Bankruptcy Petition - Help Needed Please

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Traderx!

 

Delivering documents to the wrong address is a favourite party trick of Amex and their mates.

 

It's a mistake they only seem capable of making when it can potentially work in their favour. At all other times, they seem to have no trouble getting the address correct.

 

OK, you're getting good advice on the BP issues.

 

WRT a defence to the Amex alleged Debts, I think it's good that the alleged debt is mainly on the Gold Credit Card with far less on the Black Amex Charge Card, because the latter is harder to fight if it's not Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

The Gold Card Agreement sucks, it's clearly a crabby Microfiche Copy, and I can't see any sign of the Prescribed Terms. For Amex to Enforce that, as an absolute minimum, the Application Form needs to have your Signature and the Prescribed Terms (Credit Limit or how it is set, Interest Rate and Monthly Payments you need to make and how they are set). That lot all needs to be contained within the four corners of the Agreement. The Prescribed Terms cannot be found within another Document and embodied into the Agreement via a reference.

 

Amex will no doubt swear blind the Prescribed Terms would've been on the back of the Application Form but, they would say that, now wouldn't they! What else could they say? They'd never fess up that the Prescribed Terms were not there!

 

Amex seem to be asking you for the full balance on the Gold Card. Were you simply in Arrears, or was the Balance made up 100% of Arrears? If you were simply late on a few Payments, and the Card had a Balance that was not due, then if Amex are asking you for the whole lot, then this suggests they feel they have ended/Terminated the Agreement Lawfully.

 

A Lawful Termination would mean they issued a Default Notice under s87, that complied with s88. If you failed to remedy the default stated, i.e. the Arrears that were due, then they can Terminate and enjoy the benefits of s87.

 

The s87 is what gives them the Right to ask you for the whole Balance, i.e. the Arrears that were due, and any sums that were not due until they Terminated.

 

Amex have a habit of cocking up the Default Notice, so you really do need to see a Copy of that ASAP.

 

An invalid Default Notice followed by Termination results in an Unlawful Termination. They can do this, but in doing so they throw away the benefits of s87. The net effect of that is they are then limited to only being able to ask you for what was due before Termination...i.e. the Arrears.

 

That could, potentially, reduce your Debt by maybe 60% if I clocked the figure they are asking for before you edited it out (no problem there, very wise).

 

If the Arrears are suspect, say, you had lots of Unlawful Charges on the alleged Account, then you can possibly reduce the alleged Debt still further by claiming them back to off-set the Arrears.

 

Finally, if the Agreement really is as pant-like as it seems, then there is no Agreement for the Gold Card. You owe them nothing, not even the Arrears. If they do not have an Original Copy of a properly executed Regulated Credit Card Agreement, then any sums you spent may as well have been a gift.

 

Indeed, if over the life of the Card you Paid them back more than you ever spent (forget their Interest and other Charges, because with no Agreement they had no Right to charge them, so just look at Spending v Repayments), then any surplus should be owed by Amex to you...so long as they never did have a valid Agreement.

 

Obviously, getting that out of Amex will be like getting blood out of a stone, as they won't give that up easily, of course. However, given your Income at the time and likely spending, it may be the case that you have a large sum to hit Amex over the head with as a bargaining tool!

 

For example: look here Amex, you have no Agreement for the Gold Card, and I Repaid 10k more on it than I ever Spent. So you owe me 10k for the extra I Paid you by mistake. But you say I owe 5k on the Black Card. So, let's be grown up about this and call it a day. I forget the 5k balance, you leave me alone and forget the BP? Have a nice day.

 

For now, the Amex Black Charge Card is the main problem, as Charge Cards are not often covered by the Act, so all the useful things like s87/s88 do not apply.

 

But, some Charge Cards are partly-Regulated, and some fully Regulated, so you need to investigate what the Terms were for yours, and if Amex made any major changes that turned your Black Charge Card more into a hybrid Charge/Credit Card.

 

I know Amex did turn many Charge Cards into Charge Cards with Credit Card-like facilities, so it's possible your Black Card may be at least partly covered by the Act.

 

Amex did this to many over the Pond, as the US economy tipped into Recession. They could see Charge Cards were not being paid off every Month as they once were, so they elected to let many Charge Card customers roll a Balance on into the future...just like a Credit Card!

