Oh and on a final note tonight: I think everyone else on this site would join me in telling you that in the circumstances these being multiple breaches of the agreement, witholding pertinent information about mental and physical health, witholding the existence of charges against the property or proceedings resulting in these charges, being without status or even the means to borrow money ie an income etc. etc. etc, you treated her a damn sight better than any back street subprime loan shark would have done and what is more you treated her a damn sight better than any high street household name in finance or banking would have done and you should be proud of that!

I fully understand where you're coming from and it's very easy for us with nothing to risk to say "fight" but the sanctions available to a judge under 140b are conditional on a vast number of factors. Firstly you must argue whether the claim has been brought correctly ie is cause 2 truly related to cause 1 or is the association in the imagination of the claimant? Then the claimant must convince the judge to a small degree that an Unfair Relationship might have occured. The claimant must also convince the judge that the £8k was interest and not commision. Against her is the agreement and the unknown factor "t" where "t" is the time to completion of the sale from the date of the agreement. As you said quite early on this could have been years in the event it was months but you took a gamble. Then there's her problem with telling the truth (as conceded in the part 36 btw). Then there's her claims about her physical and mental health which were of course witheld from you at the time the agreement was made. I see she's renting now, I guess she had to sign another legal contract to get the AST. she did of course breach the agreement but you didn't seek to enforce. She has done herself no favours with the inconsistencies and has effectively thrown her claim upon the mercy of the court. Nothing is correctly pleaded and if your chap had been a little sharper it's possible the POC's could have been challenged as well as her right to add you under a sec 140A claim to the first defs claim. Look again at what I've bolded above: "You claim you signed the agreement because the def 1 took advantage of your vulnerability. The interjection of def1 into your affairs forthwith caused the cessation of all repossession proceedings ensuring that you and your sick child could continue to live without fear in your family home. Could you please clarify how being evicted from your home by bailiffs with a sick child, no money, no job, no credit status and facing the large legal bills associated with such actions would have put you in a less vulnerable position than the solution offered you by a total stranger as a goodwill gesture to a mutual friend acting as intermediary?" Be prepared to ask these questions. Let's be honest there is no honest answer is there? Out on her ear with her belongings on the front lawn in the rain, no money, no job, no credit, a sick child and a repossession bill of tens of thousands or here's some money pay me back when you sell the house and not a penny before? The judge is not stupid, your defence counters most points quite adequately,it could do with some padding in the witness statement but on the whole it should suffice. She on the other hand has lied about the amounts involved from the very first point in the POC's, this has been conceded in the Part 36 yet no attempt has been made to amend the claim therefore she is proceeding on a claim containing a falsehood (several actually) and as importantly her solicitor is knowingly proceeding with a claim whilst in the knowledge that there are material falsehoods therein. I personally can see no way whatsoever this woman can get away with this claim and as for costs? CPR 44.5 (3) The court must also have regard to – (a) the conduct of all the parties, including in particular – (i) conduct before, as well as during, the proceedings; and (ii) the efforts made, if any, before and during the proceedings in order to try to resolve the dispute; There was no contact whatsoever before proceedings were started and they have been downright unresponsive to all attempts at resolution..... I think you are in a very strong position here, very strong but I can't advise you to continue or attempt to settle as this is a decision only you can make. If I were you I would withdraw my part 36 even via the court and ride it out. I would expect to win and my only worry would be that she's a woman of straw and would thus be unable to meet any adverse costs award. I suspect she's hoping that magically getting an award against def 1 for £75k will be enough guaranteed income to offset the risk to you but if he hasn't got it then she won't see it. I also suspect that she knows he's unavailable and probably has embellished her claim against him too. You are in the right here the absent friend complicates it but you'd have to b e very unlucky indeed to lose this one imo. and even then there would have to be a clear route to appeal as an UR is by definition an interpretation there are no hard and fast rules. I am still a little concerned that the binding agent if you'll excuse the pun is the absent def1 and that the matter has proceeded thus far without this relationship being examined. I think it would be worthwhile if the CMC doesn't lead to such a hearing to submit an application for a pre trial hearing for a judicial decision on the status of def1 in respect of the execution of the agreement ie was he an agent or wasn't he? If he was then proceed to trial as there's a lot to disprove any claim it was an extortionate credit bargain/UR. If he wasn't then you must try and get yourself extricated from these proceedings as I said earlier as the only connection is him as an agent.

