Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


Dot1

Help with starting a County Court claim for Charges on Argos card.

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1696 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

Hi Dot

 

Sorry, been away again for a couple of days..... my posts on here get a little sporadic at times

 

I assume you filed your statement and any authorities you are relying on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mike,

 

Not quite, any chance of creating some space in you PM please. There is something I need you urgent help on.

 

If that is OK with you.

 

Thanks

Dot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Mike,

 

Not quite, any chance of creating some space in you PM please. There is something I need you urgent help on.

 

If that is OK with you.

 

Thanks

Dot

 

Done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

Just wondering if someone can help me with this questions:

 

  • Under what circumstance can a Without Prejudice Letter be used in Court?

 

    Does a company have to provide proof if they claim that they have purchased a debt back from a DCA?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took a look at your PM's............ much of the content is pure waffle intended to sidetrack the court.

 

WP.......in this instance I'd be inclined to say it has no protection whatsoever. It refers to the WP offer within its bundle so it seems a little ridiculous to suggest it now has protected status. Whilst I'd like to say its out of character for the defendant and its counsel - it isn't. I have never come across a more unprofessional outfit

 

I think you have to refer to it within your WS and how it has effectively been a little creative with the facts

 

Notice of assignment should be served but HRG is in the habit of producing documentation for archiving only. Not really a big issue as far as the court is concerned as its now within your knowledge by virtue of its statement.

 

I'd post its statements and P18 responses here for further input...... you can remove all the fanny from the witness detailing her company position...... waste of a sheet of A4. Comical really, it can't respond to handful of questions in a valid Part 18 as it believes its disproportionate but can serve reams of s*** within its statement!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll need this in your bundle.. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402142426/http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/oft842.pdf

 

Try 1.6, 1.10 & 1.14 for starters and you'll begin to understand why it will not comply with your part 18 request

 

Amex case......... no relevance, judges comments were obiter dicter, passing comment not binding and having no force in this [or any] case.

 

I think you need to take a deep breath, sit back, dig through the waffle and address the issues....... don't allow your self to be drawn on obstruction designed to confuse.

 

If all charges were a consequence of the PPI that is a material fact and cannot be argued with, UTCCR is a secondary cause

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mike,

 

I will be posting it shortly. Much as they have not made it obvious about the WP, it is clear that they are trying to use that through the back door. They made a WP offer which I refused.

 

That was last month and now without mentioning the WP offer, they are using it that they have made refund but did offset it against the debt which they did not own.

 

They now claim to have bought the debt back. They are pretending that this took place sometime back.

 

Very interesting.

 

You'll need this in your bundle.. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402142426/http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/oft842.pdf

 

Try 1.6, 1.10 & 1.14 for starters and you'll begin to understand why it will not comply with your part 18 request

 

Amex case......... no relevance, judges comments were obiter dicter, passing comment not binding and having no force in this [or any] case.

 

I think you need to take a deep breath, sit back, dig through the waffle and address the issues....... don't allow your self to be drawn on obstruction designed to confuse.

 

If all charges were a consequence of the PPI that is a material fact and cannot be argued with, UTCCR is a secondary cause

 

Sorry we cross posted.

 

Just checked it, initially I had included it in the bundle but I tried to find out if it was a good idea to have it it the bundle but got no response so I removed them.

 

The defendant has it in their bundle too. Is it still worth including in mine?

 

Thanks

Dot

 

Dot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally understand, Wragge seem to be of the opinion that it can confuse the court but of the 2 occasions I've faced it in court the judge has seen through the deception and awarded costs against it on the SCT

 

Sorry we cross posted.

 

Just checked it, initially I had included it in the bundle but I tried to find out if it was a good idea to have it it the bundle but got no response so I removed them.

 

The defendant has it in their bundle too. Is it still worth including in mine?

