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

[Laiste]

Hi everyone,

 

I thought I would give you an update on things, which for those of you who have been following this long running saga, I am sure will find very interesting!

 

Just to recap, Egg filed an application for a summary hearing, which was scheduled to be heard on the 11th December. As you are aware we hadn't filed a counter-claim (very silly I know), anyway eventually we did. We sent a copy to Egg's solicitors and the very same day, they filed a Notice of Discontinuance! Unbelieveable, cowardice or what? For those of you that are not familiar, a NOD is effectively Egg's withdrawal from proceedings! It also means they cannot resurrect the issue under any circumstances, which is good news!

 

We sent a letter the very same day to the solicitors advising them that to bring this matter to an end for their clients we required compensation for the fact that the contract had been improperly executed and the unlawful addition of insurance plus other matters. The letter eventually made its way to Egg. I had a long conversation with a senior complaints handler at Egg. She said they were rejecting my proposal for compensation. She said she believed the contract had been properly executed (despite having no knowledge of what that actually means legally! Comical I know!) and she claimed to have proof that we agreed to the insurance, absolute nonsense! Funny how the agreement doesn't contain details of the insurance! The other documentation that was also furnished when they commenced proceedings makes no mention of the insurance either! You start wondering if it is possible for them to falsify paperwork, as we know without a doubt that we did not agree to it.

 

The outcome of the conversation was that I advised her that a claim would be issued and that this matter would be reported to the FSA, OFT and the police, for obtaining monies by deception. Egg clearly like living dangerously and she was certainly left in no doubt that I meant everything I said. So the claim will be issued in the next couple of days. Her parting words were lets keep the communication channels open! I can't see what she might want to talk about if it's not compensation! Well it will certainly be interesting to read their defence, given that they cannot pursue the debt now! So there you have it, the continuing Egg drama!

 

As for HFC, they are also now in possession of the counter-claim and the trial is scheduled for the 9th January 2007. They are going to try and enforce a debt with a copy agreement that is illegible! Penalty charges are obviously part of the claim as well, so it looks as though we will finally get this issue heard in Court! Watch this space!

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.

[e28bigalbexley]

Hi Laiste,

Just read the thread, it took some time but at least you have started to make progress towards ridding yourselves of these *Bankers*. Im sure they will continue in the same fashion of disregarding the law and harassing people like us. BAG/CAG must be a thorn in their side and the more pain it causes so much the better.

I wish you well for 9th Jan and another bank making a complete fool of themselves.

Happy new year to you and your family.

AL

 

ps. hope hubbys feeling better.

[Laiste]

Hi e28bigalbexley,

 

Thanks for your good wishes, its very kind of you! I hope you and your family are having a good xmas and I wish you all the best for 2007!

 

These companies as you say, think they can ignore the law! They are staffed by morons who seem to think that legal rights are the preserve of the banks and credit card companies! Individuals don't have rights, only obligations to these parasitic organisations! WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! You have to be prepared for a fight when you embark on this course of action, but if Humpty Dumpty and Horrible Fu***ing Company, thought we were going to roll over and wave the white flag, they have underestimated us!

 

Here's to all out war in 2007!

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.

[Laiste]

I would like peoples' views on a course of action I have been giving some thought to concerning Humpty Dumpty. Obviously, I will be issuing a court claim against them. What I'm pondering is, given that they have filed a Notice of Discontinuance, so cannot raise the issue of the debt again, should I file the claim and then request a summary hearing/judgment based on what's already happened? Its logical really given that they cannot argue any issues related to the debt because of the NOD and will be wasting Court's time entirely and are unlikely to turn up! As they are so brave as to withdraw from legal action that they instigated, it seems foolish to let them sit on this for 6mnths!

 

I thought it might be nice to let them have a taste of their own medicine!:grin:

 

All opinions welcome!

 

Laiste.

[e28bigalbexley]

Hi Laiste

Hmmm someone with court procedure needed like Joncris or maybe zootscoot seem to know their way round the intricacies of of things this this, although im sure there are plenty of people who look in this particular forum that maybe able to answer your particular question, you could PM one of them and get them to look at the thread.

 

AL;-)

[JonCris]

Hi Laiste

 

Can you scan & post their application? Are they discontinuing the whole or just part of the claim. Even if they apply & are granted their application they can return to the court to make another claim provided said claim is based on evidence/arguments not used in the 1st application. The only difference is that they would have to seek the courts permission. If the court felt it was an abuse of process their application would be denied.

 

Also you are entitled to your costs to date.

 

After you post the wording on the application then it will become clearer

[Laiste]

Hi Joncris,

 

The Notice of Discontinuance was filed and accepted by the Court earlier this month. They have discontinued the whole claim. According to my book on civil court procedure after a defence has been filed a claimant is not allowed to commence new proceedings against the same defendant arising out of the same, or substantially the same facts as the original action.