You know you could be liable to whatever the claimant was offered PLUS the claimants costs which as you know could already be massive and are likely to be ramped up if the claimant is advised to accept. Personally I'd speak to your lawyer and look very closely at paying the application fee to withdraw it. If I were the claimants rep and somebody applied to ourt to withdraw the part 36 I'd be more than a little worried they had a newly found ace up their sleeve.

Well yes the court does have the power to do as she asks and order all monies paid under the agreement be repaid thus: 140BPowers of court in relation to unfair relationships(1)An order under this section in connection with a credit agreement may do one or more of the following—(a)require the creditor, or any associate or former associate of his, to repay (in whole or in part) any sum paid by the debtor or by a surety by virtue of the agreement or any related agreement (whether paid to the creditor, the associate or the former associate or to any other person);(b)require the creditor, or any associate or former associate of his, to do or not to do (or to cease doing) anything specified in the order in connection with the agreement or any related agreement;©reduce or discharge any sum payable by the debtor or by a surety by virtue of the agreement or any related agreement;(d)direct the return to a surety of any property provided by him for the purposes of a security;(e)otherwise set aside (in whole or in part) any duty imposed on the debtor or on a surety by virtue of the agreement or any related agreement;(f)alter the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement;(g)direct accounts to be taken, or (in Scotland) an accounting to be made, between any persons. The thing is the judge must look at the facts as pleaded and yours have substance whilst hers are threadbare. The Act might place the burden of proof upon the creditor with respect to an UR but in reality the debtor must be able to substantiate such a claim before the court and the claim as pleaded fails to do this to aany level in fact it smacks of desperation to me. The claimant has failed to state why her vulnerabilities caused her to enter the agreement when she might not otherwise have done and a good question to ask would be "Had def2 not advanced you the money under the terms of the agreement what alternative arrangements would you have been able to reach to prevent repossesion of your property 168 hours later, remembering of course that you were not in employment at that time and by the existence of final charging orders against the property were also liable for amounts claimed under several County Court Judgments?" and then follow that up with "You claim you signed the agreement because the def 2 took advantage of your vulnerability. The interjection of def2 into your affairs forthwith caused the cessation of all repossession proceedings. Could you please clarify how being evicted from your home by bailiffs with a sick child, no money, no job, no credit status and facing the large legal bills associated with such actions would have put you in a less vulnerable position than the solution offered you by a total stranger as a goodwill gesture to a mutual friend acting as intermediary?"

I think any further F & F should draw attention to the following: 1) You are very comfortable with your defence as pleaded. 2) The burden of proof is upon them. 3) The value of the claim means a costs bearing track is likely. 4) Woodchester lease equates to over £8,000 in todays money for damage to credit. Yours has been falsely damaged for three years Khopraror endured 1 day. 5) Letters have been drafted for the OFT, The FOS and the ICO, the claimant may well be paying £500+ to enjoy the experience of having the dodgy default and unlawful application of interest investigated by these regulatory bodies. 6) You have already wasted dozens of hours of your time investigating and defending this speculative and vexatious claim. 7) You will as previously stated be quite content to see the entire farce played out before a judge of course this will occur after you have filed your party 20 counterclaim for the dodgy default. 8) The original "agreement" that never was is a sec 127(3) job. 9) They can discontinue any time right up to the steps of the court but the later they leave it the more it costs. By filing the aq they'll do another £250 plus of course if it goes that far then the letters (5) get sent so the true cost of them filing that aq is approx £1250 straight off plus higher costs and a part 20 counterclaim because you shall be filing an aq with draft directions concerning disclosure and the part 20.

