uptoeyeballs v American Express credit card CCA

[uptoeyeballs]

Nothing from the court as yet. I know it's not been long, but the suspense...

 

Amex have sent a SAR follow up with a default notice template with the 14 day wording which would have beem good enough when it was 7 days after service.

 

It could be a mistake/fob off or they are trying to set me up. I suspect the latter.

 

So, I'm hunting for an early 2005 default notice. If anyone has posted/spotted one a link would be appreciated. Will obviously ask permission to use in court if the need arises.

 

uteb

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello UTEB!

 

I think in 2005, they may have been using the wording payment within 10 calendar days from the date of this Notice. So, if they are saying they said 14 days, they are almost certainly lying.

 

The 10 days is a PITA, but it's invalid, because it does not allow 7 clear days even when Posted 1st Class on a Working Monday:

 

Monday

Tuesday = Amex Day 1

Wednesday

Thursday = Amex Day 3 - 1st Clear Day

Friday = Amex Day 4 - 2nd Clear Day

Saturday = Amex Day 5 - 3rd Clear Day

Sunday = Amex Day 6 - 4th Clear Day

Monday = Amex Day 7 - 5th Clear Day

Tuesday = Amex Day 8 - 6th Clear Day

Wednesday = Amex Day 9 - 7th Clear Day

Thursday = = Amex Day 10 Payment within this

 

Thus, Parliament demands that you are given 7 clear days from Service, so the earliest deadline they can set would be the last Thursday above. Whereas they want payment within 10 calendar days, so Parliament says you must pay by the last Thursday, whereas they want payment within ten calendar days, so that would suggest Wednesday before, although in this extreme example where every single factor is in their favour, it's right on the borderline.

 

So, the real killer for them is class of Postage, date of the Notice, and the day they Posted.

 

They like to Date their Notices on Sundays, so that would sink them, because it would bring their deadline further into the clear days that Parliament demands you must be given.

 

Likewise, if they cannot prove 1st Class, then add at least +2 working days to the Postage (i.e. more if a weekend follows straight after Postage), and that sinks them, because their own Deadline is then moved still further into the clear days that Parliament demands you must have.

 

Finally, if they Posted on, say, a Friday, then even 1st Class has the weekend added to the Postage, so this rats it up for them even further.

 

OK, get onto Google, and hunt out a late 2005 or early 2006 Arsemex DN to show what wording they were using.

 

HTH

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited May 21, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Typo

[Desperate Daniella]

That's brilliant, BRW. It would never have occurred to me to Google for a particular year's default notice.

 

DD

[uptoeyeballs]

The 10 days is a PITA

Cheers BRW!

 

Not found a default notice from the right period as yet, but I like this from Rankine:

The default notice was sent under cover of a letter dated 18 January 2005. It. was stated to enclose a default notice and required rectification of the situation within 10 days. It stated the current balance to be £5,978.66, arrears to be £347.00 and credit limit £5,800.00.The default notice under the heading “Description of the breach” set out the figures as in the previous paragraph and went on to say:

 

Now where's my 2005 calandar.....

 

uteb

[uptoeyeballs]

Ok, so the dates look like this:

 

Wednesday

Thursday = Amex Day 1

Friday

Saturday = Amex Day 3 - 1st Clear Day

Sunday = Amex Day 4 - 2nd Clear Day

Monday = Amex Day 5 - 3rd Clear Day

Tuesday = Amex Day 6 - 4th Clear Day

Wednesday = Amex Day 7 - 5th Clear Day

Thursday = Amex Day - 6th Clear Day

Friday = Amex Day 9 - 7th Clear Day

Saturday = Amex Day 10 Payment within this

Sunday = Amex Day 11 - 9th Clear Day

Monday = Amex Day 12 - 10th Clear Day

Tuesday

 

So, I think, unless it was 2nd class it's ok.

 

It does show that the template is not the correct one though.

 

uteb.

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi uteb,

 

You could start a new thread headed, "Amex 2005 Default Notice needed urgently". If you post the link here we can keep bumping it.

 

DD

[uptoeyeballs]

Hi uteb,

 

You could start a new thread headed, "Amex 2005 Default Notice needed urgently". If you post the link here we can keep bumping it.

 

DD

 

Good idea DD!

