charges+contractual

[glav]

Hi c_allen

 

Have sent you a pm, need some advice, thanks

 

glav:)

[c_allen]

hi all.

well the order i posted in post 63 has turned out to be a complete waste of time and paper:mad: , i fully complied with it to the letter.

i should have recieved cap 1's bundle 8 days ago but nothing recieved and the court recieved nothing as well:D ,

i sent a letter to the courts yesterday for non compliance of the order, and asking for it to be struck out, and i rang cap 1 today to see when they wanted to settle, and to say that if they sent me a cheque for the outstanding amount right away i'll not go for wasted costs. they said they'd get back to me this aft,

so it turns out that they've rung the court and said that they didn't recieve the order,[ which is complete bull as when i recieved the order i rang cap 1 to negoiate but they wouldn't speak to me about it, and they recieved my bundle 4 weeks ago and the court date is the 12 dec, so why wouldn't someone realise that they must be missing something somewhere??????] and would it be ok for them to send it in asap, and the f*&^%%@@~ courts are allowing them too, w@*&er^ .,

whats the fu~~ing point of CPRs, what the point of having a justice system that can be abused and ignored by big firms with their own dedicated legal departments????? this is complete and utter bullsh*t.

as you can probably tell i'm very very angry at this moment so any help or advice would be welcome as i'm about to draft a very pointed letter to both the courts and cap 1.

[clubber]

I'm on here looking as my Barclays claim requires no more work for a week or 2 and I have a Crap1 account I have just issued claim for. I did the same with my bank claim, getting in touch for a quick settle following claiming judgement by default. They got in touch with court quickly after refusing to speak to me and bought themselves (not only xtra time but a get out of jail free card!) so know how you feel. The learning from this is, 'thou who keeps track and watches the opposition taking their eye off the ball- keep your gob shut!!' (no offence- guilty of it myself!)

 

will be keeping up with this though- best of british

[c_allen]

i've well and truelly kept my eye on the ball, i didn't ask for judgement earlier because they always ask for a set aside, so give gave them a bit more time;) . this is different as the order very clearly says that if either party fails then it will be struckout without any notice. thanx for your support though:D

quick up date, i've found a copy of a letter i sent to cap1 at the end of june referring to the order, so that should have an effect:)

[doo]

Hi c.allen, haven't forgotten about you, they are difficult to deal with at times and certainly easy to loose your rag with, I know - hopefully the letter will have the desired effect.

[lyns]

when is your court date? Mine is September and only just got the papers from cap 1 to show me what they are relying on in court. Better send mine off quick!!

[ukaviator]

These letters Lynn, what do they say?. .

[c_allen]

hi all, and hi Doo:)

my dates in december so really not happy with the court.

recieved info off cap1 today, it completely ignores the order that the judge made, which i will be pointing out to him.

it says that; as they paid me what they decided they owe me, plus the interest at the rate they also decided, as a gesture of goodwill then there is no case to answer and my claim is vexatious.

i think i'll use some of the letters from my halifax claim for noncompliance as a blueprint to answer this, any thoughts??

[c_allen]

HI ALL,

i'm wondering if some nice user out there could fill me in on where we're at with CI claims for C/Cs. i've really neglected this claim as i've been having a very very rough ride with an insurance claim:mad: , i'm in court on the 12 dec and i just don't have the time to catch up, i do understand that this is a self help group, and i wouldn't be asking if i could find the time:o

[ukaviator]

Hi C_allen

 

They seem to be paying Purchase interest, not full CCI on the claims where CCI was asked for. It still takes an N1 to be filed with the court before they will pay up.

[Missy06]

Hi. I've been following this thread but it appears it gone a little quiet!

 

History of my claim:cool::

 

15/10/07 - issued claim in court for 100.00 charges, 31.68 interest charged, contractual interest of 80.43 (@ 19.9%) and court fee of 30.00 as well as the removal of a default from my credit file. Total claim is for 242.11. The Date of service was 20/10/07. They have till 20/11/07 to file an acknowledgement of service.

 

1/11/07 - they sent me a letter saying "All default fees charged to any account are always charged at the purchase interest rate. The total amount of purchase interest we have ever charged to your account since 2002 is 10.30......I am prepared to offer a refund of the default fees in the sum of 100.00, the purchase interest sum of 10.30 and 23.34 which is 8% you are entitled to claim under section 69.....This means you've held an account with us without paying interest on any of your purchases.....I'll also refund the court fee of 30.00....." "....I've refunded 163.64 to your account today. I have advised Robinson Way and they will reduce your balance with them...." "....we have also written to the court to confirm that we have paid in full..."