just answered that in #106 seconds later

It's important to be aware of the unfair relationship joker in the pack no matter how poorly pleaded as there are a few points of concern attached. The primary concern is that once pleaded it is for the creditor to prove that the relationship was not unfair. This is an about turn on normal procedure where the allegor is subject to the burden of proof. Before I deal with that I think it's important to look a little earlier in the amendements made to the CCA 1974 by the CCA 2006. 140B(2)An order under this section may be made in connection with a credit agreement only—(a)on an application made by the debtor or by a surety;(b)at the instance of the debtor or a surety in any proceedings in any court to which the debtor and the creditor are parties, being proceedings to enforce the agreement or any related agreement; or©at the instance of the debtor or a surety in any other proceedings in any court where the amount paid or payable under the agreement or any related agreement is relevant. Now let's look at these very narrow criteria for bringing the "UR" claim: (a) on an application by the debtor or surety - Not applicable you have been introduced to an action as 2nd def. (b) at the instance of the debtor or a surety in any proceedings in any court to which the debtor and the creditor are parties, being proceedings to enforce the agreement or any related agreement; - Not applicable as these are not enforcement proceedings. © at the instance of the debtor or a surety in any other proceedings in any court where the amount paid or payable under the agreement or any related agreement is relevant. Now this is interesting and of course the key word is "relevant". If you read her claim as pleaded she is asking for the £52k from def 1 under cause of action 1. She asks for the £20k from either def 1 or def 2 under cause of action 2. The only link between cause of actions 1 and 2 is def 1. Def 1 was provably not a party to the agreement simply an intermediary. So there is no established link between the two causes of action the only link being her averrment that def 1 was acting as your agent. it is my opinion that the court should investigate this averrment at the pre trial hearing ie you should raise the significance of this point before the judge fpr determination. if it is held that in the circumstances def 1 was acting in the capacity of your agent then it is correct that you should be joined to the claim as cause 2 follows cause 1 as part of a greater cause ie def 1 conspired to rip me off which we'll call cause 3. If it is held that def 1 was not acting in the capacity of agent then the claimants claim against you must fail as it stands having been raised in breach of sec 140B(2)a,b & c of the CCA 1974. Whatever the rights and wrongs of her claim against you as pleaded, an order made under the section of the CCA 1974 can be made only upon the conditions of 140B(2)a,b & c being met and none of these are met if the def1 was not your agent as cause 1 is seperate from cause 2. I think it's very important you plead this fact at the case management hearing. A failure of the judge to take on board that the sec 140A claim is made on the most tenuous averrment that def 1 was your agent at this stage could cost all parties avoidable further costs as you would effectively be distanced from the action at this stage. The problem is the absent def 1. The sols will know that if he doesn't appear then he doesn't defend and a default judgment will be awarded against him. They will then be looking to get the judge to swallow the agent line to try and claw back the £20k they simply wouldn't realistically have a chance of claiming from you directly. Now proof it wasn't an unfair relationship: you need to look at these and see which ones are relevant and whether there are any other factors affecting that agreement which might be pertinent. 1)claimant was facing imminent repossession before you dealt with her, she also as proven by the charges and closure of current banking facilities had numerous other financial difficulties precluding her from seeking conventional financial help. 2)the claimant was an employee of def 1 and any idea to approach you for a loan was contrived between def 1 and the claimant at the claimants instigation (albeit she initially asked def 1 for the loan). 3) You are not a business, you had never entered into a money lending arrangement of any type before let alone one of this type so immediately sought legal advice. 4) You had a bespoke agreement drawn up by a solicitor. 5) The agreement was for the loan of money to be repaid interest free but with a commision, this commision was earned by you aiding the sale of the property and to this end you helped negotiate with C & G to prevent repossession. ie you didn't just lend her money you lent her money and gave her help 6) The amount charged for the loan was representative of the risk involved as you understood it at the time, and the work you undertook to prevent repossession in order that she might get full market value for the property. 7) At the time the loan was made she was just 7 days from eviction. The consequences of her eviction and the repossession of the property would be the sale of the property at a price acceptable to the building society rather than the market value together with an unkown quantity of legal charges and settlement charges. It is likely that by payment of the £11,500 due as arrears at a net cost to herself of £8,000 and thus avoiding repossession, the claimant was able to receive a balance after all charges of possibly as much as £40,000 more than she might have expected to receive had the repossession gone ahead and the property been sold at distress auction. She also avoided a m'gage repossession marker being placed on her credit files for many years. 8) Despite breaching her side of the agreement you failed to enforce your rights under the agreement. 9) By her witholding from you key information about her physical health you entered into an agreement which you would not have otherwise entered. 10) By her witholding from you key information about her mental health you entered into an agreement which you would not have otherwise entered. 11) She breached the agreement by permitting an undisclosed charge to be raised against the property yet you didn't attempt to enforce. 12) She breached the agreement by permitting further arrears tto accrue against the mortgage on the property yet you didn't attempt to enforce. 13) A typical sub prime lender such as Wonga.com charges a fixed 360% p.a. interest equivalent to an APR of 4214%. In light of what is now known about the claimant ie five figure arrears on her mortgage, several final charging orders, defaulted bank accounts etc. it is unlikely that such a sub prime lender would have advanced sums to the claimant at the time of the agreement. 14) the defendant def1 was by virtue of the undisclosed charge (11) actually in a worse position than they believed when assessing the risks in advancing monies under the agreement, the commision was calculated as a fixed sum against known risks and a fair estimate of the time the property might take to sell. One of these criteria was fixed the other variable. In the event the variable criteria produced a sale time of just five months, no further charges under the agreement would have been payable had the property taken 12 months or even years to sell, the time to sale was a gamble on your part and with property prices falling from a record peak, a gamble which could quite easily have seen the claimant enter negative equity in the event of a housing crash. The fixed criteria that of the risk involved was miscalculated as the claimant deliberately witheld information relating to the hidden charge (11) or the ongoing proceedings which culminated in the charge being levied against the property.