 

Thanks

Dot

 

Dot

 

Yes, if it refers to it [or part of that suits its position] you counter with the parts that don't. Its too easy to pick and chose a paragraph within any document that supports a case if you rely on the other side not referring to every other part that doesn't.

 

You really should have had this sorted a while ago, you can't file a claim in the hope that the defendant will settle. Bare denials are the name of the game for the majority, you must be prepared from the outset to undo its case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand and I am learning it the hard way.

Dot

 

Below is the WS from the defendant. You input is appreciated as I have not yet submitted my bundle.

 

WITNESS STATEMENT - DEFENDANTS.

 

1. I am authorise to make this statement for the Defendant, which I do from facts and matters within my own knowledge except where I specifically say otherwise.

 

2. I attach to this WS a bundle of documents marked X1. If I refer to a page number in this statement then it is to a page in the bundle unless I expressly say otherwise.

 

The Agreement

 

3. The agreement which is subject to the Claimant’s Claim relates to an Argos store Card facility and was entered into on xx/xx/20xx, subject to the T&Cs of the Agreement.

 

4. The Claimant applied to the Defendant for the store card by application dated xx/xx/xx which was completed at the Defendant’s store at Peckham. The Application Form is the Agreement. A copy of the application form is attached at page 1 of exhibit “X1” together with T&Cs at page 2. The copies of T&C are not easy to read after photocopying. I will bring an original to the hearing but in the meantime, an enlarge version of T&Cs is attached at pages Z of Exhibit “X1”.

 

Coversafe/PPI

 

5. The Defendant refunded the sum of £533.19 to the Claimant by cheque on -- January20xx A copy of the Defendant’s letter to the Claimant is attached at pages Z of Exhibit 2VP1” together with the claimant’s letter of X January 20XX at page 10 and a further letter from Defendant at page XX.

 

T&Cs

 

6. The Defendant provide to the Claimant a spending/credit limit of £720.00

 

7. I draw Court’s attention to the following clauses of the T&Cs:

a) Clause 7.2 state that you must pay us within monthly payment

b) Clause 7.3 states that your statement will show the smallest amount you need to pay and the date by which you must make this payment

 

c) Clause 8.1 states that if you or an additional cardholder breaks this agreement, we will charge you or for any losses or cost we have to pay as a result. You must pay us immediately any amount you have spent over your credit limit. If you fail to pay us any sum which has become due, or break this agreement in any other way, or if you die or become bankrupt, we may ask you or your trustee or executor to pay the full amount you owe, after we have sent you any notice that the law requires.

 

d) Clause 8.2 states that in addition to any interest and other amounts you must pay to us under this agreement we may also require you to pay such reasonable administration fees as we set from time to time to compensate us if you fail to pay any sum when it is due or break this agreement in any other way.

 

e) Clause 11 states that we or you can end this agreement by giving not less than 7 days’ notice in writing to the other.

 

f) Clause 12 states that if we owe you any money we will be entitled to offset the sum we owe you against any debt you owe us under this agreement.

 

The Claimant’s Complaint

 

8. The Claimant’s letter of complaint dated --/--/ 2014 is attached at page 12 of Exhibit “X1” together with the Defendant’s response to dated --/---/ 2014 at pages ==, the Claimant’s letter before action dated --/--/ 2014 at pages // and the Defendant’s response dated --/--/ 2014 at page //.

Conduct of the Account

 

9. Throughout the life time of the account, an account statement is sent to Customers every month for payment. The account statement sets out the balance due for any transaction during the previous month together with any unpaid balance. The statement also sets out the premium due for Coversafe base on the balance and interest due on that balance if is not paid off in full. An example of a statements sent to Claimant is attached at pages #-# of Exhibit “X1” shaow how interest is calculated.

 

10. Attached at pages #–# of Exhibit “X1” copies of the monthly account statements sent to the Claimant throughout the lifetime of the account. The statements at pages # –# are archive copies given the passage of time. The monthly statements show the accounts spent on purchases, Coversafe, interest and default charges and payments made. Attached at pages #–# of Exhibit “X1” is a transaction history that summarises the information in the monthly statements. The default charges and related interest charges are further summarised in the Compound Interest calculator attached at pages #–# of Exhibit “X1”.