 

1/11/07 - I also received a notice from the court that Crap1 have filed an Acknowledgement of Service. They then had till the 20/11/07 to file a defence.

 

3/11/07 - received a notice from court that a defence has been filed. Had to complete AQ by the 19/11/07.

 

9/11/07 - dropped completed AQ with directions at court. I believe they have 14 days to file their AQ.

 

21/11/07 - Crap1 sent me a copy their AQ.

 

27/11/07 - intend to write them and the court that the claim is not settled as said in Crap1's AQ. They've paid everything but haven't paid my contractual interest!...just 8% statutory.

 

Am I on the right track? I really don't mind going to court as I want the default on my account removed.....that's another story for another day!

[c_allen]

I'd Say You Are On The Right Track, But I'd Make It Very Clear That You Won't Accept Any Settlement That Does Not Include The Default Removal, Saying That You Beleive It Will Have An Adverse Effect On You Claim In Court If The Penalties Where Taken Out Of The Equation, Hope This Helps.

[Missy06]

Thanks for that. Will be sending the letter today!

[Missy06]

ps: why are we asked not to accept partial payment when claiming contractual interest?

[Missy06]

Letter written and will be in the post (and fax!) once the post office opens!

[c_allen]

i'm sorry missy for not replying but i've been really busy lately, but to answer your question;

they'll try to seperate your claim so that they don't need to prove their charges are lawful, if they don't need to do that, then it'd be very difficult to prove your entitled to charge them the same interest they would charge you,

in a nutshell, your trying to prove breach of contract, ie; they had a duty, by way of the contract, to do things "lawfully" if they did something "unlawfully" then they are in breach of contract, therefore, as the contract says something like " if you borrow money our without our authorisation ( breach of contract) we'll charge you interest at 34.9%". so your charging them the same rate they would charge you, UTTCR says that a contract cannot have a clause that is favourable to 1 party and not the other, so this contract is considered to be "bilateral" ie; works for both parties. well this is how i understand it ( although it's a bit more complicated, but it's a good starting point) and i hope i'm right about this as it's the arguement i'm intending to use in court next wednesday (12/12/07). i hope this helps:)

 

anyway a quick update, i received a letter of cap1 today basically saying that they have only charged me 15% and have already paid me all the charges plus 15%, and there is no unjust enrichment, and they not breached any fiduciary duty, then i have no claim,and they go on to say that they concider this claim to be both vexatious and disproportionate.

is there anyone out there with any thoughts on this, and does anyone have an opinion on how i should react/answer this????????????????????????

 

oh and the letter isn't marked without predudice, which gives an indication where this might be going????????????????????

[stevokenevo]

 

anyway a quick update, i received a letter of cap1 today basically saying that they have only charged me 15% and have already paid me all the charges plus 15%, and there is no unjust enrichment, and they not breached any fiduciary duty, then i have no claim,and they go on to say that they concider this claim to be both vexatious and disproportionate.

is there anyone out there with any thoughts on this, and does anyone have an opinion on how i should react/answer this????????????????????????

 

oh and the letter isn't marked without predudice, which gives an indication where this might be going????????????????????

 

A while back we discussed something similair to this, where i reckoned you could only charge them what they had charged you.

 

So in my opinion, you have done well to get your charges + 15% which in my book equals charges + CCI

 

Congratulations!

[ukaviator]

I agree. It looks like they have given you the Purchase rate of interest. I would accept that as a win, and not proceed any further. To carry on for CCI alone would be difficult.

 

Congratulations on getting this far . . .

[Missy06]

i'm sorry missy for not replying but i've been really busy lately, but to answer your question;

they'll try to seperate your claim so that they don't need to prove their charges are lawful, if they don't need to do that, then it'd be very difficult to prove your entitled to charge them the same interest they would charge you,

in a nutshell, your trying to prove breach of contract, ie; they had a duty, by way of the contract, to do things "lawfully" if they did something "unlawfully" then they are in breach of contract, therefore, as the contract says something like " if you borrow money our without our authorisation ( breach of contract) we'll charge you interest at 34.9%". so your charging them the same rate they would charge you, UTTCR says that a contract cannot have a clause that is favourable to 1 party and not the other, so this contract is considered to be "bilateral" ie; works for both parties. well this is how i understand it ( although it's a bit more complicated, but it's a good starting point) and i hope i'm right about this as it's the arguement i'm intending to use in court next wednesday (12/12/07). i hope this helps:)

 

anyway a quick update, i received a letter of cap1 today basically saying that they have only charged me 15% and have already paid me all the charges plus 15%, and there is no unjust enrichment, and they not breached any fiduciary duty, then i have no claim,and they go on to say that they concider this claim to be both vexatious and disproportionate.

is there anyone out there with any thoughts on this, and does anyone have an opinion on how i should react/answer this????????????????????????

