Shop Direct Group, 4 accounts, Reclaiming £12 PENALTY charges - ready to go to court

[Amy29]

yes have done spreadsheet of charges and interest.

 

In my Particulars I put that I've contacted shop direct many times and given them spreadsheets,

and that I think the £12 chargers are unfair.

 

Hope I did it right wasn't much space to write to a lot.

 

Wonder what will happen next, not going to lie i'm abit scared but will go till the end.

 

Will keep up dating win or loose.

 

Thanks

amy29

[ims21]

Ok I'll get someone to pop in and have a look at the legal side for you.

 

Can you type up your PoC exactly as submitted on the form please.

[Amy29]

thanks will do that now

hope I've not messed up in the Particulars.

[Amy29]

Particulars of Claim

 

I would like to claim back the £12 charges

plus 8% interest, that shop direct have

charged me on my accounts.

 

Some months shop direct have charged me £12

twice.

 

I think the charges are unfair and not

proportionate to their costs.

 

I've wrote to them asking for my money back

but they just say charges are fair.My balance

is made up of charges which I don't think is

fair.

[Amy29]

i'm only wanting to claim 8% interest

 

 

thanks for all your help

[citizenB]

Here you go

 

 

 

 

Wait until the 28th day and check MCOL to see if they have submitted a defence...CCBC will then forward a copy to you and we take it from there. If they havent then request judgment.

[Amy29]

thank you really appreciate everyone's help.

 

Do I count 28 days from an acknowledgement of service or when claim was issued.

I will keep updating my post.

 

my online money claim so far.

 

Your claim was issued on 05/07/2013

 

 

shop direct notified the court of a change of address on 16/07/2013 (which is their legal dept)

 

 

shop direct issued an acknowledgment of service on 16/07/2013 (were they have ticked the box "I intend to defend all this claim")

 

Waiting for their defence.

 

thanks

amy29

[Amy29]

thank you really appreciate everyone's help.

 

Do I count 28 days from an acknowledgement of service or when claim was issued.

I will keep updating my post.

 

my online money claim so far.

 

Your claim was issued on 05/07/2013

 

 

shop direct notified the court of a change of address on 16/07/2013 (which is their legal dept)

 

 

shop direct issued an acknowledgment of service on 16/07/2013 (were they have ticked the box "I intend to defend all this claim")

 

Waiting for their defence.

 

thanks

amy29

 

Update 29\07\13 still waiting for their defence.

 

They have until 8th of aug by my dating with the above information.

 

Can anyone read above information regarding dates and comfirm if I'm right.

 

Thank you.

[Amy29]

Just rang money claim.

 

They said if defendant makes an acknowledgment of service , you count 33 days from the date Your claim was issued.

 

Myn was issued on 05/07/2013 so they have until 07/08/13 to issue a defence.

[Amy29]

Just rang money claim.

 

They said if defendant makes an acknowledgment of service , you count 33

days from the date Your claim was issued.

 

Myn was issued on 05/07/2013 so they have until 07/08/13 to issue a defence.

 

Can somone flag this need help.Please

 

Shop directs defence below.

 

How much of the claim do you dispute?

I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.

*

Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it?

No, for other reasons.

*

Defence

Save as hereinafter expressly admitted or not admitted,

the Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in the

Particulars of Claim as if the same were set forth herein.

 

At all material times:

 

The Defendant is a limited company specialising (inter alia)

in the provision of credit to consumers with a registered office

at Aintree Innovation Centre, Park Lane, Netherton, Bootle, L30

1SL

 

The Claimant was a private individual and the holder of four

credit accounts with the Defendant.

 

In accordance with the applicable account terms and

conditions,the Defendant requested payments from the Claimant.

The Claimant did not make these payments on time (or at

all)therefore, the Defendant applied late payment charges to the

claimant's account.

 

In the alternative, the Claimant has outstanding payments on her

accounts and the defendant has the right to set off against such

arrears, any amounts outstanding.

*

Signed

I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are tru

[citizenB]

Ok, so they have responded to your defence.

 

I will find someone who can advise what you need to do next.

 

This is a claim you have issued against Shop Direct for the return of default/penalty charges. What they are saying is:

 

1: That they had the right to make these charges because of the way you ran your account or..

2: If the court don't see it that way, then they have the right to offset (pay back to the account) any charges that you manage to reclaim.