To commence a claim of this value without checking one of the most basic and easily verified facts upon which the entire claim is based is rather amateurish behaviour for the ( large fee earning) solicitor one might be entitled to think. You have of course queried the amount of arrears in your defence and it is for the defendant to now prove that amount. This can be done with account statements from the time but I'd hazard a guess she doesn't have them and a DSAR can take 40 days which could be another costly delay for the court.

this doesn't make sense does it Mould she claims mental incapacity as a result of her odaema yet states that she worked as a teacher until she was forced to stop due to the health of her child not her own health, that of her child. So she would like the court to believe she was incapacitated enough not to be alert to the agreement she was entering but admits to this not stopping her teaching? The whole thing sounds like a blag to me.

Thanks for putting this up RJ it's all much clearer now. I think I can see what the claimant is trying to do from the POC's but ignoring the rights and wrongs of that for now the way in which she's trying to do it is a flagrant abuse of the court system and also in breach of the CCA 1974 as amended by the CCA 2006. I'll write it all down coherently a bit later on but imo there are two seperate claims here one against the first defendant one against you. There is no link between the two causes of action ie she's trying to get the 50k back from def 1 and 20k back from def 2 in a single claim the only link being her tenuous claim that def 1 was your agent. It is a stronger argument for you to state that def 1 was acting as her agent as there was a proven commercial link between the claimant and def 1 and the claimant instructed def 1 to source the loan. I think we can safely say that this agreement falls under the CCA 1974 not because that was ever it's intention on implementation but because the definition of a regulated agreement is so vague and all encompassing. The numbers are still puzzling me a little ie why does she claim that the loan was £3k and you charged her £8k interest yet the amount paid was £19k plus costs? Here's a thought 3,000 plus 8,000 (interest) plus 8,000 (commision) = 19,000 as does 11,000 plus 8,000. Is it possible she's trying to persuade the court that she was charged £8k interest and £8k sales commision on a £3k loan? Well when you reach part 21 of the POC's this question is answered. She's claiming you lent her £3,000 and charged her £8,000 interest on that amount and you just held on to the other £9k for no reason. The agreement specifically says the £8k was commision there's no mention of interest until the poc's. There are some questions which you need to rehearse in case you get asked or get the chance to ask them at the CMC. I'll write them down and throw forward some answers asap.

Morning. the emails make interesting reading and some good evidence as you have brought up their failures under CPR and pre action protocols namely their failure to make contact with you before just adding you as a second defendant. You must be prepared to use this to your advantage if possible citing this failure and the general unwillingness over an extended period of the claimant to negotiate the exchange of information as a reason for any tardiness on your behalf in respect of filing deadlines etc. These failings could have a severe effect on any costs award and have caused you to run up unnecesarily costs already. You've also set out your position very clearly and imo it is a favourable position and shows you to have been a very reasonable person to deal with both during the event and this subsequent action. I'm a little puzzled when you say they asked for the fee for the n170 as it is for the claimant to pay the fee not the defendant. Who asked you for the £1,000? The n170 fee is £110 it's the hearing fee that's £1090 and again that's for the claimant to pay. All in all I'd far rather be on your side in this than the claimants. the claimant has breached CPR from inception of this claim, made claims in their case statement which are untrue and can be proven false etc. etc. etc. You have tried to be reasonable at all times and have been frustrated by the claimant/claimants reps. They clearly see you as a cash cow. You must rescind your offer of settlement but I don't think they could accept it if they wanted to as the sols have seen this as an easy way to rack up some fees and I'd guess if you offered every penny of the £8k back it still would not be accepted as by the time the sols got their cut there'd already be nothing left for the claimant. It's hit or bust for the claimant here, she is taking a heck of a gamblein bringing this claim though if the first defendant is unrepresented she might feel it's justified as the case will be awarded against him by default but I don't understand what she's hoping to gain from suing you. The risk far outweighs the gain and the facts and evidence are overwhelmingly against her. You've openly identified the basic fraudulent error in the claim in your emails that she's claiming you only paid her £3k yet they've proceeded without amendment. The agreement was drawn up by a solicitor, the same solicitor she instructed to pay you and was clearly drawn up as a private loan agreement nothing to do with the CCA 1974. I despair for her I really do, she's been given advice which could cost her very dearly but she's in too deep now to consider discontinuance as she would be liable for costs to date. For her sake this case needs euthanised but that wont happen until it's too late if it's not already.

