Thanks Citizen B, what are people claiming these days? £1,000? I thought I'd read somewhere of a case that clarified the issue of compensation but I can't find it now.

Thanks CitizenB,

I've written to Halifax as suggested yesterday with basically a LBA around DPA compliance, I have also sent a copy to ICO as there is an open file on the issue with them. Apparently when I called ICO they said Halifax responded to DPA breach last week so someone from ICO would be writing to me soon, hopefully my other letter will help the ICO make a decision, while I know the ICO won't do anything I feel their letter would make Halifax look silly in court if this ended up there.

I've also contacted the adjudicator and said I haven't been provided with the full facts and I am unable to respond to her on the matter until Halifax comply with my original SAR and subsequent letters sent since 6 May.

Thanks for your support.

Ok I sent the letter off to their solicitors. Thanks Andy for your guidance.

I've now received the orders of the judge a few key points;

1. Hearing fee of £110 to be paid by 29th October.

2. The judge feels this claim could be settled by mediation (is this standard or does the judge take a view on the case)

3. If I want to vary judgement I have 7 days from its date.

I wonder if this changes my strategy and as I see it I have a number of options;

a) Pay hearing fee and enter into mediation (don't know what I should do about amending claim) does small claims mediation stay the claim?

b) I don't wait and I make a request for the judge to include an amended statement of case due to new information coming to light (I want to increase the claim value from £1490 to maybe £2490 if thats accepted do I just pay the difference between the fee I've paid and the next threshold?)

c) I pay the hearing fee and wait 14 days and then submit application to the court for changes.

I'm not really sure which to go for? Is mediation worth it? My view is really that I've tried resolving this and I continue to say I'm open to offers, I don't know if mediation would resolve it.

Does anyone have any view?

Thanks as always.

Hello everyone,

As I am on a mission to try and clear up my credit file.

I had a Nationwide loan in 2005 (they have supplied a copy of credit agreement)

I then had a PPI claim with FOS that was resolved in Sept 2008,

they were ordered to resolve it by either removing the PPI or setting up a new loan on the same interest rate.

I had issues paying in May 2009 and entered a payment arrangement with them,

they continued to mark my file as up to 6 payments late and then filled a "default" marker in June 2011

and then took me to court for payment,

I stupidly failed to respond to the claim and paid in full and had CCJ removed.

However, on applying for a SAR they have provided;

1. Original Credit Agreement 2005

2. Credit agreement unsigned dated Sept 2008 with a loan account totally unrecognised.

3. All of the correspondence relating to this account is for a loan account number with no agreement being entered into.

Ok, so.....I understand that in accordance with ICO Technical Guidance on filing a default

it should be between 3-6 months after the last payment is made

obviously it was 25 months after

(I've just had the ICO rule that Lloyds did the same and that its "unlikely" they complied with DPA).

But I wonder if fundamentally there is an argument that I never agreed to allow them to share my data with 3rd parties?

i.e this is a contractual issue.

This is a new loan and by sending one loan agreement with an unknown loan account on it, it would seem I should have agreed but I didn't! Ever!

So if there was no agreement, should they have put a default notice on at all?! Breach of DPA?

I'd welcome comments on the issue.

Thanks Andy,

The Court tell me I need to complete an N244 form and enclose £45 fee. The file is currently with the local DJ for directions.

I propose sending the below to SCM Solicitors who are acting for Lloyds in order to see if they agree or even want to settle. Does this look ok?

Cheers

Dear Sirs,

I write in relation to the above claim which I note you are acting on for your client Lloyds TSB Bank Plc.

The matter subject to this claim relates to the unfair treatment of your client in its handling of matters including the way in which my data has been processed and shared with third parties, as a result a complaint was made to the Information Commissioner.

It is clear now and it has been clarified to your client that the Information Commissioner agrees that it is unlikely that your client has complied with the Data Protection Act in this regard.

As this matter relates to the ongoing claim and that this information has come to light I seek your permission to approach the Court to make an amendment to the Statement of Case in accordance with Practice Direction 17.

Alternatively I remain open to an offer of settlement in this matter should your client so wish.

If I fail to seek agreement to amend the claim I will of course make an application to the Court.

I would be grateful if you could provide a response to this request within 14 days.

Hello all,

Today I have received the response from the FOS - I am entirely deflated by it and really could do with some support and guidance.

Effectively they are saying;

1. We agree you should not have been told that you could take a payment holiday but your offer does explain that you would need to "apply" for one in any event, therefore you have not been entirely misled.