[steampowered]

Nothing to do at the moment other than finding out about the process and the law. You will have to indicate that you want to continue. Next stage is for the court to send you the directions questionnaire.

[citizenB]

As it is your claim, you have to decide if you want to proceed further. Depending on how much your claim is for, there might be a fee to pay. Then you will receive Direction Questionnaires.

[panther12]

I think your PoC needed beefing up a bit. Just had a look at my old claim to citi bank that I did for a friend. If it helps any I paste it below so you can get an idea of the issues. In our case the charges went back longer than 6 years, hence the reference to s32 (1) The Limitations Act 1980 as per Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council.

 

IN THE xxxx county court Claim No:

 

 

 

BETWEEN:

xxxx

Claimant

 

- and -

 

 

CITIFINANCIAL EUROPE PLC

Defendant

 

_________________________ ___________________

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

_________________________ ___________________

 

 

 

1. The Claimant entered into an agreement (“The Agreement”) with the Defendant on or around October 2001 whereby the Defendant was to advance credit facilities to the Claimant under a running credit account, Account Number xxxx ("The Account").

 

2. The Agreement essentially consisted of the Defendant providing the Claimant with a credit card (“The Card”) which would allow the Claimant to make purchases and receive cash advances on credit. In return the Defendant was entitled to charge interest at the published rate.

 

3. The Agreement was a Regulated Agreement for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

4. At all material times the contract was subject to the Defendant’s standard terms and conditions which could be varied from time to time.

 

Summary

5. Throughout the course of the Agreement, the Defendant has added numerous default charges to the Account for the Claimant’s failure to make the minimum payment on the due date and or for exceeding the credit limit and or if a payment is returned. (Full particulars are set out in schedule 2).

 

6. The default charges were applied in accordance with the standard terms of The Agreement which were:

 

a) A penalty payable on breach of contract and thus unenforceable: and

 

b) An unfair term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“The Regulations”) and therefore not binding on the Claimant.

 

7. The Claimant is accordingly entitled to repayment of the sums wrongly added to the Account.

 

The Charges

8. The standard Terms of the Agreement in substance provided as follows:

 

a) The Defendant would provide the Claimant with the Card. The Claimant was entitled to use the Card to make purchases and receive cash advances up to a credit limit (“the Limit”) set by the Defendant. The Defendant could unilaterally change the Limit by giving the Claimant notice in writing.

 

b) The Defendant was entitled to charge interest on the purchases and cash advances at the published rate.

 

c) The Claimant was to pay the minimum payment of 3% of the amount owed or £5 (whichever was the greatest) by the due date as notified in the monthly statements.

 

d) In addition the Defendant was entitled to charge default fees (“the Charges”) where the Claimant exceeded the Limit, did not pay on the due date, or had a payment returned. The Default Charge is currently £12 and prior to 2006 the Charges were £25.

 

Penalty

9. The Charges were payable on breach of contract by the Claimant.

 

10. The amount of the Charges exceeded any genuine pre-estimate of the damage which would have been suffered by the Bank in relation to the Claimant’s transgressions.

 

11. In the premises the Charges were punitive and a penalty and thus unenforceable at common law.

 

The Regulations

12. At all material times the Claimant was a consumer within the Regulations.

 

13. At all material times the terms of the Agreement providing for the Charges were unfair within regulation 5 of the Regulations in that contrary to the requirement of good faith they caused a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the Claimant.

 

14. without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will refer to the following matters in support of the contention that the terms are to be assessed as unfair as at the time of the conclusion of the Agreement, and of each revision to the Standard Terms.

 

(1) The terms relating to Charges were standard terms; they would not be individually negotiated.

 

(2) The Charges were a penalty for breach of contract.

 

(3) The Charges exceeded the costs which the Bank could have expected to incur in dealing with the exceeding of the credit limit, late payment or returned payment.

 

(4) Accordingly the Charges were a disproportionate charge incurred by the Claimant for their failure to meet their contractual obligation and thus within the ambit of Schedule 2 (1) (e) of the Regulations and indicative of an unfair term.

 

(5) As the Defendant knew, the Charges were of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of the Agreement as a whole and would not influence the making of the Agreement.

 

(6) As the Defendant knew, the Claimant had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges.

 

(7) In the premises, the effect of the Charges would be prejudicial to the customer who incurred them, and cause an imbalance in the relations of the parties to the Agreement by subordinating the customer’s interests to those of the Defendant in a way which was inequitable.