I am not criticising neither am I asking for an apology.

IMO and in the absence of the POC's that defence looks fine if a little understated. the key points as we know them are covered, and if the claimant is trying to say the arrears were £3k and the other £17k was profit for you then they're in for a nasty surprise when you furnish the evidence. I wouldn't worry about amending this defence for now, you would become liable for the claimants costs for responding and that could be very expensive. you've denied as neccesary, the burden of proof is on the claimant and the case is flawed on more than one level (imo obviously). The CMC is nothing to worry about it's probably worth querying why the claimant wants two full days for the hearing as a large chunk of the claim has nothing to do with you and the rest of it.... well it's a crock at best very weak and tenuous and could be dealt with quite quickly upon the facts, it sounds like she's made a lot of claims in the poc's that simply are not true so they will be very short arguments if you just say "prove it" which you as defendant are perfectly entitled to do. I wont tell you exactly what a consultant friend of mine replied when I asked him about the effects a haemorrage from 15 years ago might have had on the claimant at the time the agreement was executed as there's been enough censorship on this thread already. From the little I've told him he's diagnosed the 2007 injury as whiplash, most probably caused when she stuck out her hand to take your money.

Well that would explain why they're trying to make a big thing of the commercial relationship to the co defendant but all it does in reality is make it even more difficult for the court to deal with. Her claim against your friend is for monies misappropriated and her claim against you is for what, an extortionate credit bargain on a private loan? two completey different "causes of action" and against different aprties upon true construction Really somebody should have got on top of this for you a long time ago as unless a commercial relationship can be proven they are two wholly seperate claims which are entirely unrelated and this should have been identified very early on in the process.

Crikey this gets even more complicated. Can you please clarify the following? The current claim; Are you still the second defendant in the original claim or is this a seperate action altogether filed upon failure of the first claim?

What concerns me most here RJ is that despite the claim being fraudulent and vexatious they are still proceeding and ciontinuing to run up costs. Now either the claimants are so desperate for work they'll take anything or the claimant is lying to their own solicitors or your defence as pleaded is so weak they fancy a gamble. Who wrote your defence and are you still happy with it now we've identified a few areas of concern in the claim? Do you think the claimant has fed their own solicitors a story because claiming an extortionate credit bargain as a primary cause of action when the figures on which the claim is based are provably pure fiction is about as problematic for a claimant as it can get at county court level and the solicitors are under obligation to their profession too.

If she has entered into her claim that you lent her £3,000 and took £19,000 back then it's game over for her. this is a criminal offence and contempt of court. If you can prove that you withdrew the money from your personal account and paid it into her account minutes later you're home and dry. Don't forget the data protection act, she must have had to give C & G permission to speak with you on her behalf and this will be on their records.

And now seriously. 1) Did you send the Bailiffs to her door I thought this must have happened before you even met her? 2) the haemorrage is at all times irrelevant in fact it could be argued that she deliberately witheld this from you and you might well not have advanced the money had you known she was mentally or physically unwell. 3) Are you in the business of lending money? If yes can she prove it if no she has to prove you are you don't have to prove you're not but obviously it would help if you could. 4) Your commercial relationship with your friend is nothing to do with this. 5) the CCA does provide limited protection but they will have had to plead exactly what benefit and protection they seek. "I think the extent of the profit was seen as too high, they claim that I was entitled say £1K" 6) Some payday loan companies charge 2500% APR + on regulated loans. 7) It might have cost her £7000 but the cost of not getting that money from you would have likely been counted in tens of £1,000's if her house had been repossesed. You need to do your own sums.