 

I have been ruminating over this whole issue and I'm wondering if it might be prudent to do a SAR before I issue the claim. The reason being, according to the woman I spoke with at Egg, they have evidence of us having agreed to the card protection insurance. We know we definitely didn't agree to it, but if we do the SAR, we will force them to prove the existence of the insurance contract. It will be interesting to see what they produce. Given their underhanded way of doing things, I would not be at all surprised if they try and pull a little stunt, if you know what I mean! Better to have all the evidence or rather lack of it, to support our case, than jump in somewhat hastily!

 

Laiste.

[JonCris]

Yes & that's what I said..........they can't reintroduce a claim on the same basis.......................but they can on another

 

Suggest send your SAR.

[Laiste]

Hello again!

 

Well here is an update on HFC which is sceduled for trial on the 9th Jan. I couldn't say anything about this before now, as I wanted to ensure that they breached the SAR I sent before I did!

 

Bear with me on this, there is a little background but it will become clear! When HFC through their solicitors commenced proceedings, we were advised that all communication had to be directed to their solicitors, which is fair enough. So we sent a CCA request to the sols to be passed to HFC. No problem with that, they passed on the details an we eventually got the documents requested, late...but what can you expect from these companies? In November, we sent a SAR to the solicitors to pass on to their clients, requesting detailed information on various issues including a detailed breakdown of how penalty charges are calculated.:grin: At that point, we and the sols knew that the trial had been set down for sometime in the first three weeks of Jan, which is relevant to the SAR in terms of time. The sols kept hold of our letter for practically two weeks, before returning it to us with the fee, stating that they could not deal with it and it had to be sent to HFC!

 

My issue is this, why, if there was no problem with dealing with the CCA request, was there all of a sudden a problem with passing on the SAR? We were specifically instructed to liaise with the sols, which we did! I believe this is an act of bad faith on their part and the delaying tactic was a forlorn hope on their part, that by the time we got the letter back, sent it off to HFC, the trial date would be set and HFC would still have time left to comply with the SAR, thereby not having to furnish the info before the trial!

 

As it turns out, HFC have not complied with the SAR, not that we expected them to, especially with the request for a breakdown of the charges!

 

So, our plan is to apply for a stay next Tuesday,informing the Judge how the sols and HFC have behaved and their failure to comply with the SAR. I can't imagine the Judge being impressed with what they've done. HFC will then have to furnish the info we have requested as it forms part of our case. I think things are about to get very interesting with HFC...! They have a difficult decision to make, if they furnish the info we will have a breakdown of how the charges are calculated, if not, well I guess it will be upto the Court to determine what will happen.

 

Laiste.

[e28bigalbexley]

Hi Laiste

Im not in the slightest bit legally minded and how you have got your head round this is perplexing to me, but yes i think your right they cant pass on one thing and not the other, but it does read a bit like the solicitors are 'doffing their cap' to the co. that pays them. and of course you cant formulate a defence without the correct data.

Im sure the judge would not be to happy with eithe HFC or their council. Still a lot can happen in 7 days.

Could their action be struck out or would that not be in your favour?

 

Wishing you and your family a happy and prosperous New Year.

And HFC an ignominious capitulation.

[Guest Battleaxe]

This is going to be interesting.

I wonder if HFC will call off the hearing at the last hour and produce the documentation>

 

I do hope the Judge slams them for withholding evidence that they claim to have.

 

Good luck with your quest

[JonCris]

If they start trying to rely on evidence that has not been disclosed in their orginal defence object to the court.

Also object if their counsel/lawyer as a means of introducing new arguments starts to give evidence. Ask the court to have them address the arguments in their original defence & not to try & introduce new arguments at the 11th hour meaning you will have not had time to consider them

[Laiste]

Hi everyone,

 

As has been said, alot can happen in seven days (or so)! We all know that they are never in a million years going to supply the info on how the penalty charges are calculated! Which raises another important point. When I report them to the ICO, if they continue to breach my DPA request they could find themselves in an awful lot of trouble! I can't imagine the senior people at HFC being too happy at the prospect of facing prosecution over non compliance. They are not the only ones that can turn the thumbscrews! They wanted a fight, they've certainly got one now! Laiste is on the warpath....!

 

I wish everyone success in their fights with the parasitic banks and credit card companies! Lets give them even more hell in 2007, its exactly what they deserve!

 

Many thanks for all your help and support over the months, it is very much appreciated! Wishing everybody a very happy and prosperous New Year!

Laiste.

[Guest Battleaxe]

Laiste,

 

You are more than welcome, we all have our fights and yes we are winning, more strength to us.

I am awaiting the outcome of stoush with MBNA, so tomorrow i up the ante and visit the local court to apply for judgement by default of non-compliance. Well they have provided some of the documentation but not the crucial properly executed Credit Agreement, so it looks like I will get my damages by default and hoepfully the Judge will make them prodece the Credit Agreement. I have yet to claim back my charges, one step at a time.

[JonCris]

Happy New Year Battleaxe

 

Make sure you politely remind the court that without a properly executed agreement recovery of any consumer debt is unrecoverable

[Guest Battleaxe]

Happy new year to JonCris,

 

I will remind the court of this when it gets that far. We sent a letter to MBNA telling them until they produce this document, we do not acknowledge any debt. (we do morally, but that will be sorted on our terms).

