst it could well be the case that information relating to the defendants core business could indeed be commercially sensitive, the question of penalty charges relates to an incidental aspect of the defendant's business -- and which if the defendant is to be believed, produces no profit at all as according to the defendant, their penalty charges merely cover their administrative costs. It is also true to say that the defendant has in the past claimed that their costs are merely in line with those of other similar organisations. Clearly then, the defendant's penalty charge regime is not a competitive matter, according to the defendant it brings them no profit and therefore there can be no grounds for saying that the information is commercially sensitive.

If the defendant is insistent that his evidence is commercially sensitive then I would respectfully suggest that maybe this entire matter is better suited for a higher court such as the mercantile court in London or Bristol.

Yours faithfully

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Citi will routinely ask on their AQ for a hearing to be heard in Salford - above letter to be attached to AQ.

 

Guidelines for EX50 are here clearly states on page 2 that no fee is applicable http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex50_0406.pdf

 

What documents do you have that are saying you must pay?

 

Guidelines for AQ are here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/11644-allocation-questionnaires-guide-completion.html

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Tracey284

The Notice of Transfer of Proceedings states:

 

To all parties

 

A defence to this claim has been filed.

 

The claim has been transferred to the court covering the area where the claimant lives or carries on business.

 

Please read the accompanying documents carefully and noticethat the allocation questionnaire should be returned to the ......County Court.

 

All further communicatin should be addressed to:

 

The Court Manager

................County Court

etc.

 

The letter from HMCS states:

 

Claim No: xxxx

Claimant: xxxx

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

The defendant has filed a defence. A copy of which is enclosed. An allocation questionnaire is also enclosed which contains guidance notes on how to complete it.

 

You must complete the enclosed allocation questionnaire on or before the xx December 2006 and return it, where the claim is over £1,500, the court fee of £100.00 to Willesden County Court.

 

The AQ states that the fee must be sent to the court at the same time as your completed questionnaire. If I pay it, can it be refunded if the case is won?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...