 

11. The Claimant defaulted on the terms of the agreement. On =/=/ 2009, the Defendant sent NoD to Claimant seeking a minimum payment of default sum of £51.23.

 

12. Payment of the default sum was not received by the Defendant with an outstanding balance due from the Claimant in the sum of £802.70 as at =/= June 2009. Accordingly, the Defendant registered the defaults with CRA, Experian. The Defendant began referring defaults instead to Equifax on 19/12/13 and Call Credit on 14/08/14 at which point we would have shared the information with both bureaus.

 

13. I am advised by the Defendant’s Solicitors, that the OFT gave guidance on the monetary amount of default charges by setting a threshold of £12.00 per charge for intervention by OFT as stated in its report calculating fair default charges in credit card contract date April 2006.

 

14. The Defendant reduced its it default charges to £12.00 from 1 January 2007

 

15. The account was sold to Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd on 3 June 2014. As a result of the Claim, the Defendant re-purchased the loan from Lowell on 27 May 2015. Notice of the of the transfer was sent to the Claimant by letters dated 18 July 2014, copies of which is attached at page 61 – 62 of Exhibit “X1”.

 

16. On the advice of its solicitors, the Defendant has credited the total sum of £192.62 to the balance owed by the Claimant and has informed the CRAs that this has reduced the balance to £610.08

 

a) The table below shows the amounts that have been refunded.

£0.30 (billed deferred finance charge)

£37.38 (billed deferred finance charge)

£5.50 x 7( Late payment fees)

£14.64 (billed deferred finance charge)

Total: £90.85 plus interest

 

b) Attache at pages / -/ of Exhibit "X1" is a table of interest the associated interest also refunded.

 

I made a Part 18 Request but never got any response but in the bundle, a respond has been included as below:

 

My request were:

 

1. Please confirm the method of calculating or pre estimating the default charge to include;

 

(a) equitable loss to the business directly flowing from the default.

(b) equitable loss to the business attributable to the manual intervention of staff in administration of the account.

© equitable loss to the business attributable to the fixed costs of consumables and postage.

 

2. Whether any notice issued giving effect to the charge as prescribed by the consumer credit act 1974 and as amended 2006.

 

3. Whether notice at 2 [if any] is contained within any other prescribed notice, eg; statement of account at prescribed intervals.

 

4. If prescribed notice given at 2 or in combination of 2 & 3, whether such notices continue to be given after the event of default and if so the intervals between each notice.

 

TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER THE ABOVE REQUEST WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THE SAME UPON YOU

 

 

Response in the Bundle:

 

Response 1.

The request is disproportionate to the Claim. Default charges on the Claimant's account were in the sum total of £198.00

 

The question of the appropriate amount chargeable for default charges was settled by the OFT in September 2006. The amount debited to the Claimant's account upon implementation of the OFT's report did not exceed the amounts fixed by the OFT. The Defendant will rely on Amex v Brandon

 

The Claimant does not dispute that the account was in default.

 

Response 2.

Following inception of the agreement, the customer was informed of charges to the amount of default charges.

Notice of DoF was sent to the Claimant by post by letters dated 29 May 2009 seeking repayment of £51.23 within 14 days.

The agreement remained in default and the debt sold to Lowell on 17 July 14.

 

Response 3 and 4.

defendant repeats response 2, above.

 

 

Any thought?

 

There was a Without Prejudice letter with an offer of £192.62 from the Defendant's rep to be deducted from the debt. I rejected this offer. There was no mention of buying back the debt but to my surprise, this information has made its way into the bundle without any mention of it being a WP offer.

 

It is further stated in the bundle that the debt has been bought back and the £192.62 has been "set off" against it.