 

Non-compliance damages first,

Charges second

Debt owed last.

[Laiste]

Hi Battleaxe,

 

I didn't think anyone would be up and about before lunchtime today, to reply to my post! LOL;)

 

With regards to your case, can I ask a couple of questions? I don't want to presume so correct me if I'm wrong. Have they commenced proceedings against you and failed to comply with your SAR, therefore you are seeking judgment by default?

 

I am interested in your circumstances as my intention tommorow is to apply for a stay, to give them a further opportunity to furnish the info before we go to trial. I must admit I am loathed to give them more time, they had an obligation to comply and haven't. I was under the impression though, that applying for a stay is the normal procedure.

 

Laiste.

[Guest Battleaxe]

We have two claims against MBNA, the first is the credit card originally with A & L and taken over by MBNA, they took over 40 days to get most of the info to us, i told them i was filing 10am on the 1st december for non-compliance, so the tricky ittle devils posted the documentatio to us recorded delivery on the 30th November, it arrived in Huntingdon at 11.30am, while i was the Court filing for non-compliance. they sent us a copy of the credit agreement, but the there was no signature in the anks box, just our signatures, so i got to work and requested a copy of the credit agreement under the CCA, we are now into the 12 days + 30 days, but as they did not produce the original documentation until after the date the Data Commissioner allowed them which was the 29th November, I am still going for damages and non-compliance within the specified time frames and mentioning that they have provided us ALl the documentation requested. I am then claiming the charges back on the credit card. these charges have only accrued since August 2005.

 

Our second claim against MBNA is for the excess charges loaded onto our loan account, the last letter i received on the 30th states we know owe them over £600, when in fact we only owe them on the loan £390.00, but I want to see the Credit Agreement on that one also.

 

I am not prepared to apply for a stay, they know their onbligations and all along they have blocked us regarding our requests and it was only when i got the Info Commissioner involved that wrote and said they would provide the information as soon as HUMANLY possible.

 

we wrote to them reminding them of the time obligations, they chose to flaunt it, so I am not being compassionate with them.

 

As for the credit card issue this could get more interesting if they have to write it off for the want of a properly executed document on the part of A & L. we didn't even realise MBNA owned the card until I decided to claim back the charges in October 2006. we never got the documents regarding this change over, they sent us templates, but could not provide evidence (they also admit this in writing) that they had actually been sent to us at either of our addresses. We bought this house in 2004 and MBNA are supposed to have taken over the account in 2002/03. A template of a mail merge document is not evidence of a letter being sent to us.

[nevos]

Liverpool Council were fined £300 for failing to fully comply with an ex employee SAR!

 

If anyones interested: http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/pressreleases/2006/liverpool_city_council_prosecuted_for_data_protection_offences.pdf

[Laiste]

Hi Nevos,

 

Thanks for that. To be honest I would like to see the main players at HFC locked up and the key thrown away! Not realistic maybe, but a nice thought!

 

Laiste.

[nevos]

Hi Laiste: Yes, ready your thread with interest as Im about to go down a similar path. Trying to first find out why my MBNA debt got 12K added to it hehe...

 

One bit of good news is, im going for my charges on debts which have been sold. One of mine obtained a CCJ and have sent a CCA last October with no reply as yet.

 

Anyways, Happy New Year and admire you for sticking at it with all the great help given by the people on this site.

[Laiste]

Hi Nevos!

 

Happy New Year to you also!

 

The trials and tribulations over the months with Humpty Dumpty and HFC have certainly been interesting, I have learned a great deal. Not least through all the help that people on this site have kindly given!

 

As you are about to embark on a similar course of action, I wish you every success in your quest. If I can be of any help at all just ask!

 

Laiste.

[JonCris]

Liverpool Council were fined £300 for failing to fully comply with an ex employee S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)!

 

If anyones interested: http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/pressreleases/2006/liverpool_city_council_prosecuted_for_data_protection_offences.pdf

 

Trouble is it ain't their money it's the council tax payers. I would much prefer that it came out of their own pockets. Perhaps the District Auditor will hold them to account................Provided a local council taxpayer complains of course

[nevos]

Quickie as this is Laiste's thread: Yes, right JonCris! Me thinks they should have had a big fine which may have the effect of having second thoughts about delays to requests even they had to have their procedures audited.

[Laiste]

Hi all!

 

Well there has been an interesting development! HFC had to file at the Court and serve on us a paginated trial bundle and a case summary on the 4th Jan. They have not served the documents on us or filed at the Court!

 

Additionally, they had to file at Court and serve on us a skeleton argument by 4pm today. They have done neither!

 

This close to the trial, I can't imagine the Judge accepting any reasons for their non-compliance, besides which we would vehemently argue against them being granted any favours at this very late stage. They simply cannot waste the Court's time and scupper its timetable. After all the Judge has requested that these documents be filed and served, so that he and all the parties involved have the relevant info to consider prior to trial. Are they planning on turning up with the information at the trial on Tuesday....?

 

I'll keep you posted!

 

Laiste.