 

If your Black Card was UK issued, and they started to offer such a facility, then that aspect of the Card should come under the protection of the Act.

 

In summary

 

First task is to fight off that BP.

 

But you must also investigate the issues ASAP on both Cards.

 

Spend £10 and get a SAR off ASAP, just to have something going.

 

Also, check the Amex Company names, as Amex like to use several, and you may find that the Gold Card was with one, and the Charge Card with another...make sure the SAR goes off to the right one, and be ready to send each Amex Company their own S.A.R. if you find there are two Companies. It'll be the best £10 or £20 you'll ever spend!

 

The Civil Procedure Rules may also be open to you, but I'll stand back at that point and let someone else pitch in, as CPR and Court is not my area (yet)! CPR has the advantage of speed, and may let you get most of the SAR Data faster. But send the S.A.R.s off anyway, for Belt and Braces.

 

Good luck with it.

 

This may cheer you up:

 

Amex in Trouble?

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited January 13, 2009 by banker_rhymes_with
Typo/Clarity.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) won't apply as Bankruptcies are governed by the Insolvency Laws....not Civil Laws.

 

Phew, glad I handed that over to someone else, as I had a feeling I was on the verge of giving out some duff advice!

 

Thanks for the click BTW!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[banker_rhymes_with]

on a seperate note i have just received a call from a company called 'telegrams' who have apparently a letter with personal information, and can they have my new address to send it to me.

 

If you didn't get their number, maybe do a 1471 now to see if it's still on the system.

 

Then check the number out via:

 

WhoCallsMe

 

But if it's part of the Debt Industry, they will probably have hidden their number.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[banker_rhymes_with]

witheld number.

 

Yep, that figures.

 

Best not to take such hidden number calls, as none are worth taking in my experience. Anyone who is genuine will leave a message anyway.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[banker_rhymes_with]

If they have not issued a valid Default Notice on the Credit Card and then Terminated, that could give rise for a Claim against them for Unlawful Rescission of Contract.

 

They above also loses them any of the benefits of s87, so all they can claim for the Credit Card is the Arrears...assuming they even have an Agreement that is!

 

OK, that could reduce the Card Debt by 90% maybe, and you could then attack them back on the Counter-Claim issue...pick a figure for the damage this has done to you Financial Reputation.

 

Put that Counter-Claim amount against what is owed on the Credit Card Arrears (if any), plus the Charge Card Debt, and make sure the Counter-Claim results in them owing you and/or an overall Debt that is under £750!

 

It could be enough to thwart their BP?

 

Worth looking at anyway. If the Credit Card is the main Debt and they are almost admitting it can be ignored to emphasise the Charge Card...then hit back that the Credit Card issue is looking more like you have a Claim against Amex. The total for which could dwarf their actual claim and throw doubt on you owing anything at all.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited January 23, 2009 by banker_rhymes_with
Spelling

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello TraderX!

 

The latest copy of the Gold Card Application form is still a copy of a copy.

 

There's no way this is a copy of an Original Document placed into a modern Photocopier and reproduced recently.

 

The page of Terms they have added are yet another copy of a copy, and the copy copied is a lower quality copy than the one they copied based on the Application Form.

 

Putting copies of two documents back to back does not make an Enforceable Agreement...although that is what Amex want you and the Court to think.

 

I gather Amex were sold a lot of Copiers (with little Scanners attached to them) some years ago, and set about copying most of their Application Forms. They also seem to have had some/all copied to Microfiche in addition as well, hence what looks like two different quality copies of the same original Application Form.

 

They have produced the slightly better copy of your Application Form only a few days ago, but this is quite probably a little technique Amex likes to play, i.e. send people the Microfiche Copy initially, probably because it is more readily available as an Archive. Then, if push comes to shove, they pull the 2nd copy out from their other archive to make it look like they have dug something better out...the hint being it is a new copy of the actual original.

 

But is it?

 

What do you folks think?

 

If you were holding in your hot little hand an original two sided Agreement, and you copied that via any modern Photocopier, how would you expect that to come out?

 

Perfect?

 

Slightly imperfect?

 

Crabby?

 

One side being hugely crabby compared to the other?

 

I think if the latter, you'd be calling the Photocopier Engineer out to take a look at your Photocopier...because it's clearly having a very bad hair day!

