Curious twist on two CCA requests-they are taking me to Court!

[paulwlton]

Paul, I think what you are actually saying here is that the request has never been received by the creditor. Did you send it by recorded delivery or has the £1 cheque been cleared from your account? If you can prove they did receive it then their defence is not reasonable. Otherwise Trading Standards are probably right and you will have to start again with a request but this time make sure you use recorded delivery. There can be no doubt then and they cannot use non-receipt as a defence.

 

 

 

The £1 cheque was cashed i have this on a statement, it was used to reduce the balance.

The request was sent recorded and Trading Standards were made aware of this.

The CC company whilst in criminal default charged unlawful charges, interest, and a default notice was sent out, the amount as been refunded now but the dispute goes on.

 

Paul

[Laiste]

Hi everyone,

 

Well just to put you all in the picture, a telephone hearing is set to take place next Tues. HFC and their sols are obviously worried about something though....I rang the Court yesterday and was informed as part of the conversation with the member of staff, that the sols were querying the hearing going ahead by telephone! I have the feeling that they are very concerned that the Judge will be able to hear both parties speak, but that they won't be able to hear what we're saying!

 

I have two Q's for you knowledgeable people. Firstly, is it possible to obtain a transcript from my telephone provider of incoming telephone calls? The reason I ask is, I want to gather evidence that the phone call HFC said took place on the 24th Jan between myself and them, didn't happen. Any thoughts anyone?

 

Secondly, can someone tell me about collection charges on a credit card? I have just discovered from some docs sent to me by the sols that HFC added a £1500 charge! My instinct tells me that this will be in contravention of consumer regs and other legislation, but I want to understand how they operate.

 

Many thanks in advance.

 

Laiste.

[Guest Battleaxe]

Laiste,

 

You might not be able to get a transcript, but your telephone provider might have a log of who rang you. I am thinking something similar to the itemised bill you get of your outgoing calls. of course you could try to get a copy of the sols itemised outgoing account (fat chance). Have you spoken to your service provider about this?

[PriorityOne]

Secondly, can someone tell me about collection charges on a credit card? I have just discovered from some docs sent to me by the sols that HFC added a £1500 charge! My instinct tells me that this will be in contravention of consumer regs and other legislation, but I want to understand how they operate.

 

 

Hi Laiste,

 

You may/may not find this thread useful... re-claiming charges...

 

HFC Bank taking me to court ... but thought I would draw your attention to it anyway.

 

[Laiste]

Hi Guys,

 

Thanks for your replies, much appreciated!

 

The collection charge seems to be added on BY HFC AFTER they default you, BEFORE they pass to a DCA/ ''solicitor'' . They claim its 16.3% or something but refuse to provide a break down, and shock horror can't supply the original agreement that states this term.

 

Thanks Karnevil for that. I was furious when I received the documents from the solicitor, detailing this charge, as I wasn't aware of it. The cretins have said they are prepared to deduct this figure from the amount owing, obviously this is an act of sheer kindness of their part! Not! I have to say my 1st thought was that this had to be a penalty of some kind and their seemingly magnanimous act made me even more suspicious as to the legality of it!

 

It's very interesting that you say they didn't supply the orig agreement that states the term. I decided to write to HFC yesterday, asking them to explain what the charge is, provide a detailed financial breakdown of how its calculated and also furnish a copy of the terms & conditions highlighting the provision that relates to this charge. I have been dealing with a senior bod at HFC, I sent it by g/d and have given her 7 days to respond. I won't hold my breath....!

 

I have some more news! Nothing happens for a while and then it's frenetic activity! Firstly, the claimants are supposed to write to us b4 the telephone hearing to organise it, that's their responsibilty. Nothing in the post this morning and the hearing is on Tues!

 

Secondly, you will recall that I submitted a letter to the Crt, asking for the Judge's reasons for not striking out their app notice and granting us Judgment by Default. Well, the letter arrived this morning. His actual brief, but very interesting, response was, "The claimants application clearly warrants a hearing. I am not prepared to strike it out on paper."

 

So what do you make of that.....?

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.

[Laiste]

"IF" being the operative word! I think they are very worried, having been found out in a big lie. Their sol has submitted a witness stmt attesting that the claimants (HFC) only received the Court Order on the 24th Jan. I sent to all parties last wk, amongst other things, a copy of the guaranteed delivery postage slip, which confirms it was the 17th Jan! Their whole case at this point hinges on when they say they received it and given that the postage proof is irrefutible, that's going to be one difficult corner to get out of....!

