Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Nov 5: Sold iPad on eBay for 220 GBP, used eBay Packlink as it was recommended by eBay. Nov 6: Handed parcel over to the local shop. Parcel included iPad in its original box. Got proof of postage. Nov 9: Parcel received by buyer - after opening he realised he received a Jaguar/Landrover car part instead of an iPad. The packaging I used with the correct label was opened and the item was replaced. Nov 10: Filed a loss claim and started a tampering investigation with eBay Packlink Nov 25: Received response from eBay Packlink, confirming tampering, approving a refund of 25 GBP + 2.89 GBP postage fees.   So, after accepting that they have thieves running criminal operations in their depots, (stealing iPads and Macbooks as I've read from numerous people in this forum and elsewhere) they decided to compensate me for 25 GBP. This is way off the original value of the item sent, which was sold for 220 GBP.   I am seeking help on the next steps I should take to recover the remaining funds. Please let me know if I need to share any other details.   The poor buyer received a useless car part (he provided pictures) and in theory shall be refunded. This leaves me with around 200 GBP out of pocket and a huge willingness to take any legal avenue that will enable me to get compensated and create problems for those scams.   Any help will be appreciated.   Kind regards
    • Here is my first draft:     Dear Sir or Madame;   With regards to the above vehicle that was purchased from you on the xxxx, there are now some serious problems with the Automatic gearbox and for the last 3 weeks it has been at an independent garage who have diagnosed the problem but cannot guarantee this will cure the problem because the gearbox has not be serviced within Fords milage guidelines. I have the paperwork to show that the gearbox was indeed serviced at 35,000 & 70,000 miles well within the guidelines. The service book has been stamped at 100k for a service but no paperwork was included which is very strange as everything that has been replaced or serviced with this car has been included. After speaking with the garage that did the 100k service they can confirm that the minimum service was done which did not include the gearbox, so the gearbox has gone well over the specified guidelines.   I would like to point out that since the car has been collected, I have only done 1,500 miles so do not believe any fault would be down to ‘wear & tear’.     Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 this car should be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. My rights have been breached because the car you sold me is faulty. I would like you to put this right by repairing the car at your cost at an independent garage.     I expect a full response with 5 working days otherwise I will be taking the matter further.
    • Post the letter here before you send it off please. I certainly think that the missing documents should be referred to although probably in a rather more pointed fashion. Post the letter and will have a look and amended as necessary. In terms of getting other inspections, is there any dispute as to the condition of the vehicle? Have the garage themselves agreed the condition of it? Good news that it's fine at the garage for the moment – but you should ask them what storage fee would be if it went on too long – and in any event if you brought acclaim and won it. No point in giving up an opportunity to get a bit of extra money and if these people are doing you a favour then you may as well tell them that you are prepared to pay for storage if you win your case and if a claim for storage fees is met. It will certainly be reasonable to claim for storage fees – although you would have to produce an invoice for them at some point. However, even a pro forma invoice stating what the tariff is will probably be good enough to begin with
    • Thank you both for those replies.   Dx, I'll get that CPR off ASAP. Would you mind clarifying when you say "use our 2 -5 line defence". Does this literally mean a defense thats 2 to 5 lins in length? Many thanks!   Dave, you're absolutely correct. I always ignore letters from these sorts of firms. The place is very local so no bother at all to get back there. 
  • Our picks

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


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3420 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I had a CCJ against Nat West as part of a separate charges reclaim and they were VERY keen to get it removed

Card 1 - Charges reclaim £464 + Interest...ongoing

Card 2 - Charges reclaim £520 + Interest...ongoing

Card 3 - Charges reclaim £396 + £1179 Imterest **WON**

Card 4 - Charges reclaim £296 + £147 Interest **WON**

------------------------------------------------------------

4 x CCA requests

1 received.....Blank Application Form

1 received.....Terms & Conditions

1 received.....Sent agreement relating to a previous card :confused:

1 response....Have lost the agreement :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

seeing as Cap One have made no contact, and it is seemingly impossible to get email/telephone contact details of their legal department.

