Jump to content

johnc007

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by johnc007

  1. Hi All Sent the standard letter to get a default removed from my Credit file. got a reply which was basically bog off here is the reply any ideas on how to responded I am writing with reference to your letter and statutory notice dated the 16th of May 2007 which has been forwarded to me to respond to. In your data subject notice you have made a request under section 10 of the DPA for us to cease processing personal information about you. I am sorry that OUSBA is unable to comply with you request, as by the terms and conditions of the credit agreement you signed with us and governed by the CCA 1972 we have to give true and factual information as to how you account has been conducted. this is also stipulated in the credit agreement under disclosure with regard to information release to CRAs and Debt recovery agents. A copy of the Credit agreement has been enclosed for your attention. A default notice was issued on the 9th of December 2002 outlining what action could occur and that we would terminate your account if you had not responded within the statutory period. This is also documented in section 7.1 of the credit agreement form regarding defaults. we are required to comply with the DPA of 1998 which required that once a default notice is recorded that record remains on file for a period of six years. As we received no response to the default notice a termination of agreement was sent to you on the 2nd of January 2003. The termination agreement advised that if no response was received from you within fourteen days then the matter would be passed to our legal agents for collection. Your account has not been cancelled but terminated by us. Where we have defaulted and terminated an account as in you case we can continue to disclose information on the current state of your account. The account was settled in April 2003 and your record with the CRA shows that the debt has been satisfied. You have also made a request under section 12 of the DPA that OUSBA dos not make any decisions which would affect you solely by automatic means. I can confirm that OUSBA dose not make any decisions about withholding credit form applicants automatically and that members of staff do review cases where there is a possibility that credit may be declined. we are therefore complying with your request under section 12 of the DPA. Finally, I have contacted Experian for further clarification on the issue you have raised regarding the practice of maintaining adverse entries for a period of six years. They have confirmed the following:- "The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case because of prejudice to the rights and freedoms of legitimate interests of the data subject." We take a wide wide view of the legitimate interests and we consider that it is in the interests of other creditors to make informed lending decisions. it is important to not that the fact that processing may be seen by some to prejudice a particular individual ( for example, someone with an adverse entry on his credit reference file may not be able to obtain credit facilities) dose not necessarily render the whole processing operation prejudicial to all individuals. The Act does not prescribe the period for which information is retained by CRAs. However we understand that the Crowther Report on consumer credit 1971 expressed support for the view that a statutory time limit should be considered and suggested a period of six years should be adopted. At the time this was already the practise common to the major CRAs. The Younger Committee on Privacy considered that the prevailing practices of the agencies were coordinated, there was no immediate necessity for statuary recommendation to be made but prepared the ground for the DPA 1984 by recommending that periods should be specified beyond which the information should be retained. The fifth data protection principle states that "Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes." Account information is held by the credit reference agencies for a period of six years after the account was last active. It appears to be the case that in addition to current credit commitments the preceding six years of an individual’s credit history is taken into account by credit grantors when applications for credit facilities are assessed. As a consequence this historical information would appear to be relevant to the purpose of credit referencing and by holding this information the agencies would not appear to be in breach of the fifth principle." I hope that I have been able to clarify the situation for you regarding the information supplied by OUSBA to Experian the CRA. I would also advise that OUSBA is not a bank and does not therefore follow the requirements of the banking code. If you still unhappy with the response then the next step would be for you to write to the Manager of OUSBA at the registered address above Any help on how to proceed would be appreciated.
  2. The template letters for the Isle of Man Have been removed and should now be in the Library if NOT PM me for them Please note the standard letters are not correct for the Isle of Man.
  3. gizmo does the allocation to small claims track mean I'm not getting a Q&A
  4. mine is a associate account and citi supplied my statements
  5. Baldybaldwin one is a win to them one is a win to us
  6. recieved to day your claim has been allocated to the small claims track on 15 May 2007 A fee of £100.00 is payable unless you had made an application for a fee exemption or remission if by 01 Jun 2007 you have not paid the fee or applied for a fee exemption or remission, your claim will automatically be struck out without further order of the court and you will be liable for costs which the defendant has incurred. have returned to forms with exemption application now it a wait and see what happens next
  7. well they filed with the court last minute again pity now waiting for the court to send Q& A or date.
  8. Capital one are still updating my credit file with information even having been sent the S10 notice back in January. What can I do about it?
  9. We had the self same letter last week saying something about us not being able to write our own letter and having to use templates. Mine went to court last week. Please read the defence we got from B.S. yesterday. a lot of 'cut and paste'!