2. Having seen Halifax's notes (they have never provided these through SAR despite asking 4 times for them) I can see you confirmed your income had reduced and hence why you wanted a payment holiday. Because you couldn't apply for a payment holiday you agreed to a nil payment arrangement.

They aren't agreeing to uphold my complaint and believe that £100 is fair compensation for the incorrect advice that led me to take my decision to take a mortgage!

They have totally ignored the fact that the Halifax website clearly says

Payment holidays are available for a variety of reasons usually to assist with a temporary change to your circumstances, like a change in employment or unexpected or unforeseen vehicle or household expenditure.

I attach the FOS letter for comment here[ATTACH=CONFIG]46926[/ATTACH]

My main beef is that we took a decision based on the e-mail here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?392530-MCOB-claim-Incorrect-advice-Fairness&p=4294948&viewfull=1#post4294948 at a fixed rate. That was the sole reason we took it because they clarified the issue for us, in terms of risk we weighed up security over interest rate and decided to go with the higher rate because of their e-mail. We have lost out because obviously interest rates dropped so considerably during the fixed rate, only to be told that we couldn't take a payment holiday in the end anyway.

Any advice and emotional support gratefully received

Cheers

Thanks Andy,

I'm having a look at the Rules & Practice Directions now, how do I do that?

Cheers

Anything wrong with issuing this on MCOL and submitting detailed particulars as above?

I've heard back from the ICO this morning in relation to the unfair processing of information, that Lloyds applied a default way after they should have done, they have found it likely that this is unfair.....a couple of questions;

1. Is it worth amending my claim to include a DPA breach?

2. Should I lodge a separate claim?

3. The ICO have written to Lloyds asking them to put it right, should I also write and suggest they settle claim?

Cheers

Hi,

Thanks for the reply - Lloyds are saying that they have undertaken "independent" investigation and that their charges don't cover their costs (LOL), does this damage a claim or is it standard?

Here are the POC's I plan on submitting;

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

1. The Claimant entered into an agreement (“The Agreement”) with the Defendant on or around XXXXX, whereby the Defendant was to advance credit facilities to the Claimant under a running credit account, Account no XXXXXXX (The Account).

 

2. “The Agreement” essentially consisted of the Defendant providing the Claimant with a credit card (“The Card”) which would allow the Claimant to make purchases and receive cash advances on credit. In return the Defendant was entitled to charge interest at the published rate.

 

3. The Agreement was a Regulated Agreement for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

4. At all material times the contract was subject to the Defendant’s standard terms and conditions which could be varied from time to time.

 

Summary

 

5. Throughout the course of the Agreement, the Defendant has added numerous default charges to the Account for the Claimant’s failure to make the minimum payment on the due date and or for exceeding the credit limit and or if a payment is returned. (Full particulars are set out in schedule 2).

 

6. The default charges were applied in accordance with the standard terms of The Agreement which were:

a. A penalty payable on breach of contract and thus unenforceable: and or

b. An unfair term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“The Regulations”) and therefore not binding on the Claimant.

7. The Claimant is accordingly entitled to repayment of the sums wrongly added to the Account.

 

The Charges

 

8. The standard Terms of the Agreement in substance provided as follows:

a. The Defendant would provide the Claimant with the Card. The Claimant was entitled to use the Card to make purchases and receive cash advances up to a credit limit (“the Limit”) set by the Defendant. The Defendant could unilaterally change the Limit by giving the Claimant notice in writing.

b. The Defendant was entitled to charge interest on the purchases and cash advances at the published rate.

c. The Claimant was to pay the minimum payment of 2% of the amount owed or £5 (whichever was the greatest) by the due date as notified in the monthly statements.

d. In addition the Defendant was entitled to charge fees (“the Charges”) where the Claimant exceeded the Limit, did not pay on the due date or had a payment returned. The Charges are currently £12.00.

 

Penalty

9. The Charges were payable on breach of contract by the Claimant.

 

10. The amount of the Charges exceeded any genuine pre-estimate of the damage which would have been suffered by the Bank in relation to the Claimant’s transgressions.

 

11. In the premises the Charges were punitive and a penalty and thus unenforceable at common law.

 

 

The Regulations

 

12. At all material times the Claimant was a consumer within the Regulations.

 

13. At all material times the terms of the Agreement providing for the Charges were unfair within regulation 5 of the Regulations in that contrary to the requirement of good faith they caused a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the Claimant.