 

What Amex have sent is not two sides of the same original document that were copied recently. It is not even two sides that were copied at the same time using the same equipment...otherwise how can the quality differ so much between front and the alleged back?

 

OK, so they don't have an original copy of your Gold Card Application Form.

 

How are they going to comply with CPR PD 16 7.3?

 

How does what they have sent relate to what the Chief Executive of the Office of Fair Trading thinks should be sent:

 

Letters from DTI /Oft Regarding CCA1974 Issues – Post #49

 

Where is the Default Notice?

 

In Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co, Judge LJ Kennedy said:

 

If an individual were said to have broken its terms they needed to know precisely what they were said to have done wrong and what they needed to do to put matters right. The lender had the ability and the resources to give that information, and if there was a failure to do so accurately then he could not take the next step.

 

No valid Default Notice, then Amex cannot take the next step. If Amex have Terminated your alleged Agreement without issuing a valid Default Notice, then they can never take the next step, as they have blown s87.

 

It would not then matter what they produced in terms of the Agreement, as they must follow s87/s88 to Terminate if they wish to be able to take the next step and enjoy the benefits of s87.

 

The above gives you two major issues that suggest Amex are on very thin ice when it comes to the alleged Credit Card portion of your alleged total Debts.

 

If Amex have Terminated unlawfully, then you do have a valid claim or Counter-Claim against them for banging out of their side of the alleged Agreement.

 

Do not forget they were, and remain, a large and sophisticated financial institution with an Army of lawyers at their disposal. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 was created to protect the Consumer, because, and I quote again form the above Case:

 

Most of those consumers were likely to be individuals, who would be at a disadvantage when contracting with a financial organisation, especially as the contract was likely to be in standard form and relatively complex.

 

Amex had a duty to get the original Agreement right, and yet they cannot actually produce the original copy to confirm this. They are pasting together documents to cover their tracks.

 

Likewise, they had a duty to follow s87/s88 to end the alleged Agreement when you were allegedly in default of their Terms...and yet despite their size and sophistication, they seem to be unable to produce any evidence of the very Default Notice that entitles them to take the next step.

 

Don't give up just yet. They think they are on a roll, but it's not over yet.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello TraderX!

 

My scanner isn't great and the copy i have here is more legible than what i have posted.

 

My problem is getting this across to AMEX and/or the registrar.

 

This is 2009.

 

Even allowing for reproduction issues from your own Scanner, I can see that what Amex have sent differs front to back.

 

Ask yourself how can that be if Amex have an original copy...with their deep pockets, what sort of Photocopiers do you think they can afford now?

 

The very best of course. So, how on earth have they managed to mung the two copies so badly? If they do have the original document, what they send in January 2009 should be nothing less than perfect.

 

Is isn't.

 

My problem is getting this across to AMEX and/or the registrar.

 

I'd concentrate on the Default Notice issue, as that is the weakest link that Amex appear to have no defence against.

 

No Default Notice, no s87 benefits, no right to take the next step.

 

Add to that the lack of an original copy of the alleged Credit Card Agreement. The Prescribed Terms must be within the four corners of the Agreement. The Court needs to see that original if they are to confirm if that was really the case.

 

No original Agreement?

 

Any Judge worth his/her salt should stop them there and then because of CPR PD 16 7.3, because the original Written Agreement cannot be produced in Court to be inspected. Remember what the OFT Chief Executive had to say about that.

 

If no original Agreement, then whatever they produce is hearsay evidence, and that falls straight into The Civil Evidence Act 1995 territory.

 

For a Court to even begin to take such hearsay evidence seriously, then Amex will need actual hard evidence to back up that the copy is a copy of the original. They'd need to bring to Court conclusive evidence along the following lines:

 

The Legal Admissibility of information stored on Electronic Document Management Systems

 

Amex will try to bluff past such issues by producing a Witness Statement from some tame banker or other who will swear blind the Terms were on the back of the Application Form...well, they would say that wouldn't they!

 

In reality, any such Witness Statement needs to be cranked around and made to face up to the CEA-1995 and Document Management issues above.

 

It has been said that Amex may not even be ISO Rated! If so, then what sort of Document Management System are they actually operating?