 

It's never a wise move to lie to the Court, you're bound to get found out at some point, particularly if said untruths seem to be habitual!

 

Laiste.

[Guest Battleaxe]

Laiste,

 

The Judges are itching to hear the Defences, but are not being given the opportunity because the banks et al are backing off at the last minute. I think also the Judges realise, we have researched our claims and the banks are using industry standard for their excuse and telling other untruths as to the receipt of mail and the like. We are one step ahead of the average joe blow and i don't mean to insul;t anyone with that remark, just that we are covering all bases and not allowing these Houses of Shylock any wriggle room at all.

 

Surprising that they haven't orgasnised a conference call, is this going to be a last minute rush on Monday eveing for it. It has to be booked for the hook up for the three way conversation. I used to have organise conference calls and we had to book them two working days before the event with all the participants notified that the call has been arranged for such and such a time. Makes me wonder are they going to offer a settlement at the 11 hour?

[The Lantana]

Laiste

 

Given the history it may well be the Judge is quite excited about this case. It's certainly going to be a little more interesting than the usual uncontested claims they face. If he had granted judgement in default then presumably it could be appealed which would also give the other side even more time.

 

Your firing on all cylinders now, watch out HFC!

 

Regards

 

Lantana

[Laiste]

I agree Battleaxe, we are one step ahead of many people, as we know we have to be absolutely meticulous in everything we do. Silly mistakes can be very costly and you have to be on the ball always! As you say, it pays to give them no wriggle room whatsoever, which will always catch them out, given their propensity to lie, and IMO they don't seem to know how to do anything else!

 

Well who knows what's going through their strange minds in respect of the telephone hearing! They are infamous now for doing things at the very last minute! I am preparing for it to go ahead, I think this is brinkmanship on their part. If they think I'm going to cave in prior to a telephone hearing, they're going to be very disappointed!

 

I hadn't thought of the situation like that Lantana! I imagine this David and Goliath battle is much more interesting for the Judge than the usual mundane uncontested claims! They could have appealed if the Judge had simply given Judgment, which would not have been a desirable outcome. Much better, that when (or more to the point if) the Judge asks, so why have you told blatant lies to the Court? I will be able to hear the err, um, oh, pass, can I have a less difficult question?

 

I'm ready to face them now!

 

Laiste.

[Laiste]

Hi everyone!

 

As part of HFC's sols witness stmt received this week, in addition to removing the collection charge, they have said they are deducting the penalty charges, as there is no point in arguing over, to quote them, "minor" issue! What a nerve! There is no mention of the interest charged on these penalties, or compensation for levying them in the 1st place, which would be applicable under the consumer regs 99. My argument isn't really to do with the int + compensation, I am very much preoccupied with the thought that they may be able to take the charges out of the issues examined at trial (if we get that far)!

 

Of course we all know they will do anything rather than go to Court over these charges. I have ideas to prevent them getting the charges simply deducted from the debt. However, I would be very interested to hear anyone's thoughts on this issue! As far as I'm concerned it's a term in their contract, also some of these charges were levied to the a/c, early on in the agreement, and merit scrutiny at trial. They cannot unilaterally remove them, just because examination of them would jeopardise a multi million pound industry. Comments anyone...?

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.

[Guest Battleaxe]

Looks like the little devils don't wont the Judge to question them on the charges during the telphone hearing. This get more interesting Laiste

[The Lantana]

First they claim one amount, then deduct a big fat charge and claim a second, reduced, amount. Then they deduct more charges and claim a third even smaller amount - and this still isn't right because interest hasn't been deducted. They're making it up as they going along, m'lud.

 

Presumably by leaving the interest in they can be asked to account for it and therefore, indirectly, the charges. Alternatively, could you call their whole interest calculation into question and have the entire interest element of their claim struck out?

 

Addressing your preoccupation, I'm not sure it's legitimate for a creditor to unilaterally adjust an account, taking out the effect of unlawful charges and interest, AFTER serving a default notice on the debtor. Surely the default notice is then defective and enforcement by court proceedings cannot be initiated....

 

Dear HFC

 

GOTCHA!

 

Signed

 

Laiste

 

If I was HFC I'd look to fire my solicitor's if in-house, or sue if an outside firm. That to me is HFC's best option to recover monies in this instance.

 

Please God let me be right.

 

Regards

 

Lantana

[Laiste]

Hi Battleaxe,

 

I think this is what one might refer to as a fight to the death! Comical I thought that the sol referred to the charges issue as minor! Yeah right! They are playing a high stakes strategy with this whole case now, which may just backfire entirely on Tues! We have proof that they've lied and it's only a short step for the Judge to conclude that there is no credibility in anything they've said!

