Cap 1 reclaim advice

[Smudge052]

Sound advice m16.

 

I've got most of the details for the n1 sorted out now but am still slightly confused. Is it section 5 of the UTCCR 1999? I've looked it up but don't want to get that wrong. Also do you know if its the initial (in my case £85) fee that you put as the court costs or the defence fee as well? I'm also flummuxed about the value box on the N1. I assume its the total value of claim, but thats got a seperate box of its own??

 

If it helps I got the same letter as you, about late payments being charged at 29%. They've also tried to charge me an extra £26 for sundries. Desperation I feel!

[m16mae]

Hi Smudge,

pm me your email address and i'll scan and send you a copy of my n1 and couple of other bits tomorrow. I'll be at work alone so i'll have time to burn.

[Smudge052]

Thanks for that m16,

 

After a lot of internet searching I managed to find out about the value box, ie not needed if its a fixed sum, but if you can do that then that'd be great.

[Smudge052]

N1 went in today. Hopefully I haven't made a rickets of it! Will let everyone know what Cap1 do.

[the_shadow]

PS- My cheque from them only took 1 week to arrive.

PPS - They have repeatedly ignored my request to remove markers from my credit file. Saving that for court.

 

You dont have your own thread so apologies to Smudge....

 

They shouldnt be marking your file while the account balance is in dispute, especially if its a court case.

 

Banking code “13.6 We may give information to Credit Reference Agencies about the personal debts you owe us if: the amount owned is not being disputed”

 

and because they are bound under the CPUTR2008 to conform to their own code of practice or any code they are a signee to, they are in serious breach.

 

 

Regulation 5 states:-

5.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading action if it satisfies the conditions in either

paragraph (2) or paragraph (3).

(3) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph if—

(a) it concerns any marketing of a product (including comparative advertising) which creates

confusion with any products, trade marks, trade names or other distinguishing marks of a

competitor; or

(b) it concerns any failure by a trader to comply with a commitment contained in a code of

conduct which the trader has undertaken to comply with, if—

(i) the trader indicates in a commercial practice that he is bound by that code of

conduct

 

S.

[Smudge052]

No apologies necessary Shadow. I'll let m16 hijack my thread as he's played a blinder for me so far!

 

Smudge

[Smudge052]

Well my Cap1 claim has been processed by the courts and they've stayed the s*dding thing! Anyone know how I go about getting the stay lifted? I assume the judge has skip read it and confused it with bank charges.

 

Not HP.

 

Smudge

[maroondevo52]

Hi, Smudge.

 

Just had a look for the application to lift the stay, apparently this is work in progress, I'll try to find out whats the score with progress.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

[Smudge052]

Cheers Scott.

 

Any help would be gratefully received. I'm certainly not getting it from the court.

 

Smudge

[maroondevo52]

Hi, Smudge.

 

One of our Mods Martin3030,has done this twice and been successful.

 

Best thing to do is to file the N244 and a witness statement .

Supporting arguement is that 1. the OFT investigated credit card fees in 2006.As a result,Credit Card issuers agreed to reduce charges.

 

2.Credit card terms and conditions were not featured in the OFT test case,specifically that the OFT test case is concerned only with bank current accounts,and not credit or store cards.

 

3.The OFT info for customers which tells "What the Test case will be looking into" (is on their website)

 

In some instances the Credit Card issuers are not even part of the 8 banks in the Oft test case ie Citibank Alliance and Leicester + more.

 

In his applications to have the stays lifted,he enclosed copies of the OFT reports into credit card charges.

Also the terms and conditions (a list of) those supplied to Judge Smith for his rulings if their bank WAS part of the test case.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

[Smudge052]

Hi Scott.

 

Thanks for the information its much needed. I called the court today to see what their reasoning behind the stay was, and was told that because it is "similar" to the b/c test case it was being considered by the judge along those lines. They've told me to send in a standard letter format to challenge it, so I'll try that 1st off, and then head down the N244 route when that invariably fails! I'll use the same information you gave me and see how it pans out.