 

14. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will refer to the following matters in support of the contention that the terms are to be assessed as unfair as at the time of the conclusion of the Agreement, and of each revision to the Standard Terms.

i. The terms relating to Charges were standard terms; they would not be individually negotiated.

ii. The Charges were a penalty for breach of contract.

iii. The Charges exceeded the costs which the Bank could have expected to incur in dealing with the exceeding of the credit limit, late payment or returned payment.

iv. Accordingly the Charges were a disproportionate charge incurred by the Claimant for their failure to meet their contractual obligation and thus within the ambit of Schedule 2 (1) (e) of the Regulations and indicative of an unfair term.

v. As the Defendant knew, the Charges were of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of the Agreement as a whole and would not influence the making of the Agreement.

vi. As the Defendant knew, the Claimant had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges.

vii. In the premises, the effect of the Charges would be prejudicial to the customer who incurred them, and cause an imbalance in the relations of the parties to the Agreement by subordinating the customer’s interests to those of the Defendant in a way which was inequitable.

 

15. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will contend that the terms imposing the Charges are not core terms under regulation 6 of the Regulations and relies on the following matters.

a. The assessment of fairness does not relate to terms which define the main or core subject matter of the Agreement.

b. The assessment of fairness does not relate to the adequacy of the price or remuneration as against the goods or services supplied in exchange (in other words, whether or not the relevant services were value for money).

 

16. By reason of the said matters the terms were not binding under regulation 8 of the Regulations.

 

17. The Defendant wrongly applied Charges to the Account totalling some £84 between 17 June 2008 and 20 April 2009. Particulars appear from Schedule 2.

 

18. On 23 September 2013 the Claimant demanded repayment of the sums wrongly applied. The Defendant has not repaid them or any of them.

 

Compound Interest

 

19. The Claimant is aware and respects that the court presently has no statutory power or discretion under the County Courts Act 1982 to award compound interest. Further, the Claimant seeks to distinguish the basis of the claim for compound interest in the instant case from the recent High Court judgment in the case of Halliday v Halifax Bank of Scotland [2007] A11 ER (D) 66 where it was found that, on the assumption that the bank charges which formed the principle claim were found to be unenforceable penalties, the Claimant was not entitled to be awarded the banks rate of interest as provided for in the account contract by virtue of an implied mutual or reciprocal term, and that no such term could be implied. The Claimants case for compound interest is not reliant on any implied contractual term.

 

20. The recent case Sempra Metals Limited (formerly Metallgesellschaft Limited) (Respondents) v Her Majesty's Commissioners of Inland Revenue and another (Appellants) 18th July 2007 raises the issue of Compound Interest and the Claimant submits that, by virtue of the development of the law recently established in this referenced case, it is open to the court to award compound interest in the Claimants instant case.

 

21. The Claimant also respectfully requests that his claim for compound interest be viewed in the context of the instant claim rather than in isolation, and with full regard for the seriousness of the Defendant’s misdemeanours which have led to the Defendant profiting unlawfully from the Claimant’s account defaults. It is entirely inequitable that the Defendant should have deprived the Claimant of the use of his monies for this length of time without repaying it with interest at the rate which it charges the Claimant in equivalent circumstances; monies which it is in the business of re-lending at the same commercial rate of interest and which will only restore the Defendant to the position where it had not received any benefit from having had use of the Claimant’s money. It is the Claimant’s case that the Defendant would be unjustly enriched if the Claimant’s entitlement was limited to the recovery of the charges and simple interest at the statutory rate. The Claimant therefore seeks a full remedy which allows complete restitution of the wrongful and unjust gains of the Defendant.

 

22. And the Claimant claims:

 

a. A declaration that the sums totalling £84 have wrongly been applied to the Account

b. Payment of the said sum of £84 and;

c. Contractual compound interest at an annual rate 27.95% compounded monthly from the date of each individual charge to 15 October 2013 of £259.53 and then continuing to accrue at the same rate from 15 October 2013 to the date of judgement or earlier settlement.

d. Court fees of £50 plus any further Court fees.

 

I believe that the facts stated in these particulars, comprising of x pages, are true.

 

 

Dated

 

Signed

 

 

 

Schedule 1

 

 

 

 

 

From 2007 Terms and conditions

 

KEY FINANCIAL INFORMATION

 

1. CREDIT LIMIT

We will set a credit limit and tell you what it is after we have opened your account. We may change it in the future. We’ll give you the new credit limit in writing.