 

I got this from their defense paperwork, which was sent to me, try these details and see if it is of any help.

 

Zsuzsi Padgett

Legal Specialist (Non Solicitor)

Capital One (Europe) Plc

 

Zsuzsi.Padgett@capitalone.com | tel: 0115 843 8419 | fax: 0115 843 6483

Link to post
Share on other sites

mp

 

Many thanks for that :)

 

That ladies name appears on my defence paperwork as well but there are no contact details. Will send an email to try and see whats happening - if nothing else they owe me a response to my court bundle & draft directions.

Card 1 - Charges reclaim £464 + Interest...ongoing

Card 2 - Charges reclaim £520 + Interest...ongoing

Card 3 - Charges reclaim £396 + £1179 Imterest **WON**

Card 4 - Charges reclaim £296 + £147 Interest **WON**

------------------------------------------------------------

4 x CCA requests

1 received.....Blank Application Form

1 received.....Terms & Conditions

1 received.....Sent agreement relating to a previous card :confused:

1 response....Have lost the agreement :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

SS, I am glad I could help in some way :) it is the least I can do. If those don't work then try these I found while rummaging through old capital one threads (wendy.starr@capitalone.com) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?88645-Wendy-Star...capital-One-Legal-Dept-Fone-Number

Link to post
Share on other sites

The banks have hundreds, if not thousands, of CCJ's against them. However, they try to avoid them being registered and certainly try to get them removed. If you get a CCJ against a bank, you'll almost certainly be paid by them unless they appeal.

 

To SS - I hope the contact details prove useful in giving the bank a chance to settle before court.

 

Otherwise, good luck next week.

 

:-)

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
so many Banks etc have files & files of CCJs against them

Sometimes, this is purely due to banks' huge size and inefficiency! They may, believe it or not, actually not know that some of these CCJs exist, or the claimant who got the CCJ has simply left it like that without pressing for enforcement, which is the whole point of getting a CCJ.

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

For all of you thinking that Cap One will just 'cave in' please remember what I said previously about it not being guaranteed...

 

We have received a court bundle today from them, so they are certainly intent on taking this to the wire. Please please get your preparations organised.

 

I will post further when Ive dissected the witness statement....to be honest, the rest just looks like bumph - T&Cs, application forms etc. However, we received it 3 days after it was due, and court date is wednesday.

Card 1 - Charges reclaim £464 + Interest...ongoing

Card 2 - Charges reclaim £520 + Interest...ongoing

Card 3 - Charges reclaim £396 + £1179 Imterest **WON**

Card 4 - Charges reclaim £296 + £147 Interest **WON**

------------------------------------------------------------

4 x CCA requests

1 received.....Blank Application Form

1 received.....Terms & Conditions

1 received.....Sent agreement relating to a previous card :confused:

1 response....Have lost the agreement :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks SS for keeping us up to date, I am only in need of a WS (some help would be appreciated) and I am after a good summary for two test cases and then these should complete my bundle and ready for print. If you could trow any info my way I would be more than grateful.

 

Also did you email that person from capital one, any feed back from them, just curious. Probably doesn't matter now as you have received their bundle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I did email that person (twice in fact) but received no response.

 

Funnily enough, its the same person whose witness statement I will be reading carefully tomorrow.

 

If you dont mind, I dont want to share my WS around until after my court hearing, as to be honest, if it proves to be a flop, I wouldnt want others to suffer because of me.

Card 1 - Charges reclaim £464 + Interest...ongoing

Card 2 - Charges reclaim £520 + Interest...ongoing

Card 3 - Charges reclaim £396 + £1179 Imterest **WON**

Card 4 - Charges reclaim £296 + £147 Interest **WON**

------------------------------------------------------------

4 x CCA requests

1 received.....Blank Application Form

1 received.....Terms & Conditions

1 received.....Sent agreement relating to a previous card :confused:

1 response....Have lost the agreement :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I see, well post their WS up if anything.

