Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Better version attached with the late appeal explained more clearly for the judge. This will sound silly, but I think it would be a good idea to e-mail it to the court and UKPC on Sunday.  It's probably me being daft, but Sunday is still March, and as it's late, sending it in March rather than April will make it sound like it was less late than it really is.  if you get my drift. You can still pop in a paper version on Tuesday if you want. E-mail address for the court: [email protected] And for UKPC: [email protected]   [email protected] Defendant WS.pdf
    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Mrs.SS v Cap One - reclaim of Credit Card Charges


Still_surviving
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4640 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hey SS thanks for the update, it is a little I agree, I think things are the same 2-3yrs ago with all the claims influx then it is now.

 

I got my court papers today, capital one should be in receipt of their tomorrow and then will see how it goes from there.

 

I am sure they will cough for you before you go to court, they seem to do, from the success stories I have read on here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the update and keep at it. Would be interesting to see what defence they come up with, if any and whether they try and settle at the very last minute. That would make them extremely cynical and totally abusing the system.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Received in the post today a Notice of Allocation to Small Claims Track, and a hearing date of the 13th July. Rather peeved to get something in the post today that was stamped on the 8th June...means we have lost six days out of the fourteen we have to get all documents, and pay the £165 hearing fee :(

 

Have uploaded a copy of the directions issued by the court, which I think are pretty much what we asked for on our Draft Directions. Could someone cast an eye over them and flag up if theres anything unusual hidden away? Would be appreciated.

 

http://i816.photobucket.com/albums/zz90/Still_surviving/Cap%20One/CourtDirections0806111.jpg

http://i816.photobucket.com/albums/zz90/Still_surviving/Cap%20One/CourtDirections0906112.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SS,

 

As the judge has adopted your Draft Directions, you now have to prepare your court bundle ready to File and Serve to the court and to the bank (or their reps) by the time allowed.

 

If the late delivery of the court's letter leaves you short of time, you could ask for an extension of, say, 7 days to get your evidence together as there's a lot to do. If you can manage without an extension, better still.

 

The bundle should include reference to :-

 

1. Limitation Act 1980, s.32(1)c citing Kleinwort Benson -v- Linclon City Council as case law in support of claiming charges older than 6 years (if applicable).

 

2. The case of Sempra Metals -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners in support of your claim for interest in restitution.

 

If you wish, you could also contact the bank or their sol'rs saying a Hearing Date has now been set and, if they wish to avoid the further time and costs associated with the ongoing litigation, they may wish to consider settling now in the sum of £xxx as shown on the enclosed updated SOC which includes court fees paid to date.

 

:-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re Witness Statement, see this post - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?53570-New-strategy-for-Allocation-Questionnaires&p=482194&viewfull=1#post482194

 

Be warned that it's old and relates to bank a/c penalty charges. You can use the examples for ideas on layout and content but you'll have to adapt it to reflect your own credit card charges claim.

 

If anyone has a link to a more recent and relevant WS, please provide a link to it.

 

:-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

All the best SS, if I find anything useful, I'll post it.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL I really dont know whether to laugh or cry....(so on balance will laugh)

 

G/F took a call from Crapquest thinking it might be to do with the court case. She passed them over to me once she had done the security nonsense - dialogue went like this:

 

"Its about the oustanding balance of £480 on the account"

"Do you speak to Capital One - we are in the process of sueing them and have a court date"

"I require you to give me some debit card details so I can process a payment"

"Do you not listen?"

"Yes but my screen says you had our final response - so you must pay"

"Oh really - do you think the legal system works like that?"

"Well i must record this as a refusal to pay"

"Do what you like"

"You realise we could issue court proceedings against you?"

"You realise we would immediately counterclaim"

"Im going to recommend further collection action"

"Good luck"

 

Remind me to never ever speak to these donkeys again. Upon reflection should have known they would have nothing to do with our legal action.

 

Unfortunately my TrueCall wasnt connected to the number she rang on :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

send a complaint letter to: - Ms J. SIMMS, Q&A Officer at Capquest to cease harrasement or immediate action will be forthwith to authorities also to the case Judge at any hearing which is imminant!

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Have just received from Cap One a copy of their defence, and a slightly revised offer of £419.76 & £85 court fee. In the interests of keeping CAG users up to speed on Cap One, I am showing below all the docs, minus personal details.