The WP Offer was made last month but it is now being presented like the refund was done long time back.

 

They all along maintained that the charges were fair.

 

Thanks for any advise and help.

 

Thanks

Dot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Below is the WS from the defendant. You input is appreciated as I have not yet submitted my bundle.

 

WITNESS STATEMENT - DEFENDANTS.

 

1. I am authorise to make this statement for the Defendant, which I do from facts and matters within my own knowledge except where I specifically say otherwise.

 

2. I attach to this WS a bundle of documents marked X1. If I refer to a page number in this statement then it is to a page in the bundle unless I expressly say otherwise.

 

The Agreement

 

3. The agreement which is subject to the Claimant’s Claim relates to an Argos store Card facility and was entered into on xx/xx/20xx, subject to the T&Cs of the Agreement.

 

4. The Claimant applied to the Defendant for the store card by application dated xx/xx/xx which was completed at the Defendant’s store at Peckham. The Application Form is the Agreement. A copy of the application form is attached at page 1 of exhibit “X1” together with T&Cs at page 2. The copies of T&C are not easy to read after photocopying. I will bring an original to the hearing but in the meantime, an enlarge version of T&Cs is attached at pages Z of Exhibit “X1”.

 

Coversafe/PPI

 

5. The Defendant refunded the sum of £533.19 to the Claimant by cheque on -- January20xx A copy of the Defendant’s letter to the Claimant is attached at pages Z of Exhibit 2VP1” together with the claimant’s letter of X January 20XX at page 10 and a further letter from Defendant at page XX. You have the references to DISP 3, I'd suggest you use them in response

T&Cs

 

6. The Defendant provide to the Claimant a spending/credit limit of £720.00

 

7. I draw Court’s attention to the following clauses of the T&Cs:

a) Clause 7.2 state that you must pay us within monthly payment

b) Clause 7.3 states that your statement will show the smallest amount you need to pay and the date by which you must make this payment

 

c) Clause 8.1 states that if you or an additional cardholder breaks this agreement, we will charge you or for any losses or cost we have to pay as a result. You must pay us immediately any amount you have spent over your credit limit. If you fail to pay us any sum which has become due, or break this agreement in any other way, or if you die or become bankrupt, we may ask you or your trustee or executor to pay the full amount you owe, after we have sent you any notice that the law requires.

 

d) Clause 8.2 states that in addition to any interest and other amounts you must pay to us under this agreement we may also require you to pay such reasonable administration fees as we set from time to time to compensate us if you fail to pay any sum when it is due or break this agreement in any other way.

 

e) Clause 11 states that we or you can end this agreement by giving not less than 7 days’ notice in writing to the other.

 

f) Clause 12 states that if we owe you any money we will be entitled to offset the sum we owe you against any debt you owe us under this agreement.

 

The Claimant’s Complaint

 

8. The Claimant’s letter of complaint dated --/--/ 2014 is attached at page 12 of Exhibit “X1” together with the Defendant’s response to dated --/---/ 2014 at pages ==, the Claimant’s letter before action dated --/--/ 2014 at pages // and the Defendant’s response dated --/--/ 2014 at page //.

Conduct of the Account

 

9. Throughout the life time of the account, an account statement is sent to Customers every month for payment. The account statement sets out the balance due for any transaction during the previous month together with any unpaid balance. The statement also sets out the premium due for Coversafe base on the balance and interest due on that balance if is not paid off in full. An example of a statements sent to Claimant is attached at pages #-# of Exhibit “X1” shaow how interest is calculated.

 

10. Attached at pages #–# of Exhibit “X1” copies of the monthly account statements sent to the Claimant throughout the lifetime of the account. The statements at pages # –# are archive copies given the passage of time. The monthly statements show the accounts spent on purchases, Coversafe, interest and default charges and payments made. Attached at pages #–# of Exhibit “X1” is a transaction history that summarises the information in the monthly statements. The default charges and related interest charges are further summarised in the Compound Interest calculator attached at pages #–# of Exhibit “X1”.