 

I understand and appreciate that not a problem, I did remember you did say that about the WS, I can wait, I doubt it will be a flop though :). I will wait.

 

Do you have summaries for both Sempra vs IRC and Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council? I have been searching the net for a very good summary and I am still at the moment.If you don't mind PMing those I would be grateful :).

 

I am wishing you the best for Wednesday! I will be here eagerly waiting for te good news and for tips as to how I should go about mine also :). All the best again for Wednesday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

mp

 

Yes and no....

 

I received a full refund of charges plus some decent interest from Aqua, however I didnt chance my arm there as members of the Halifax group are getting a name for defending vigorously and retaining some serious legal muscle.

 

I took Natwest to court and won with compound interest, but perhaps mainly coz their legal representatives were erm....crap. They forgot to defend, so I got judgement by default. From then on it was a question of haggling / getting the money out of them. Theres a thread on the Natwest forums somewhere. Even with a judgement it was quite stressful as they try to convince you they will easily get it set aside.

Card 1 - Charges reclaim £464 + Interest...ongoing

Card 2 - Charges reclaim £520 + Interest...ongoing

Card 3 - Charges reclaim £396 + £1179 Imterest **WON**

Card 4 - Charges reclaim £296 + £147 Interest **WON**

------------------------------------------------------------

4 x CCA requests

1 received.....Blank Application Form

1 received.....Terms & Conditions

1 received.....Sent agreement relating to a previous card :confused:

1 response....Have lost the agreement :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still Surviving , good luck for tomorrow - we have a hearing with them in Sept - after they had been lapssidasical about the whole court process, they had extension after extension - never known anything quite like it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
We have received a court bundle today from them, so they are certainly intent on taking this to the wire. Please please get your preparations organised.

Hmmnn, this is interesting. Why would they go through the trouble and expense at this level for such low amounts?

 

The legal brains on these threads should look further into this.

 

'Praying' you all the best SS. :-)

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

Well Ive just spent the morning going over the WS submitted by Cap One. To me it is absolutely full of holes and inaccuracies but it remains to be seen whether the judge will agree.

 

The absolute crux of the matter is they say 'Default Sums have already been held as not being penalties in Common Law' and they quote the OFT case that the banks won in the supreme court. Now we all know that case related to specifically Bank Current Accounts NOT credit cards. Lets hope the judge is clued up on this and not easily led by a smooth barrister.

Card 1 - Charges reclaim £464 + Interest...ongoing

Card 2 - Charges reclaim £520 + Interest...ongoing

Card 3 - Charges reclaim £396 + £1179 Imterest **WON**

Card 4 - Charges reclaim £296 + £147 Interest **WON**

------------------------------------------------------------

4 x CCA requests

1 received.....Blank Application Form

1 received.....Terms & Conditions

1 received.....Sent agreement relating to a previous card :confused:

1 response....Have lost the agreement :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SS

 

Just popped in to say Good Luck for tomorrow

 

Regards

 

ims

If I have helped you please leave me a message by clicking my star

 

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI

Read Here

3. Reclaim Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial

Read Here

5. Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

6. Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

7. Thinking of a Full & Final Settlement?

Read Here

 

How To Upload Documents To Cag

Instructions

 

I DON'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM BUT IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

 

 

 

Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are perhaps inappropriate for posting on the main forum. Site rules explain this in more detail.

 

If you receive a private message which you consider abusive, derogatory or otherwise inappropriate, whether it be about yourself or other members, please report it using the "report" icon

 

If you are approached (or have been approached) by private message with an offer of help "Off Forum" or with a view to asking you to visit another website, please inform the site team via the report icon, especially if this results in a request for a fee. Remember, this is for your own protection

my views are my own and are given in good faith to try and help people. Please seek professional advice on your case if necessary

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The absolute crux of the matter is they say 'Default Sums have already been held as not being penalties in Common Law' and they quote the OFT case that the banks won in the supreme court. Now we all know that case related to specifically Bank Current Accounts NOT credit cards. Lets hope the judge is clued up on this and not easily led by a smooth barrister.