 

It's over here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/amex/252894-amex-2005-default-notice.html

 

uteb

[uptoeyeballs]

Checked with the court today and the application is with the judge. Didn't know when they would get it back.

 

uteb.

[uptoeyeballs]

Called the court and they confimed receipt of my application the day after it was sent and......

......now they don't know where it is!

 

Sent them a copy.

 

uteb

[Desperate Daniella]

How very helpful of them.

[uptoeyeballs]

Hello!

 

Have a hearing date a few weeks away. Hopefully that means the judge hasn't thrown it out straight away.

 

Printer is hot!

 

uteb

[Desperate Daniella]

Moving forward then!

 

DD

[uptoeyeballs]

Moving forward then!

 

DD

 

 

I hope so DD!

 

Thanks for looking in, it always gives be a bit of a boost.

 

uteb

[uptoeyeballs]

Hello!

 

No long until my set aside application hearing. Not having done this before I'm unsure of what will happen.

 

I think:

- I check with the court a few days before to make sure nothing has changed

- I don't do anything else before the hearing

- I turn up with 3 copies of the application, WS, exhibits and case law

- at the hearing I explain why I did not originally defend, the delay and set out my defence. Basically what is in my WS.

 

Is that right?

 

Thanks.

 

uteb

[uptoeyeballs]

Bumpy...

[Desperate Daniella]

Sorry, uteb, I obviously missed the last email alert.

 

I think that's all you need to do. Just make sure you have loads of post it notes on all three copies of the documents so you and the judge can find them quickly.

 

Love,

DDx

[uptoeyeballs]

Cheers DD!

[uptoeyeballs]

Hello!

 

A change of solicitor to......

......you guessed it......Mishcon.

 

Mishcon tips anyone?

 

uteb

[Desperate Daniella]

Shakey can best advise on them!!

[uptoeyeballs]

Hi all,

 

Didn't get what I wanted and took the hit on costs, but actually, I don't feel that bad about it and the judge and other side were quite reasonable.

 

I had originally started this as a set aside, but it became apparent after the N1 was was submitted that was not the way to go.

 

I learnt a lot from that short visit to the court. Having never been in a court I had little idea what to expect.

 

So onto the useful stuff to share.....

 

The judge confirmed I could not set aside a judgment under admission.

 

He was receptive to CPR 14 and although I had prepared well what would be my defence I hadn't put much effort into CPR 14, although I think it unlikely I would have got a different outcome.

 

Under CPR 14 information you have only just got hold of, but could have had if you sought it at the time of the original claim do not count as new evidence.

 

Under CPR 14 the fact that someone gave you bad advice doesn't help. Your recourse is back to person/company that gave you that advice.

 

Amex kindly offered some information on their skeleton argument (which suggests they thought a withdrawal of admission possible) and apart from the usual Rankine/Carey there were 2 I've never heard of and cannot find on the forum, although they also kindly provided hard copies of these. Amex v Brandon and Amex v Harrison.

 

I'm going to read up on these as from a quick skim they seem to be concerned with a blank back being acceptable.

 

Off for now, be back if I find anything useful.

 

uteb

[citizenB]

Sorry to hear this, uteb, but you seem quite positive about the outcome.

[GeoffreyAlby]

Im lead to believe that Amex v Brandon is going to Court of Appeal? Can anyone shed any light on this?

[uptoeyeballs]

Im lead to believe that Amex v Brandon is going to Court of Appeal? Can anyone shed any light on this?

 

The document I have says the appeal was dismissed on 25/5/10.

 

I need to get some time to read these properly because I think it will help others.

 

Brandon was in the High Court, but Harrison looks like County.

 

Of course, if someone already knows these cases maybe they could comment....

[GeoffreyAlby]

The document I have says the appeal was dismissed on 25/5/10.

 

I need to get some time to read these properly because I think it will help others.

 

Brandon was in the High Court, but Harrison looks like County.

 

Of course, if someone already knows these cases maybe they could comment....

 

The 25th May decision was the High Court sitting at a County Court, I thought that it was now being taken to the Court of Appeal subsequent to that decision.

[uptoeyeballs]

The 25th May decision was the High Court sitting at a County Court, I thought that it was now being taken to the Court of Appeal subsequent to that decision.

 

In that case I don't know.....