 

2. YOUR PAYMENTS

2.1 You must make a minimum payment by the payment date every month of:

• 2% of the balance shown in your statement (minimum £5, or the full balance if less than £5); or, if it is more

• the total of interest and the Payment Protection Cover premium shown in your statement.

You can always pay more if you want to.

2.2 To begin with your payment date will be about 25 days after the statement date but we may change it under condition 17. Your statement will show the payment date and the minimum payment.

 

KEY INFORMATION

 

 

 

8. CHARGES

8.1 For letting you continue to use your card (if we do let you) despite your having broken these conditions, we will

charge you:

• £12 if you do not make at least your minimum payment by the payment date;

• £12 each time you exceed your credit limit;

• £12 each time a direct debit, cheque or other payment order you have given us is not accepted when we

present it for payment.

We will also charge reasonable costs and expenses resulting from you breaking these conditions.

 

13.1 You must not go over your credit limit. When we work out the credit available on your account to authorise new Transactions, we include authorisations for Transactions we have already given but which have not yet been applied to your account.

 

14. PAYMENTS

14.1 You must make all payments on time. You won’t break this term if a payment is late because we’ve failed to process it as soon as we get it. A payment is shown on your account and reduces your outstanding balance when it clears. We’ll give you guidance on making payments to reach us on time and on the clearing times for cheque payments and automated payments.

 

I've hopefully covered the interest issue enough following reading threads on the issue, let me know what you think? It seems pretty standard. The Compound Interest is from a claim which seems to have succeeded before.

Cheers

All of these companies adopt exactly the strategies you describe. They will be registered in having a postal address. I did raise a complaint to [email protected] a couple of months ago, I got a successful outcome as well.

Postal address is Mr Lender, PO Box 366. Loughton, IG10 9EW

But here is the link to their complaints procedure https://www.mrlender.com/Page/ComplaintsPolicy ensure that you follow it.

If you want, draft something and remove personal details and post it up here.

Here is the Customer Charter that Mr Lender sign up to http://www.ccta.co.uk/admindocs/codes_of_practice/good_practice_customer_charter_member.pdf

I was going to find you their postal address but I can't even find a website for them at the moment.....is that just me? Or have the no longer got a website?!

They should be registered with Companies House though.

Your e-mails need to clearly be marked as "COMPLAINT" in order to get the issue addressed, ask for a copy of their complaints procedure.

Follow the link to the Citizens Advice above and complete the survey on the right hand side.

Account was settled in full with Equidebt on 12 July 2012, they didn't go into administration until 13 June 2013, are they seriously suggesting MotoNovo received no payment nearly 12 months later?!

So because MotoNovo don't reflect this payment on my account what can I do?

We've accepted their £200 and removal of all adverse info as settlement in just that matter, charges and unlawful repo IMO are still outstanding if we can pursue.

Surely them saying it wasn't all paid isn't my problem, not my problem that the debt collectors went bust?

GREAT!

I think this http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/debt_e/debt_borrowing_money_e/debt_types_of_borrowing_e/debt_loans_e/debt_payday_loans_e/pay_day_loans.htm. Is an excellent survey and basically gives you the option to get a call back from the FOS, it was really quick for me, next working days.

Hello and welcome,

Firstly, Mr Lender don't know what they're talking about, they're set up to lend and not to respect the needs of the consumer in difficulty, the good news is that the FOS, OFT and Citizens Advice aren't on their side.

Whether they want to accept your I&E or not its important that you write to them setting out your difficulties.

See here to go through more info and also the survey on the right hand side http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/debt_e/debt_borrowing_money_e/debt_types_of_borrowing_e/debt_loans_e/debt_payday_loans_e/pay_day_loans.htm. This will feed into the FOS if you need to escalate and make a complaint.

If you get nowhere its important you lodge a complaint using their complaints procedure listed on their website (they are useless though) and you aren't alone.

You must firstly outline the reasons for your hardship and include your I&E, ask for their response in full and in writing and cancel the CPA, I would give them 7 days to respond, if they fail to do so lodge a complaint. They have 8 weeks before the FOS will look at the issue from the date you lodge a complaint.

I hope that helps, someone else might provide you with more support.

Just a quick update;

FOS are now on the case with both of my complaints against Wonga & MEM Consumer Finance (Pay Day UK).

Is anyone else on this thread going down the FOS route?

Currently Wonga have been given 12 weeks to supply FOS with info (9 now).