 

15. without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will contend that the terms’ imposing the Charges are not core terms under regulation 6 of the Regulations and relies on the following matters.

 

(1) The assessment of fairness does not relate to terms which define the main or core subject matter of the Agreement.

 

(2) The assessment of fairness does not relate to the adequacy of the price or remuneration as against the goods or services supplied in exchange (in other words, whether or not the relevant services were value for money).

 

(3) The Charges are correctly described as default charges by the Defendant in the published tariff of charges.

 

16. By reason of the said matters the terms were not binding under regulation 8 of the Regulations.

 

17. The Defendant wrongly applied Charges to the Account totalling some £660.00 between 07/12/2001 and 08/12/2006. Particulars appear within Schedule 2.

 

18. For charges applied to the Account in excess of six years, the Claimant will rely on s32(1)© of The limitation act 1980.

 

19. On 07/12/2011 the Claimant demanded repayment of the sums wrongly applied.

 

20. Despite the Claimant’s efforts to negotiate settlement prior to the issuing of this claim, the Defendant has not repaid them or any of them.

 

Remedy

21. The Claimant claims;

 

(1) A declaration that the sums totalling £660.00 have wrongly been applied to the Account.

 

(2) The Claimant will rebut any assertion from the Defendant that any part of the claim is excluded by default of a time limit and declares that the claim is made under s32 (1) The Limitations Act 1980 as per Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council.

 

(3) Repayment of the said sum of £660.00 plus interest of £396.14 as calculated at 23 January 2012.

 

(4) Interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of payment of the Charges to date in the sum of £396.14, and at the daily rate of 0.022% until judgment or sooner payment.

 

(5) Court costs of £80.

 

I believe that the facts stated in these particulars, comprising of four pages, are true.

 

Dated

 

 

Signed

[Amy29]

Hi everyone

 

Thanks so much for all your help.

 

Ive just received my questionnaire.

 

First thing

Do I fill out the other form with it that says "would you like to settle your case without going to a court hearing"

 

Or do I just fill out questionnaire.

 

second thing

One of the questions is

Do you agree that the small claims track is the appropriate track for this case? tick yes or no if no why.

 

Also it asks which court I would prefer to attend can I choose.

 

The fee is £40.00.

 

Just want to make sure im doing it all right.

 

So worring but wont give in.

[Amy29]

thank you

[Amy29]

thank you

 

So I've read through the pack Northampton court have sent me.

 

They've sent:

Small claims Mediation service form.

Direct questtionnaire (small claim track)

 

I'm was wondering should I fill out small claims mediation service form,to show I've tried to settle before going court,or should I just fill out direct questionnaire form and go straight to court.

 

Thanks

Amy29

[Amy29]

Ok so after doing some more reading.

 

Its look like I should fill out both forms sending them £40,which I will send recorded delivery.

 

I think doing mediation first is best as judge even might send to mediation first.

 

If me and shop direct don't agree then it will go to court.

 

Do I have to send a copy of both forms to shop direct.

 

thanks

amy29

[steampowered]

hi amy29

 

Yes, I think agreeing to mediation is a good idea. The other side may or may not agree.

 

Yes you should send a copy to Shop Direct.

[Amy29]

hi amy29

 

Yes, I think agreeing to mediation is a good idea. The other side may or may not agree.

 

 

Yes you should send a copy to Shop Direct.

 

Thank you.

 

I don't think they will agree but at least it shows I've tried to settle before going to court.

[Old Cogger]

if they do not agree then more ammo in your court as the courts like to see things attempted to resolve prior to any case, and see who was reasonable and who was not.

[Amy29]

Very good point MIKE770

 

Will keep updating my post.

 

This post is keeping me going.

 

thank you to you all.

 

So next stage is to, fill out questionnaire and mediation form along with £40.

Then will post Monday morning to court, also will be sending a copy of both forms to shop directs solicitor.

 

Also put copies in my court file.

 

Then wait to see what shop direct say.

 

What sort of things should I say in the mediation phone call which says can last up to an hour.

 

Want to make sure get all my points across.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Amy29

[Amy29]

Update

 

Shop Direct also ticked mediation.

 

Awaiting next stage.

[Amy29]

Update

 

Shop Direct also ticked mediation.

 

Awaiting next stage.

 

Update mediation booked in for next week.

[andyep]

I presume shop direct settle before court and stipulate no further entries on the internet ,would that be right ?