SS

Have you been able to devise a well worded rebuttal of this particular assertion? Is/are there any on CAG? If this is what they're pinning their hopes on, it's worth putting heads together to come up with a strong argument against it.:evil: It's one thing us lot knowing the SC doesn't apply to non-current accounts but smooth talking barristers have demonstrated jedi-like powers over some judges before. I've also read somewhere else on CAG not too long ago that the SC ruling has/is being used by mortgage lenders to back mortgage arrears charges as well. :-x

 

Are the CAG mods aware of this 'new tactic' though? That lenders are now using this argument to defend credit card charges reclaim actions? If so, a strong direct rebuttal is needed, and possibly an update to all the relevant POC templates!:shock:

imo

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

Well guys.....I lost :(

 

Everyone here MUST now expect Cap One to defend these cases thoroughly if you are going for older charges.

 

They retained the services of a London EC4 barrister, who was extremely efficient and knew Consumer Credit Law backwards.

 

In case you think I may have slipped up, the judge actually said I had prepared one of the best court bundles he had seen this year, and my

arguing of the points I wanted to make was done most admirably.

 

However:

 

Do not expect Cap One to pay anything over six years old. They are convinced they can now overturn the provisions of the Limitations Act 1980 32.1c with legal argument and this judge certainly agreed. If you choose to use the Kleinwort Benson case now....you will get a very detailed rebuttal.

 

I very very nearly got the judge to go my way....but then he seemed to just fold and find for Cap One.

 

They are also using the OFT v Abbey National test case as concrete proof that default sums cannot be assessed as penalty. Yes yes yes I know the case didn not apply to credit cards (must have said that in court three times) but they now assert that s6.2 of the UTCCR 1999 enables the two to be linked.

 

Well....I lost but Im not gutted. The whole experience was not unpleasant (though a little dull, as the judge talked so slowly for the transcriber)

 

if your case contains charges before and after six years old, expect them to pay back the newer charges when they file their defence, then tackle you head on for the older stuff.

 

 

Sorry guys....but I really didnt let you down. I could not have argued any better for a litigant in person.

Card 1 - Charges reclaim £464 + Interest...ongoing

Card 2 - Charges reclaim £520 + Interest...ongoing

Card 3 - Charges reclaim £396 + £1179 Imterest **WON**

Card 4 - Charges reclaim £296 + £147 Interest **WON**

------------------------------------------------------------

4 x CCA requests

1 received.....Blank Application Form

1 received.....Terms & Conditions

1 received.....Sent agreement relating to a previous card :confused:

1 response....Have lost the agreement :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SS

 

Just to say that I'm really sorry about the outcome for you today...its clear that you have put a lot of work into this.

 

I'm curious to know how they got around S32 though.....do you recall any detail or the arguments put forward?

 

Best regards

 

ims

If I have helped you please leave me a message by clicking my star

 

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI

Read Here

3. Reclaim Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial

Read Here

5. Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

6. Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

7. Thinking of a Full & Final Settlement?

Read Here

 

How To Upload Documents To Cag

Instructions

 

I DON'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM BUT IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

 

 

 

Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are perhaps inappropriate for posting on the main forum. Site rules explain this in more detail.

 

If you receive a private message which you consider abusive, derogatory or otherwise inappropriate, whether it be about yourself or other members, please report it using the "report" icon

 

If you are approached (or have been approached) by private message with an offer of help "Off Forum" or with a view to asking you to visit another website, please inform the site team via the report icon, especially if this results in a request for a fee. Remember, this is for your own protection

my views are my own and are given in good faith to try and help people. Please seek professional advice on your case if necessary

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I have their argument here....

 

Basically they are alleging Kleinwort Benson clearly relates to mistake in law which was rectified by a subsequent change in law. If you allege that payment of the charges was a mistake in law, they will counter by saying the OFT review in April 2006 was not a change in law, but simply a 3rd parties interpretation of the law. The judge very strongly agreed with this.