 

Or, if they are ISO Rated, then they should have no problem producing the ISO Document Management Audit evidence that would be expected of them. Read the above link to get a feel for what sort of records they should be keeping, then ask yourself why Amex seem to be so very reluctant to furnish them.

 

Destroying a Statutory Document/Written Agreement was never wise, but doing so without a suitable ISO based Document Management System in place was just plain negligent.

 

Coming to Court with bits of documents merged front to back via sticky tape and glue, should be ridiculed for the stupidity it is.

 

and of course i have the charge card problem too...................

 

You do, but the Credit Card is the largest part of the alleged Debt, and if you can show that is in serious dispute and gives rise to a serious Counter-Claim against Amex for the way they have ended their side of the alleged Agreement, the numbers get a lot smaller.

 

This might just tip the balance into your favour, and/or may bring you within striking distance of being able to pay off the Charge Card and kill the Bankruptcy Order.

 

All I can suggest is you bone up on the above, and become totally familiar with the CEA-1995 and Document Management issues. Then relate that to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the way Amex needed to conduct things from day one until Termination. I think you will agree that they have not conducted things in a way that reflects well upon their actual duties and obligations.

 

The real icing on your cake would be if you can find anything at all that might suggest the Charge Card was Regulated by the Act. Cash Advance facility, or anything that allowed you on-going Credit...long shot, I know, but if you can find that, then the Charge Card would become a problem for them as well.

 

Amex are a hostile bunch, but the same rules apply to them as any other banker. Amex seems to think the Laws of England do not apply to them, they are wrong.

 

More and more people are standing up to them, but I do fully appreciate it is by no means an easy task to do so.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello TraderX!

 

Cash Advance facility, hmmmm..............

 

what do you mean by that?

 

Well, I had a (non-Amex) Business Charge Card that at face value was not Regulated.

 

Then I did some digging and read the Terms that I had kept on file (I keep everything on File, a habit that is now causing the bankers no end of problems).

 

I found out many interesting things:

 

(1) My Agreement was Partly-Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I think that was to give them the benefits of s87/s88, i.e. should they need to issue a Default Notice and enjoy s87 post Termination.

 

(2) If the original Agreement was discussed and negotiated off the premises of the bank (they were), and negotiations were made by an employee of the bank (they were), and Cash Advance facilities were discussed (yes they were) and the Agreement was signed away from the bank (yep, that too)...then it seems I needed to be sent a different Agreement to sign than the one I was given...i.e. an Agreement that was Fully Regulated by the Act, not just Partly-Regulated.

 

I can only assume that was because the Cash Advance facility was a form of instant Credit, so fell under the requirements that it must be Regulated.

 

But the bank concerned clearly knew it raised issues, and stated that a different Agreement would then be needed instead (all stated in the Terms).

 

The bank in question did not send me the fully Regulated Agreement! IOW, it seems they made a major mistake and issued the Charge Card on the basis of the incorrect Agreement they left with me to sign and return.

 

This may not help you but, if something similar applies to you, even in just one area, then there may yet be a glimmer of hope on the Charge Card issue. If it's Regulated, even Partly-Regulated, then Default Notice issues may apply for example.

 

To summarise, it seems that Charge Cards can be Unregulated, Partly-Regulated or Fully-Regulated, depending on how negotiations were conducted, and upon the facilities that the Card offered, either at the outset, or ones that were added later, such as Amex Flexi Account additions to stretch a Charge Card until it adopted very Credit Card like facilities.

 

Long shot...but worth investigating while you have the chance to do so.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello TraderX!

 

If its unregulated, then how can they 'enforce' it?

 

I think it then falls under the usual Business Contract issues, i.e. you had the money, they can prove you had the money etc.

 

The protection of being Regulated is not then there. The above would not be enough to Enforce a Regulated Agreement (despite what some banks like to think), but is enough to enforce an non-Regulated Agreement.

 

The Charge Card was meant to be a Business Card that was paid off at the end of every Month.

 

I'm just guessing now, but the type of Credit offered would probably not then be one that requires the Agreement to be Regulated...something along those lines.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello TraderX!