 

11. The Claimant defaulted on the terms of the agreement. On =/=/ 2009, the Defendant sent NoD to Claimant seeking a minimum payment of default sum of £51.23. [B]Irrelevant if inaccurate due to PPI application, see DPA principles[/b]

 

12. Payment of the default sum was not received by the Defendant with an outstanding balance due from the Claimant in the sum of £802.70 as at =/= June 2009. Accordingly, the Defendant registered the defaults with CRA, Experian. The Defendant began referring defaults instead to Equifax on 19/12/13 and Call Credit on 14/08/14 at which point we would have shared the information with both bureaus. See 11

 

13. I am advised by the Defendant’s Solicitors, that the OFT gave guidance on the monetary amount of default charges by setting a threshold of £12.00 per charge for intervention by OFT as stated in its report calculating fair default charges in credit card contract date April 2006. Misleading statement, see post 173

 

14. The Defendant reduced its it default charges to £12.00 from 1 January 2007 Irrelevant

 

15. The account was sold to Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd on 3 June 2014. As a result of the Claim, the Defendant re-purchased the loan from Lowell on 27 May 2015. Notice of the of the transfer was sent to the Claimant by letters dated 18 July 2014, copies of which is attached at page 61 – 62 of Exhibit “X1”. No notice served but probably won't gain you any brownie points

 

16. On the advice of its solicitors, the Defendant has credited the total sum of £192.62 to the balance owed by the Claimant and has informed the CRAs that this has reduced the balance to £610.08 No agreement pre or post litigation

 

a) The table below shows the amounts that have been refunded.

£0.30 (billed deferred finance charge)

£37.38 (billed deferred finance charge)

£5.50 x 7( Late payment fees)

£14.64 (billed deferred finance charge)

Total: £90.85 plus interest

 

b) Attache at pages / -/ of Exhibit "X1" is a table of interest the associated interest also refunded.

 

Comments in red above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comments in red above

 

Thanks Mike,

 

I will have a look at those point include them in my WS and post it.

 

Dot

 

Below is what I have come up with, I haven't yet fixed the No 16.

 

I, DOT of XXXXXX, London and Claimant in this case, do say the as follows:

I make this statement in support of my claim for money due under an agreement for the supply of goods and services. This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

1. I applied for Argos Store Card from the defendant in xxxx, 2003 and my application was accepted and the defendant issued the Claimant with Argos Store Card and advance credit facilities under a running credit account, Account number xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx. ("The Account") to be used within Argos Stores.

 

2. During the life of the agreement, the defendant applied various unfair charges to my account ranging from £0.30 to £37.00 as a consequence of the Payment Protection mis-sold and now settled basic PPI premiums. I also believe that other charges applied to my account to be penury in nature. These charges were for, over the limit fee, Late payment fee, Return Cheques Fee, Return direct debit Fee and others totaling to £298.35 plus interest.

 

The defendant mis-sold to me a Payment Protection Insurance (Coversafe), which was added to my account and a monthly premium charge ranging between £1.92-£8.79 plus interest were applied to my account during the life of the agreement. (Exhibit C1).

These charges caused a snow ball effect.

 

According to the FCA handbook, DISP App3:9:2 “In assessing redress, the firm should consider whether there are any other further losses that flow from its breach or failing that were reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the firm's breach or failing, for example, where the payment protection contract's cost or rejected claims contributed to affordability issues for the associated loan or credit which led to arrears charges, default interest, penal interest rates or other penalties levied by the lender”.

 

3. As a result of the above, I believe that the defendant’s action resulted into processing or publication of inaccurate opinion of data about me, when the inaccurate/unfair processing first occurred on xxx xxx 2009 and this persisted to date. It is being process through Experience, Call Credit and Equifax Credit Reference Agencies. (Exhibit C2)

 

4. The defendant closed my account for an alleged outstanding balance of £802.70. I did not hear anything until 2014.

 

5. In 2014 I received a letter from Lowell Portfollio1 Ltd informing me that they were assigned by Argos to collect the money owed under the agreement.