 

As a further string to our bow, on Fri we discovered that the bundle of docs that had to be furnished to both us and the Court by the 31st Jan, haven't been sent to the Court! On Thurs the Court received a witness stmt from them which incidentally included also the same paperwork that was sent to us on the 1st Feb, but that's a mnth late! They are such morons! HFC only sent documents to us, when they were instructed to provide copies to the Crt also! How many cock-ups to date

is that...? I've lost count!

 

Laiste.

[Laiste]

Hi Lantana,

 

I was tickled pink by your "GOTCHA" comment!

 

They definitely are making it all up as they go along! Strikes me as panic setting in, as they keep changing their position! Perhaps they thought that taking off the collection charge + p.charges would make me go easy on them...? Me being inclined towards showing sympathy to the banks and c/c's!

 

Never mind the interest being struck out! I want their whole b****y case struck out!

 

Default Notices served on people are in many instances are legally invalid anyway, as they contain penalty charges. If the amount owing is inaccurate, which of course it is because p.charges have been included which are unlawful, then the contract should never have been brought to an end anyway, something for which damages can be claimed.

 

Ultimately, (if we get that far on Tues) it is for the Judge to decide the issue of the p.charges and their inclusion in the case or not. I will of course be putting some strong arguments forward as to why the issue must be examined at trial!

 

It's an outside firm of sols, they're using. What a double act!

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.

[Laiste]

I've been studying the Civil Procedure Rules in relation to contempt of court. From what I've read there may be sufficient reason (given the proof I have) for applying for an order for at the very least the committal to prison of a senior officer/director at HFC for contempt. Their sols may also be in trouble. I'm still getting my head round it, but their non compliance with the Crt Order and my evidence fits the criteria!:o This situation gets more interesting by the minute...! If they continue with this case, I'm going to make the application. I think they should be very worried indeed....!

 

Laiste.

[PriorityOne]

...Prison !! I can't wait !!... go get 'em Laiste...

[The Lantana]

Laiste, that contempt sounds very interesting but please don't let it distract from your main objective. If you jail them too, so much the better, but win the case first!

 

Regards

 

Lantana

[Laiste]

Don't worry! I'm not at all distracted regarding what my main objective is! This is merely an aside. I haven't got the ball and chain just yet!

 

I was doing some research of the CPR and found out about the contempt argument. The most important thing is to be prepared for Tues, if they even bother to organise it!

 

That's another rule of the CPR in respect of telephone hearings, the applicant is responsible for organising it and so far they've done diddly squat! It's completely farcical! Perhaps they're organising it by means of telepathy!

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.

[Laiste]

Well the latest is, the hearing is going ahead at 3.30pm tommorow. They have left organising it till the 11th hour, which the Crt will be advised of tommorow morning.

 

There was nothing in the post this morning about it. They rang mid morning and left a message to contact them, which we did. So wish me luck for tommorow!

 

Regards to all,

 

Laiste.

[Jeff2000]

Hello Laiste,

 

 

The very best of luck for tomorrow morning!!!

 

 

Regards, Jeff.

[Cornucopia]

Well the latest is, the hearing is going ahead at 3.30pm tommorow. They have left organising it till the 11th hour, which the Crt will be advised of tommorow morning.

 

There was nothing in the post this morning about it. They rang mid morning and left a message to contact them, which we did. So wish me luck for tommorow!

 

Regards to all,

 

Laiste.

 

Go get em' girl!!! Good luck Laiste, will be thinking of you! xx:)

[The Lantana]

The utter scoundrels!

 

Good luck tomorrow Laiste, I'm rooting for you and I look forward to hearing of your successful outcome. Try and get an early one tonight.

 

Regards

 

Lantana

[joneshousehold]

Good luck Laiste, we will be thinking about you.

[humbleman]

just be calm and collective and you will just walk over them

[Laiste]

Thanks guys for your support! It's very much appreciated!

 

I am actually looking forward to tommorow, I say that not in an arrogant way. I am simply looking forward to putting my (hopefully persuasive and legally sound) arguments to the Judge. If they were under any impression that I am frightened of facing them I think I may have disabused them of that view with the phone call this morning and my witness stmt sent to them by fax this afternoon!

 

I'm off to have a very late bowl of spaghetti, then it's an early night and early start, to put together the final touches of my argument!

 

All being well, I'll post back tommorow evening!

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.