 

It seems either the judge/court needs educating (although I'm sure they've had these claims before) or its a tactic to stall people because of sheer weight of numbers.

 

Smudge

[Smudge052]

Anyone got any advice on how this can be improved?

Cheers, Smudge

Dear Court Manager.

I have recently received judgement from ***** County Court that my claim against Capital One Bank (Europe) Plc for the reclaim of Credit Card Charges has been stayed by Deputy District Judge ****** until further order, dated the 9th of July 2009. I telephoned the court today and was instructed to write a letter to explain why I feel that this stay has been incorrectly applied.

I was informed during the course of the telephone conversation, that the stay had been applied due to the similarity between my claim and the current test case relating to the reclaim of bank charges.

My reasons for asking for my case to be heard in isolation from any link to the current bank charges test case and for the stay to be lifted are as follows:

• The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) investigated credit card fees in 2006 and found them to be unfair. As a result, Credit Card issuers agreed to reduce their charges.
  

• Credit card terms and conditions were not featured in the OFT test case, specifically that the OFT test case is concerned only with bank current accounts, and not credit or store cards.
  

• In my particular case, Capital One Bank (Europe) is not one of the 8 banks participating in the OFT test case and does not operate current accounts, so should not be limited by the generic stay applied to all current account cases.
  

I would respectfully ask that this judgement be reconsidered, as I am aware of no outstanding generic stay on the reclaim of Credit Card charges. I also understand that there are many people who have successfully sought the reimbursement of Credit Card charges without their claim being processed in relation to the Bank charges test case; which I understand to be related to the penalties attached to current account overdraft charges.

I have attached a copy of the OFT report on Credit Card Charges dated April 2006, with reference to my request.

Yours Sincerely.

[the_shadow]

Anyone got any advice on how this can be improved?

 

Cheers, Smudge

 

Dear Court Manager.

 

I have recently received notification from the ***** County Court that my claim against Capital One Bank (Europe) Plc for the reclaim of Credit Card Charges has been stayed by Deputy District Judge ****** until further order, dated the 9th of July 2009. I telephoned the court today and was instructed to write a letter to explain why I feel that this stay has been incorrectly applied.

 

I was informed during the course of the telephone conversation, that the stay had been applied due to the similarity between my claim and the current test case relating to the reclaim of bank charges.

 

My reasons for asking for my case to be heard in isolation from any link to the current bank charges test case and for the stay to be lifted are as follows:

 

• The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) investigated credit card fees in 2006 and found them to be unfair. As a result, Credit Card issuers agreed to reduce their charges.(Do you really want to put this if you are claiming for all amounts back and not just at the value the OFT set as the bar amount)
  
  

 

• Credit card terms and conditions were not featured in the OFT Banking charges test case, specifically that the OFT Bank Charges test case is concerned only with bank current accounts, and not credit or store cards.
  

 

• In my particular case, Capital One Bank (Europe) is not one of the 8 banks participating in the OFT test case and does not operate current accounts, so should not be limited by the generic stay applied to all current account cases.
  

 

I would respectfully ask that this stay be reconsidered, as I am aware of no outstanding generic stay on the reclaim of Credit Card charges. I also understand that there are many people who have successfully sought the reimbursement of Credit Card charges without their claim being processed in relation to the Bank charges test case; which I understand to be related to the penalties attached to current account overdraft charges.

 

I have attached a copy of the OFT report on Credit Card Charges dated April 2006, with reference to my request.

 

Yours Sincerely.

 

Just my observations

 

S.

[Smudge052]

Now you come to mention it shadow, it probably isn't a good idea to put the sentence in saying that they reduced the charges. I'll defo edit that one out.

The rest of the suggestions are probably necessary come to think of it. They seem to be unsure of the location of their arses and elbows so I'll get rid of the ambiguous bits as highlighted.

 

Ta.