Court case looming- need help please

[star_scream]

Does anyone have a copy of the default charges for Amex from 2000?

 

Amex are using a copy of my original agreement with £12 default charges photocopied on the back and saying they are the T&C's from that date.

I don't believe them, and need proof that they are lying

Anyone help?

[rory32]

I don't have a copy but this article may be useful American Express raises its charges | Money | The Guardian

 

They only raise the charge to £12 in September of this year.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello SS!

 

I'm not sure that Amex even mentioned Default Charges in their Terms until around 2007.

 

If others could please look, that could be useful.

 

There's no mention that I can see in 2002 or in 2005, and yet they were charging them, usually a round number too, like £15 or £20 or £25. They went down to £8 in 2007, then up to £10 in early 2008.

 

I've never seen £12, although I have nothing recent to look at I regret.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[star_scream]

Hello SS!

 

I'm not sure that Amex even mentioned Default Charges in their Terms until around 2007.

 

If others could please look, that could be useful.

 

BRW

If that's the case, then they have clearly committed fraud by photocopying these terms on the back of the original agreement?

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello SS!

 

Rory32: They only raise the charge to £12 in September of this year.

 

That ties in with what I thought was the case, i.e. £12 only appeared recently.

 

I suspect they'll weasel out it by saying it was a re-assembled thing, showing what your Agreement should've looked like with Application Form and Current Terms and Conditions.

 

But what this is telling you, is they do not seem to have an Agreement worth diddly squat.

 

Sure sign they are running out of ideas and wits when they start using glue and/or double sided Photocopying magic tricks.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello SS!

 

Just catching up with where you are from other Threads.

 

OK, hit them with a CPR 31.14 Request to make a Physical Inspection. The point of this is to put the pressure on that you want to see the alleged Agreement. Obviously, this means going to them to take a look.

 

They probably won't be too keen, but the fact that you have asked, and the fact that you make damned sure the Court gets to know that you have asked, will put the enemy into a bad light if they refuse point blank to let you see the very document upon which their whole case rests.

 

From that point, keep ramming this issue home at every opportunity.

 

If they do not have an Original Copy, then they will have a hard time complying with CPR PD 16 7.3, i.e. their need to produce the Original Agreement in Court.

 

Now, keep the pressure on without let up. Do this by making specific reference to this in your Defence and Allocation Questionnaire (AQ). Throw in some Draft Directions at the AQ stage to suggest the Court may like to conduct a preliminary Hearing to review the documents that matter, such as the Agreement, the Default Notice, the Termination Notice and their failure to comply with CPR 31.14 before Court, and CPR PD 16 7.3 at this 1st preliminary Hearing.

 

If they produce a Copy Agreement, then no matter what they have stuck onto the back, they will need to ask the Court's Permission to produce what is in fact Hearsay Evidence, see Civil Evidence Act 1995.

 

Likewise, if they want this Hearsay Evidence to be taken seriously at all, then they will need to bring some hard Evidence to back it up...like a complete ISO Document Management Report from an independently audited system. This needs to show the complete History of the Agreement from Day One to the Day in Court.

 

It'll also need to explain why they elected to Shred a live Statutory Document.

 

If they elect to bring a Witness Statement to verify this Copy, ask that the Witness also comes to Court for cross-examination. That's when you get to ask them lots of questions about the Document they claim to know so much about. This Witness will need to show they had a direct involement in the Document from Day One, and they too will need to explain why they felt the need to shred a live Statutory Document.

 

When did the Document arrive, who logged it in, where was it kept, who requested that it be copied, what happened to the Copy, who requested that the Original be Shredded, who has had access to the Copy, how do they know the Front and Rear are from the same Original, dates, history etc...and did the Witness actually work at the bank at that time, and in all of these Departments!

 

Do you see where this is heading now?

 

You have to bring this issue to the top of the pile, and never let go once you get it there. Do not be fobbed off, and do not let them fob off the Court with an unenforceable Application Form.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited November 27, 2008 by banker_rhymes_with
Typo

[star_scream]

Hello SS!

 

Just catching up with where you are from other Threads.

 

OK, hit them with a CPR 31.14 Request to make a Physical Inspection. The point of this is to put the pressure on that you want to see the alleged Agreement. Obviously, this means going to them to take a look.

 

They probably won't be too keen, but the fact that you have asked, and the fact that you make damned sure the Court gets to know that you have asked, will put the enemy into a bad light if they refuse point blank to let you see the very document upon which their whole case rests.

 

From that point, keep ramming this issue home at every opportunity.

 

If they do not have an Original Copy, then they will have a hard time complying with CPR PD 16 7.3, i.e. their need to produce the Original Agreement in Court.

 

Now, keep the pressure on without let up. Do this by making specific reference to this in your Defence and Allocation Questionnaire (AQ). Throw in some Draft Directions at the AQ stage to suggest the Court may like to conduct a preliminary Hearing to review the documents that matter, such as the Agreement, the Default Notice, the Termination Notice and their failure to comply with CPR 31.14 before Court, and CPR PD 16 7.3 at this 1st preliminary Hearing.

 

If they produce a Copy Agreement, then no matter what they have stuck onto the back, they will need to ask the Court's Permission to produce what is in fact Hearsay Evidence, see Civil Evidence Act 1995.

 

Likewise, if they want this Hearsay Evidence to be taken seriously at all, then they will need to bring some hard Evidence to back it up...like a complete ISO Document Management Report from an independently audited system. This needs to show the complete History of the Agreement from Day One to the Day in Court.

 

It'll also need to explain why they elected to Shred a live Statutory Document.

 

If they elect to bring a Witness Statement to verify this Copy, ask that he Witness comes to Court for cross-examination. That's when you get to ask them lots of questions about the Document they claim to know so much about. This Witness will need to show they had a direct involement in the Document from Day One, and they too will need to explain why they felt the need to shred a live Statutory Document.

 

When did the Document arrive, who logged it in, where was it kept, who requested that it be copied, what happened to the Copy, who requested that the Original be Shredded, who has had access to the Copy, how do they know the Front and Rear are from the same Original, dates, history etc...and did the Witness actually work at the bank at that time, and in all of these Departments!

 

Do you see where this is heading now?

 

You have to bring this issue to the top of the pile, and never let go once you get it there. Do not be fobbed off, and do not let them fob off the Court with an unenforceable Application Form.

 

Cheers,

BRW

WOW! Thanks BRW, that's a great help. I'm not very organised so I will have to shape up for this one

 

Many Thanks

[pt2537]

Hi

 

You could use the pre action disclosure procedure laid out within CPR part 31 to obtain an order that they supply the docs

 

if you go along this route and they try to press for costs in disclosing then stick Black and Sumitomo to them,the case is relevent where costs are an issue in pre action discovery

 

just a thought but the tools are there to use if they wont play ball any other way