 

WRT the Charge Card and Cash Withdrawal issues, the following Post by Atwozee could be worth reading, together with the Appeal Court Judgement:

 

Multiple agreements falling within section 18 CCA 1974 - Post #644

 

The Appeal Case being:

 

OFT v Lloyds, Tesco and Amex

 

This is the bit to read:

 

59. The difficulty for Mr Hapgood is that if the card can only be used to purchase goods or services from those suppliers who have agreed to accept the card, it cannot make any difference who has made the arrangements with them. The note on section 11 of the Consumer Credit Act at page 1252 of Part 2 of Civil Procedure 2005 provides an example of a restricted-use agreement by reference to the use of credit cards. The way in which the note expresses the position is of interest because it is just as apposite to the four-party structure as to the three-party structure, the identity of the person making any arrangement with the supplier being irrelevant. The note says:-

 

"A s.11(1)(b) situation arises where the creditor and the supplier are two different persons, e.g. where the customer uses his regulated credit card to pay for goods or services. The credit card issuer (the creditor) provides credit to the customer to enable the customer to buy from the retailer. The customer's contract of purchase is with the retailer; his credit card agreement with the card issuer is a restricted-use credit agreement within s.11(1)(b). It is "restricted" use because, although the card can no doubt be used at many retail outlets, it is not available for use absolutely anywhere. If the card-holder (the debtor) is able to draw cash on his credit card account, he is, of course, free to use that cash as he chooses. In that case the credit card agreement is a "multiple agreement" (within s.18(1)(a); when the debtor uses the card to pay for goods or services, the agreement is one for restricted-use credit within s.11(1)(b); when the debtor uses it to draw cash, it is an unrestricted-use credit agreement (see Sched. II, Pt II, Example 16)."

 

 

I think it may help to show how a Cash Withdrawal feature changes the nature of the Credit. If you only use the Charge Card to make Purchases, you can only Buy from Suppliers who accept the Card. IOW, Suppliers who already have an arrangement with, say, Amex.

 

If a Retailer does not accept Amex, then you cannot use your Amex Charge Card to Buy from them.

 

But, if your Charge Card has a Cash Withdrawal facility, then you can obviously nip over to the Cash Point next door, draw out Cash, and pop back to the same Retailer to Buy what you could not otherwise Buy using the Amex Charge Card iteself. Indeed, as you can also Buy anywhere else you jolly well feel like Buying from using Cash Pound Notes. Thus, the supplier can then be someone who does not have an Arrangement to accept the Charge Card.

 

Cash Pound Notes changes the classification of the type of Credit, so a Cash Withdrawal feature should then fall within the Act because of this, and that aspect then needs to be Regulated accordingly. Hence the fact that some Charge Cards are at least Partly-Regulated and some Fully-Regulated, usually because of the above Cash Withdrawal issues (although there may be other issues too, depending on where the Agreement was made and who negotiated it).

 

That's how I read it anyway.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited January 29, 2009 by banker_rhymes_with
Clarity.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Traderx!

 

OK, all a bit of a mess for Amex, although they will swear blind they do not have a problem.

 

Going back to the alleged Agreement, if you can suspend your disbelief for a few moments and assume the Terms they say were on the back of it, really were on the back of the Application Form, then did they state a Credit Limit that matched the one you did get?

 

I note there is a Table of Limits and Rates, but is yours there? If not, then that could mean a Prescribed Term is either missing or not stated in a way you could possibly fathom...see s127(3) in that case!

 

Moving on, although it is hard to read, the Terms have a Clause 3 and a Clause 7.2. However, Clause 7.2 relates to Interest, and Clause 3 I can't read, but it doesn't seem to relate to making Payments.

 

Default Notice

 

42man has already spotted that they have failed to allow you 14 Clear Days from Date of Service. 13/05/2007 was a Sunday. Thus, they could not have Posted the Default Notice until Monday 14/05/2007.

 

Even if they had used 1st Class Post, then delivery would be deemed to be within 2 Working Days of that, so Date of Service would not have taken place until 16/05/2007 and 14 Clear Days takes us to 30/05/2007.

 

However, they say 14 Calendar Days from the Date of this Notice. That makes a Deadline of 26/05/2007.

 

Thus, you were not given 14 Clear Days...Parliament made it clear it had to be 14 Clear Days, not 13, 12, 11, 10, or 10.25 Days.

 

It gets better...

 

Going back to those Terms, i.e. Clause 3 and Clause 7.2, they don't match the Default Notice. So which Terms do they mean? 7.2 relates to Interest, it makes no mention of Debt Recovery Costs.