Hello everyone,

I have an old credit card which had £88 of charges put on it back in 2008. The balance now stands at around £200.

Are people still reclaiming compounded interest on claims?

Lloyds have so far responded refusing to pay my charges, if I claim compounded interest at 27.95% (cash advance) it would be £343.

I am currently reading more and more into the idea but just want to know if anyone is still doing this?

Cheers

Ok I filled my DQ on 30.8.13 but I had a letter today with an order, the order requires me to send my DQ, I called them and they haven't received it, luckily I sent it by e-mail so have a copy of that and the acknowledgement I received back from MCOL (I had sent it to the wrong address) but nowhere does it mention another specific address until this order.

The order requires me to submit my DQ before 27 Sept (I did it yesterday).

So it mentions I can have the order set aside but I must make an application by 27th and include a fee (where appropriate, what would the fee be?). Should I do this or just let them process it now?

Noting that the other side failed to send me a copy of their DQ.....

Cheers

O

MotoNovo have replied;

Thank you for your email. Apologies for the delay in replying, but I needed to check some details with our Collections Department.

 

Firstly, the amendment to your credit file would be a repair which would include the removal of liability and a removal of late markers from your file from the date of your voluntary termination.

Secondly, referring to the situation with Equidebt, unfortunately, Equidebt have gone into liquidation and never passed any funds to us, hence no mention of them on your agreement account.

 

Please let me know if you wish me to process the amends and I will arrange for the data amends to be made.

Hello everyone,

Just another update about Vivus.co.uk.

They have offered full removal of ALL information from credit file + £250 settlement.

This was following sending an LBA. (They'd ignored all correspondence up to that point).

Hello all,

I haven't posted for a while so thought I'd do an update.

So Wonga have really put their foot in it by saying a number of things that would have been really helpful on their website, so I have taken them to the FOS, I called the FOS first and had a discussion with them about the case and have now referred my bundle to them for their consideration, I expect its gonna take them about 8-12 weeks to carry out any sort of investigation/adjudication.

PayDay UK (WOW!) They're awful! I will post up their letter later on which really does avoid the issue.

Could someone tell me, on the CAB website about PDL's it talks about Continuous Payment Authority and that they should remind you before taking payment? Why does it say this, ie is there a rule or something? Have a look within this survey http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/debt_e/debt_borrowing_money_e/debt_types_of_borrowing_e/debt_loans_e/debt_payday_loans_e/dialogue_payday_loan_survey.htm.

But here;

the lender didn't set out clearly how continuous payment authority (CPA) works and your right to cancel it. CPA is where you agree to pay the loan by making a series of deductions from your credit or debit card

the lender didn’t tell you in advance that they were going to take money from your account using the CPA.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/debt_e/debt_borrowing_money_e/debt_types_of_borrowing_e/debt_loans_e/debt_payday_loans_e/payday_loans_reasons_to_complain_about_your_lender.htm

Hi Dx,

Basically, want the default removed from credit file and account marked as settled

..you've now got that..

Have we? That was what we were confused about TBH it talks about liability and doesn't mention removing adverse information.

The taking the car without a court order whilst it is a protected asset - that's the BIG thing here.

where are we on this?

have you directly accused them of this yet?

Yes and they've ignored me on each occasion about this, people are suggesting that damages for this would be negligible?

If you take off the charges etc then it seems as though we reached the 1/3rd but I assume we would have to firstly show the charges aren't right in order to then show the balance was over 1/3rd?

he is talking as if the charges were a 'notianal'

i'e you didn't complete the agreement, so the full bal was not paid?

 

where do they sit on the fact of the £700 to equidebt then?

it does not show on the statements?

Feeling a bit stupid about this bit....the charges were applied to the balance, payment was made to Equidebt they took a 40% reduction but really its the point that at the time of applying them they weren't right and that if we won this argument then its over 1/3rd.

What's the best course of action?

Do we accept their offer on the default issue in part settlement?

Ok so a letter was sent to reclaim the charges but we have had a response from MotoNovo saying that the charges were never paid........have a look [ATTACH=CONFIG]46208[/ATTACH]

They're saying that they weren't paid but the 50% was paid and obviously included those charges, they make reference to offering a reduction in the debt if it was paid within 14 days but I wasn't able to do this....!

The issue around the service book charge (a letter was sent in and they failed to check as the service book document was just loose within the folder) and the abort fee is just another charge in our view.

Can I just check that the charges are reclaimable??