 

oh and the letter isn't marked without predudice, which gives an indication where this might be going????????????????????

 

Steokenovo / Ukaviator,

 

if they've only charged C_allen 15% and paid him back 15%, how about the interest on the monies they've unlawfully charged him from the day they've charged him till now? .........it is unauthorised borrowing, isn't it?

 

I thought this was partly the 'power' of Contractual Interest (at least from the spreadsheet I downloaded and used from this site).

[WendyB]

Problem is, the courts might see it as vexatious to go to court just for CI alone, if they've paid back everything else already. There's already been one which went to court on this and lost, I think it was lynsey v capital one. No point carrying on if the chances of winning are slim, best to bow out on a high. At the end of the day, Purchase Interest is better than nothing. As long as you get back what you've actually laid out, then this should be classed as a victory.

[baslow138]

Im finalising my NI and a little worried about my Schedule 1 . I have calculated compound interest using a spreadheet( which ukavaitor very kindly checked for meand said looked fine), however I only made one or two purhase with my card amounting to £300 max.If prurchase interest was claimed would it be only on this £300?

 

Thanks

 

Baslow

[Missy06]

i'm sorry missy for not replying but i've been really busy lately, but to answer your question;

they'll try to seperate your claim so that they don't need to prove their charges are lawful, if they don't need to do that, then it'd be very difficult to prove your entitled to charge them the same interest they would charge you,

in a nutshell, your trying to prove breach of contract, ie; they had a duty, by way of the contract, to do things "lawfully" if they did something "unlawfully" then they are in breach of contract, therefore, as the contract says something like " if you borrow money our without our authorisation ( breach of contract) we'll charge you interest at 34.9%". so your charging them the same rate they would charge you, UTTCR says that a contract cannot have a clause that is favourable to 1 party and not the other, so this contract is considered to be "bilateral" ie; works for both parties. well this is how i understand it ( although it's a bit more complicated, but it's a good starting point) and i hope i'm right about this as it's the arguement i'm intending to use in court next wednesday (12/12/07). i hope this helps:)

 

anyway a quick update, i received a letter of cap1 today basically saying that they have only charged me 15% and have already paid me all the charges plus 15%, and there is no unjust enrichment, and they not breached any fiduciary duty, then i have no claim,and they go on to say that they concider this claim to be both vexatious and disproportionate.

is there anyone out there with any thoughts on this, and does anyone have an opinion on how i should react/answer this????????????????????????

 

oh and the letter isn't marked without predudice, which gives an indication where this might be going????????????????????

 

Thanks for the feedback and all the best for next Wednesday.....let's know how you get on.

 

To keep you updated on my claim, last Friday I received a 'General Order of Judgement Order' ordering that:

 

1) any hearing listed in this case shall be vacated forthwith.

2) this case shall be stayed pending the determination in High Court of the case b/w the OFT and various banks.......

3)within 28 days of the determination of the case the parties shall inform the court as to what further directions they require or whether the case has been settled.

4)persmission to apply for further directions a any time.

5) costs reserved.

 

The order then goes on to say that "any party affected by this order may have it set aside, varied or stayed provided that such an application, together with the appropriate fee, is made no more than 7 days after the date of service of this order".

 

WHAT IN THE WORLD DOES ALL THIS MEAN?!?

......anyone.....?

 

(Phew! So much typing!)

[Missy06]

Hi C_allen

 

They seem to be paying Purchase interest, not full CCI on the claims where CCI was asked for. It still takes an N1 to be filed with the court before they will pay up.

 

You're right on that one! That's what happened with mine. I got no audience until I took it to cour!!

[Missy06]

Problem is, the courts might see it as vexatious to go to court just for CI alone, if they've paid back everything else already. There's already been one which went to court on this and lost, I think it was lynsey v capital one. No point carrying on if the chances of winning are slim, best to bow out on a high. At the end of the day, Purchase Interest is better than nothing. As long as you get back what you've actually laid out, then this should be classed as a victory.

 

You have a point there!

 

I'm still thinking of taking mine to court though ....as I want them to take off this default they've put against the account.

[ukaviator]

Which court is this Missy?. . . it's a Credit Card claim, so the test case does'nt apply . .