Yes the fog is subsiding and I can see clearly now I see a C an H an A then N,C,E,R,S Chancers!!!! it says Chancers!!! Are you prepared to name and shame the solicitors involved? It might help as if it's a known practice there are experts around the site who tend to know their modii operandi

Ignore what they say and go with what your own legal advisor tells you because imo and I think others will agree this claim is a load of rubbish and they will know it. I would formally withdraw the offer immediately in writing, unless made without prejudice this can be construed as admitting the claim. Standard solicitor practice ramp up the costs and hope to scare you into submission. If they had a strong case at this value they could get the full value of the claim and the costs through the court. Was the loan made through a business account or a private account?

The devil is in the detail RJ. Ideally we need to know word perfect what she is claiming, why she feels the agreement was unfair, her argument that it was a regulated agreement and under what legislation she's seeking these monies. Does your lawyer have the original court paperwork, can you get a copy? is she claiming an unfair relationship under sec 140A CCA 1974 or just saying "it's not fair"?

You say she sued you. I assume this is still ongoing. Can you tell us the particulars of her claim (POC's) please? eg The claimant entered into an agreement with x and x failed to make payment as promised and the claimant seeks...... I'm not sure where she's coming from trying to turn this private loan into a regulated agreement the POC's will maybe give us an idea what angle she's after. I'm also struggling to see what her reps are up to as well since claiming a private loan to be an arms-length agreement doesn't make it a regulated agreement per se unless they are trying to intimate that you were financing the property on a commercial basis not the person on a private basis. Nothing under the CCA prevents or limits the creditor making a profit from lending anyway so again I'm puzzled. If the extra money was paid secretly to a third party that would have severe implications but it clearly wasn't. She was in financial distress, she obviously couldn't borrow through normal channels and so she turned in desperation to a friend of a friend and years down the line she's seeking the protection and benefits (if they exist) of a regulated agreement? I feel her credibility will be sorely stretched. Sounds like a heck of a puzzle.

sony are fully aware of a latent and inherent fault with the light engine used in these televisions. The internet is awash with unhappy customers experiences. they (Sony) even went so far as to do this and this (you will clearly see your tv model listed as one with the light engine fault in the pdf's). I suggest a copy of the Sony website page and copies of the related PDF's should be included within your bundle as they clearly demonstrate that the light engine in that particular model tv was subject to a disproportionately high failure rate. It might also help your claim to include the following brochure from Sony link The brochure makes a selling point of this tv's technology proudly boasting "After countless hours of enjoyment, simply replace the lamp and your Grand Wega is as good as the day you bought it. In fact with Sonys renowned quality, Grand WEGA may be the last TV you ever own." Clearly Sony were wrong and it may be for a Judge to decide if Sony pitched this claim to prospective customers of this tv range and those customers subsequently paid a premium for the TV whether those customers might in return expect a TV SPECIFICALLY advertised and sold as being "long lasting" NOT to fail so catastrophically at such an early age.

Well I've had a look through the terms and conditions and I have to say they represent far and away the most one sided t&c's I have ever read for any agreement. They refer to the internal complaints procedure as being available on their wenbsite and I certainly can't find it there. An example of how one sided the t&C's are is that in the event of a complaint not being upheld by the FOS they reserve the right to charge you the £500 fee. Upon true construction of the t&c's I think there is scope for challenging a number of the terms and conditions under CPUTR's but this could prove a very lengthy process and it's not a matter for a client to pursue anyway. All I can see that might be of use is clause 13 (8)(a) Covering notification to you in writing of all bets opened. Obviously if the account was being used without your knowledge such notifications of bets being made would serve as an alert to you so we have to look at whether any written confirmations of the bets were sent and/or received by you. If these notifications were not sent then they are in breach and that breach has caused you to suffer loss. I also think you need to look at the exact circumstances of the manner the account was accessed eg was the username password combo written down or were the account details retrieved from Spreadex via some sort of "lost details" routine? One thing you should do immediately is SAR Spreadex and get a copy of all records they hold. This could be critical evidence and should be obtained asap. Another thought is what happened to the money? Did it all go on one large bet or was it a series of smaller bets and if so is there a pattern ie has another particular user been alerted to unusual usage and latched on to the account with the monies effectively being siphoned off to a third party? I do think you should formally inform Spreadex that you are dissatisfied with their internal complaint resolution and you will thus be forwarding a full complaint to the FOS.

I'm puzzled how they can part admit this claim and offer just £100 when the part was either faulty or not faulty and the part in question is sold for about £500 by Sony themselves . Can you provide any more information please?