 

Having seen their argument ahead of time, i tried strongly to argue that payment of charges was a mistake of fact, not law - as this is discussed in Kleinwort as well. The judge was giving serious consideration to this for quite some time, and I thought he was going to agree, but ultimately he decided the whole of Kleinwort related to a mistake in law, and thus could not be used to support my argument for postponement of the limitation period

 

As you can see....it is now no longer possible to just cite a crucial case like this, you must assume that Cap One will be looking to pick it pieces, and will use the personnel they need to do so.

Card 1 - Charges reclaim £464 + Interest...ongoing

Card 2 - Charges reclaim £520 + Interest...ongoing

Card 3 - Charges reclaim £396 + £1179 Imterest **WON**

Card 4 - Charges reclaim £296 + £147 Interest **WON**

------------------------------------------------------------

4 x CCA requests

1 received.....Blank Application Form

1 received.....Terms & Conditions

1 received.....Sent agreement relating to a previous card :confused:

1 response....Have lost the agreement :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, Im now quite chilled out after all this is out of the way. Slick132 will confirm just how much effort was put into this, and the pressure I felt under. However, I honestly beleive I did the very best I could have done as a LIP, but when these guys bring out the heavy professionals, you are really up against it from the start.

 

I must also point out that if anyone is intending to push their case into court, you simply MUST put in 100% effort. Do not forget that even in the small claims court, if the judge thinks the case was without merit, or very poorly prepared and a waste of court time, you can still get some costs awarded against you....

 

We simply must bury this idea now that Cap One will just cave in.

Card 1 - Charges reclaim £464 + Interest...ongoing

Card 2 - Charges reclaim £520 + Interest...ongoing

Card 3 - Charges reclaim £396 + £1179 Imterest **WON**

Card 4 - Charges reclaim £296 + £147 Interest **WON**

------------------------------------------------------------

4 x CCA requests

1 received.....Blank Application Form

1 received.....Terms & Conditions

1 received.....Sent agreement relating to a previous card :confused:

1 response....Have lost the agreement :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm grateful to you SS.

 

There have been a couple of losses reported in the forums lately and it appears that the banks are fighting back with even more vigour at present.

 

As you say, claimants need to be aware of these counter arguments and can no longer take the view that they will cave in before the hearing.

 

As I say, I am sorry to hear of the outcome and hopefully the points you make will help others in the future.

 

My best wishes to you and Mrs SS

 

ims

If I have helped you please leave me a message by clicking my star

 

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI

Read Here

3. Reclaim Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial

Read Here

5. Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

6. Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

7. Thinking of a Full & Final Settlement?

Read Here

 

How To Upload Documents To Cag

Instructions

 

I DON'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM BUT IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

 

 

 

Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are perhaps inappropriate for posting on the main forum. Site rules explain this in more detail.

 

If you receive a private message which you consider abusive, derogatory or otherwise inappropriate, whether it be about yourself or other members, please report it using the "report" icon

 

If you are approached (or have been approached) by private message with an offer of help "Off Forum" or with a view to asking you to visit another website, please inform the site team via the report icon, especially if this results in a request for a fee. Remember, this is for your own protection

my views are my own and are given in good faith to try and help people. Please seek professional advice on your case if necessary

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry for the outcome of your case SS, I know you are not gutted but I am!

 

My thought of the following you mentioned.....,

 

s6.2

6.—(1) Without prejudice to regulation 12, the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract or of another contract on which it is dependent.

 

(2) In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate–

 

(a)to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract, or

(b)to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange.

 

^^^^ This is what we now need to gather some legal arguments against, as from what I understand they have used the above to weave themselves into the same category as the Banks (current account ruling). Without thorough arguments and further laws for the above then clearly the above surely would rule out us using Kleinwort vs Lincoln City Council to claim charges beyond the 6yrs limitation act and also that they are paid in mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...