 

http://i816.photobucket.com/albums/zz90/Still_surviving/Cap%20One/CapOneOffer310111.jpg

http://i816.photobucket.com/albums/zz90/Still_surviving/Cap%20One/CapOneDefence1.jpg

http://i816.photobucket.com/albums/zz90/Still_surviving/Cap%20One/CapOneDefence2.jpg

http://i816.photobucket.com/albums/zz90/Still_surviving/Cap%20One/CapOneDefence3.jpg

http://i816.photobucket.com/albums/zz90/Still_surviving/Cap%20One/CapOneDefence4.jpg

 

 

Once you cut through all the bumf, it seems their defence boils down to the same usual points weve seen mentioned before:

 

1. The charges are in our terms and conditions so must be legal.

2. They are based on what it costs us (oh really....)

3. Anything over six years old, you can whistle for.

4. We have no comprehension of restitutionary interest, but you can have some purchase interest back.

 

Am going to read and digest this some more over the weekend, but would welcome other opinions etc

 

Hey SS, I got the same exact letter and defense in the post, they claim they have submit it to my local courts, but when I phone th courts up they said they have not defense on file for Capital one. I will keep you posted once I have anymore update.

 

How is your claim going?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They try to limititation of losses if you are not wary, so keep going for the full true amount you have already submitted, they cave in at the last minute following other threads.

 

Yea, as they claim they are only willing to offer such and such which not even anywhere near what I am claiming for and including charges and interest. But I will keep going and I do hope they cave in soon, for all of us :).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SS

Good to see the updates. Wishing you a successful outcome.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard nothing from Cap One so I assume we will be meeting in court soon....

 

Did get a Notice of Assignment from AIC the other day, saying they now own the 'debt' of £400 odd. Somewhat interesting - if they lose the court case, or wish to settle, have Cap One now lost the ability to offset seeing as its not their debt any more, but my court case is against them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont want to be a wet blanket on this, but when an account is assigned is it not, as well as the assets (ie what they claim you owe them) but also the liabilities (what they might owe you). Thus, having sold (or reassigned) to AIC, might CrapONe not have a defence that they no longer own the account and thus have no liability. Therefore you might need to start again? Or, if this is the case - ie AIC bought the liability to recompense you for the unlawful charges - do you have time to have them joined to the action (ie sue them both - you cant get it wrong then :whoo:).

I would be very interested to know, since Crap Quest are being very difficult about a CrapONe account they bought a year or so ago. They have two problems - one that they dont have an enforceable agreement, just an application form with not a presecribed term in sight. The other problem is that, depending on what rate of interest is applied to the unlawful charges they owe ME 150% to 300% of what they could possibly claim I owe them. I have been trying to get them to accept a deal that "you dont sue me and i wont sue you", on the basis that if they came against me I would simply counterclaim for the unlawful charges so the best they could hope for was to lose somewhere between 400 and 1600 pounds (what they owe me less what I owe them, in the unlikely event that the court decided the account could be enforced).

However, if CrapONe remain liable (I had always thought the liability transferred to Crap Quest), then I might sue CrapONe for the charges and just tell Crap Quest to sod off!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SS,

 

You are quite right to be suing Cap1 as it is they who added the default charges to the a/c.

 

If you win your claim, there is no question of them be able to offset any balance owed, either for themselves or for AIC.

 

You either get a CCJ against Cap1 which they have to pay to you direct......

 

......or you can negotiate settlement before court but, again, you should not agree to any offset.

 

Of course, this leaves a debt owing to AIC which I would assume you'll settle from your settlement.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

sfu

 

If you take one step back and think about this logically, it would be far too easy for defendants to side-step the court process if they merely assigned their liabilities away. At the very least I would press for it being considered an abuse of court process, seeing as it happened 3 months after my court action was instigated.

 

slick

 

Aye - theres no way I would consent to having to sue anyone else - not after all this time.

 

 

I have to say, it looks as if we will be heading into court, seeing as Cap One have made no contact, and it is seemingly impossible to get email/telephone contact details of their legal department. So be it - but it does state in the judges draft directions, that once our court bundle was submitted they have 14 days to serve a response stating whether they accept the status of penalty charges applied to the account. If not, they are supposed to give a statement of how their fees are calculated.

 

Im not one to hope for them behaving properly after all this time...but the 14 days are up on friday. No doubt they will serve them to court and 'forget' to send me a copy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, this leaves a debt owing to AIC which I would assume you'll settle from your settlement.

Assuming the debt figure is correct and does not include uncontested amounts! :razz:

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

so many Banks etc have files & files of CCJs against them, seems you would not get paid?

A CCJ against a bank? With all those assets? Bring it on!!!

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...