  10. OK folks here is their defence 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 had a credit card account(“the Agreement”) with the Defendant during the relevant period 3. The Defendant avers that the agreement with the Claimant contains terms entitling the Defendant to levy default fees and avers that the Claimant was aware of and agreed to the same as before entering into the agreement 4. The Defendant denies that the same are: 4.1 a disproportionate penalty and unenforceable or irrecoverable as penalty charges at common lay and/or 4.2 invalid under the Unfair Contracts Terms act 1977 and/or 4.3 unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999; and/or 4.4 unreasonable under section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and puts the Claimant to proof of this by specific reference to the case law relied upon and/or the exact citation of the relevant parts of the sections of laws and regulations relied upon. 5 The Defendant denies that it has unlawfully debited the Claimant’s account. The Defendant avers that the Claimant expressly authorised the Defendant to levy such charges on the express understanding that the trigger for any such charge would be the Claimant ’s own breach of agreement 6 The Defendant avers that between 2001 and 2003, the Claimant breached the Agreement on no fewer than 28 occasions thereby authorising the Defendant to debit £700 to the Claimant ’s account by way of default fees , as per the Terms & Conditions of the Agreement.(this Figure is Wrong only had 22 occasions and £550 debited) 7 The Claimant is claiming as a money claim a sum equivalent to that which she claims was unlawfully debited to 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 charges, though no the principle of default charging itself, was unfair in the context of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999. It also reported that the charges were, in its opinion, a penalty contrary to common lay principles of damages for breach of contract 8 The Defendant has agreed to abide by the OFT report and adopt a lower level of default fees which it has set at the new industry standard of £12. Over the lifetime of this account the Claimant has set its default charges at £25. 9 The Claimant’ account with the Defendant was consistently in arrears and was charged off and assigned to Cabot Limited (“Cabot”). At the time the debt was sold to Cabot, the balance of the account was £XXXX.XX in debit, i.e. outstanding from the Claimant. This sum far exceeds the amount levied in charges and actually means the Claimant has claimed principle and interest thereon. The Defendant avers that given this fact alone, the Claimant cannot maintain an action for recovery of sums she failed to pay the Defender. Furthermore, the Defender avers that the Claimant has acknowledged the debt by repaying it to a third party. 10 The Defendant made a ex gratia refund to Cabot which is the difference between (i) the current default fee of £12 and (ii) amount at which default fees claimed was charged to the Claimant . Cabot confirmed that the Claimant has paid them and thus this sum of £364 was refunded to the Claimant by cheque in April 2007 ( and been return to them) 11 The Defendant avers that the Claimant’s claim is not a money claim but a damages action and further avers that the Claimant ’s interest calculation is not applicable to the action or, if it is applicable, that it is wholly wrong and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that this or any interest is owed. Specifically, the Defendant avers that the principle of mutuality and reciprocity do not apply to this Agreement which was entirely contractual and the Court has no power to amend the contract to amend the same. 12 Furthermore, the Defendant avers Claimant has claimed interest from the date each default fee was incurred, rather that date of any payment of such default fee by the Claimant. As the Defendant is a credit institution and not a deposit taker, it cannot set off default fees against money held on account. As such it cannot be held liable for interest on a notionally paid debt rather an actual one. The Claimant has a current outstanding balance on his (excuse me but I’m female) account held by 1st Credit (who) and, as such, never paid the balance of his (wrong sex) account (you can’t have it both ways! Refer to para 10) including the default fees imposed. It is averred by the Defendant that it is only from the time of any such payment that interest could have accrued on such payment as if it were a debt. 13 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. just so theirs no confusion this is my wife's account.
  11. they go it set aside. now awaiting the court to get their thing together, gizmo will pm you.
  12. still waiting for the file to come back down from the judge will be after 12
  13. hi gizmo had a reply for the full disclosure from the famous Mr Brian smith i act on behalf of CitiFinancial Europe plc and write further to you letter of 29 April i will respond to the main point only rather that all since i have seen this letter at least a dozen times now its is simply tiresome to have to answer all the half baked misinformation it contains. i would be grateful if, I future, you could at least attempt to litigate on your own behalf and not by rote. my client does defend these cases although, naturally, it chooses not defend all as some are too small to be worth attending court. i can assure you that we will be attending court on the 8 May and will seek set aside on the grounds that you have failed to pay the sums you claiming as a debt. this simple yet telling point seems to elude many people. you claim is simply and opportunistic attempt to make money out of my client and will be defended. you may if you wish show this letter to the court also as it is open First off Mr Smith, I have paid this debt so therefore this money has been paid Secondly, if you answered the letter, instead of beating about the bush, you wouldn't be inundated with requests for full disclosure. Thirdly, if your client paid back what it took illegally instead of wasting the courts and our time, everyone would be happy, including you.
  14. no that's not what i meant they sent the cheque back to me, what do i do with it? send it back to them again or what ?