 

Are there any unlawful charges on the Account? If so, then the default sum could also be pants too...IOW, it's not accurate.

 

Plus, they have failed to give underlined words greater emphasis relative to words next to them, so if all are Upper Case already then, i.e.:

 

THEY HAVE DONE IT LIKE THIS

 

WHEN IT SHOULD BE LIKE THIS

 

OR IT SHOULD BE LIKE THIS

 

Finally, note that they have a little clause 10.2 that says they can Terminate at any time by giving immediate notice. Well, they would say that, but it can be argued that is an unfair Contract Term, as it puts them into a much stronger position than you, i.e. you have a right to Terminate at any time, but are unlikely to want to do so if you have a large balance. Whereas it puts them in a strong position if they can ask for a large balance back at any time.

 

Moving on again...this is clearly a default situation, so the Act makes it clear they must follow s87 and s88. You know it's a default situation because they said so both before and after Termination.

 

Before Termination: they said so in the Default Notice, i.e. you have failed to make payments, and they state a default sum.

 

After Termination: they said so in the Termination letter, because they tell you that they will be registering a Default with the Credit Reference Agencies.

 

Thus, they cannot try to use s98 and their own Clause 10.2, because s98(6) makes it clear that s98 cannot be used in a default situation. That then takes away any slight hope that the Act supports their 10.2 Clause via s98...it doesn't and arguably never did anyway.

 

That leaves them with s87/s88...Termination in a Default Situation!

 

To get that right, they need to issue a valid Default Notice that complies with s88, that's if they are to enjoy the benefits of s87. The benefits being the right to Terminate and the right to take the next step to ask you for early payment of sums that were only due in the future.

 

They cocked up the Default Notice, and then Terminated, and all of that was whilst in a default situation by their own admission and by their own actions.

 

They have therefore blown their s87 benefits, and for ever, as the Agreement is now ended, and so they can't now go back and fix the defective Default Notice.

 

They have no right of action.

 

I do hope this will lift your spirits.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited March 18, 2009 by banker_rhymes_with
Added points...

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Traderx!

 

...and another thing...

 

Did they send you a Signed Statement of Account along with your s78(1) Response?

 

I bet they didn't!

 

In which case, they are still in default of your request, long after the request was made.

 

In that case, they were constrained via s78(6) ages ago, and should not have issued a Default Notice, and should not now be taking you to Court in any case.

 

I can't think of much else they could get wrong...they seemed to have more or less covered everything!

 

I'd send them a CPR 18 Request now asking for copies of all of your Statements (if you do not have them), so you can start picking through them to look for unlawful charges.

 

I'd also send them a SAR anyway, just to see what sort of Agreement comes back from that...so you can compare it to the other one! That has to be worth £10 plus Special Delivery.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Traderx!

 

I need to reread your post to ensure i have got it all right and understand exactly what you are saying...

If you need anything clarifying, just ask. If I'm not around, someone else will jump in.

 

...then go through the statements and collate all the charges and total them up.

 

Then i guess i file a counter claim for the charges plus interest.??

Yes, certainly.

 

Also, make sure you get the message across that the charges undermined the alleged default total they stated on the Default Notice. Refunding them won't alter the fact that they rendered the default sum inaccurate at the time of the Default Notice, rendering the Notice itself defective (on that basis alone, let alone all the others)!

 

Amex will probably try to refund those to pretend they are being helpful, but if they have blown the Default Notice and Termination, then the sum total of what they can ask from you is £249.00!

 

That being the sum that was due before Termination. All the rest was only due after Termination. Amex kissed that goodbye when they screwed the pooch on s87.

 

This is a link to The Consumer Credit Act 1974, use that to click on the various sections to see what things like s78(1), s78(6), s98(6), s127(3) actually mean:

 

Results within legislation - Statute Law Database

 

I hope this has all helped.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited March 19, 2009 by banker_rhymes_with
Typo, Clarity. Another Typo!

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Traderx!

 

Cant believe the court doesnt have the correct address

 

Mmm...things going to the wrong Address is a favourite Amex Trick, so I'd contact the Court straight away and make a very strong complaint.

 

Ask them who gave them your old Address.

 

But make sure your new Address goes on record from the Complaint Letter onwards.

 

Cheers,

BRW