  15. i gave in, was happy to get my money back and needed to considerate on my exams
  16. can one of the moderator change this to won please
  17. had a reply to the cheque going back. thank you for your recent letter,your comments have been noted however i have to advise that we will not be reviewing our decision on the basis of your argument. your demands are entirely unreasonable since, to pay you as you suggest, would imply that your continued breaches of a contract you agreed to, should simply never have attracted any sanctions whatsoever. As you will understand this would not be a tenable position from which a bank could do business. The OFT report, contrary to popular opinion, did not state that default charges are unfair per se. It did state that the amount currently charged by the banking industry was excessive and imposed a £12 cap. The logic of the position was adopted and we charged you £12 in retrospective reassessment. That is a fair compromise. Citi Cards conducted itself within the law at all times and no-one has made any suggestion to the contrary. The OFT made an interpretation that did not, contrary to you claim, have the force of lay. i suggest you re-read the report and you will find it acknowledged by the OFT itself that it would have to seek a court decision on its interpretation. IN over a dozen recent court cases involving Citi, we have successfully argued the fairness of the above policy and the fairness of the £12 charges. The cases have all resulted in the claims being dismissed and the courts have implicitly held that the policy is fair and the charges reasonable, being in line with both the OFT guidance and common law principles of breach of contract. Citi does not wish to enter litigation with its customers but will do so if necessary to discourage speculative and ill conceived cased founded on a misunderstanding of the OFT report. With the benefit of this judgement behind it, Citi will continue to deal with claims such as your in the maner outlined above Therefore, we will not be paying you any further sums, in the event that you initiate and action, Citi Cards will defend the action on this basis. do i resend it back to them no mention in this letter of full and final or do i take it if i cash it my case is closed??
  18. had the evidence to support the setting aside it reads as follows the claimant has claimed for the recovery of default fees allegedly paid to the defendant. these fees were neither unlawful or penal and in any event were not actually paid to the defendant by the claimant whose account defaulted and was sold at a loss by the defendant owing £2348.06 in arrears. Given the failure to pay this account the defendant maintains the claimant is seeking recovery of sums never paid. the defendant has successfully defended dozens of similar claims by former customers based on a misunderstanding of common law and the recent OFT report into default fees. The defendant believes it has a complete defence to this claim not merely a real prospect of a successful defence. how do i reply to the court reference this
  19. Yes they did, date for hearing is the 8th of May, which happens to one of three days in May when I've got exams so will not be able to attend, anyone got any ideas
  20. what a petty they forgot to file a defence !! so I have filled the judgement for claimant and it has been awarded what happens next
  21. they offered me £364 wrote a standard reply using to refusal of settlement letter, they have now sent me the cheque for this amount which say in full and final settlement, what do I ? do I send another letter saying that I will only accept this as a partial payment or do I ignore it and continue with the claim, informing the court that they have paid this amount of the claim Your input will be greatly appriciated
  22. i write in connection to the above court claim, which you have issued against capital one bank (Europe) plc. I have now had the opportunity to investigate your claim of £XXXXXX it is denied that these fees are unlawful and they are detailed in your terms and conditions and in our customer welcome pack. Our fees are based on the costs we incur when a customer breaks their contract by making a late payment or goes over their credit limit. The fees are only levied when a customer breaches their contract in this way and can be avoided if payments are maintained and the account kept within the credit limit. Capital one has acted in accordance with the terms of you credit agreement throughout this matter and it is clear that you have no claim against captial one. also, after reviewing you request for £899.15 to cover the interest, i can confirm that your calculations ate incorrect. all defaults fees charged to any account are always charged at the purchase interest rate. The total amount of purchase interest we have ever charged to you account since it was opened in october 2000 is £108.08. This amount includes the interest on all of your purchases and only a very small portion of this figure has been charged on the default fees. on the basis of the above, i cannot agree to the proposal of refunding to you the sum of £899.15 to cover the interest. however, i am prepared to offer, without any admission of liability, a refund of the total amount of interest charged to your account in the sum of £108.08. I'll also refund the sum of £227.83, which is the 8% you are entitled to claim under section 69 of the county courts act 1884. It also means you will have to held an account with us since October 200 without having to pay interest for any of your purchases. if you do not agree with my calculations, you will need to provide me with a full and accurate breakdown of how you have reached you figure of £899.15 Along with the above offer to refund the interest, I also agree to refund the default fees totalling £583.00. this brings my total offer to £918.91. This refund has cleared you balance and i've arranged to send you a cheque for £493.72 which should arrive within 14 working days. i hope i have explained things clearly to you and we can move on from here. i would finally request that you contact the court to confirm the settlement and discontinue your claim. this is very important as it is your responsibility to inform the court that your claim is settled and avoid wasting any further valuable court time. we have also written to the court to confirm that we have paid in full. first off how do i reply to this? can they take the money on a settled account that was surposed to be full and final settlement? and can they just ignore the interest?
  23. All bar £70 but wife is happy with what she got
  24. Capital one have settled with one of my claims still waiting for the other.
×
×
  • Create New...