 

6. In xxxx 2014, I made a Section 78 Request to Lowell Portfollio1 Ltd requesting for Notice of assignment, a true signed copy of Credit Agreement with terms and condition and statement of accounts. I paid the statutory fee too but never received everything except for a copy of an application form and some terms and conditions which were not related to the account in question but also ineligible. (Exhibit C3)

 

7. I also made the same request to the Defendant in xxxxx 2014, paid the statutory fee. (Exhibit C4)

 

8. In xxx 2014, I made a Data Subject access request to the Defendant to provide me with all the Data/ information they held on me and paid the statutory fee too. (Exhibit C5)

 

9. On xx xxx 2014, I wrote to the defendant complaining about the mis-sale of Coversafe and I requested for full refund of the money taken towards insurance premium plus interest. I also enclosed the FOS PPI Questionnaire. (Exhibit C6 )

 

10. I received an acknowledgement of my complaints from the defendant dated xx xxx 2014 regarding the Coversafe issues raised. In the letter, the Defendant enclosed a PPI Questionnaire form which I completed and posted back as instructed. The defendant wrote to me again in a letter dated xx xxx 2014 stating that the complaint was still being looked into and final response will be provided by xx xxx 2014. (Exhibit C7 a&b)

 

11. I received a letter from the defendant dated xx xxx 2014 rejecting my complaint for unfair charges and referring me to Ombudsman. (Exhibit C8)

 

12. The Defendant provided me with a copy of the Application Form I completed when I applied for the credit and statements of terms of agreement in a letter dated xx xxx 2014 in respond to my Section 78 Request. (Exhibit C9)

 

13. In a letter dated xx xxx 2014, the Defendant provided me with the some of the information I requested in my Data Subject Access Request but mainly statements of account from 2009 to 2014. Also included was “GEMS ARCHIVE COPY STATEMENT REPORT” covering the entire period of the agreement and I discovered that there were a lot of penalty charges added to my account dating from 2005 to 2009. (Exhibit C10)

 

14. I received a letter dated xx xxxx2014 from the defendant stating that my PPI complaint has been upheld and made an offer totaling to £533.19. The offer was made up of premium paid plus interest in regards to Payment Protection Insurance (Coversafe). Attached to the letter was terms and condition of accepting that the offer. It stated that the offer was for full and final settlement of any claim against the defendant. An agreement was attached to the letter for me to sign. (Exhibit C11 a&b)

The Defendant failed to observe the FSA rules which states that "The firm should make any offer of redress to the complainant in a fair and balanced way. In particular, the firm should explain clearly to the complainant the basis for the redress offered including how any compensation is calculated and, where relevant, the rescheduling of the loan, and the consequences of accepting the offer of redress".

15. On 23 October 2014, I responded to the defendants offer letter and rejected it and requested that the decision is reviewed. (Exhibit C12).

 

16. I received another letter from the Defendant dated xx xxx 2014 in respond to my letter of October, stating that their decision in their letter dated xx xxx 2014 would stand as they believe that it was the right decision. The letter further stated that the incorrect data entry I complained off in my letter will remain as they believe it is accurate but I can talk to Lowell Group who is the new owner of the alleged debt. (Exhibit C13).

 

17. On xx xxx 2014, I wrote a separate complaint letter to the defendant regarding the unfair charges applied to my account and requested full refund plus compound interest. With the letter, I enclosed schedule of charges applied. (Exhibit C14 )

 

18. On xx xx2015, I wrote to the defendant again stating that I would only accept the offer as settlement for Payment Protection Insurance (Coversafe) but my unfair charges claim remains open. I did not sign the agreement provided by the defendant. (Exhibit C15)

 

19. I sent a part 18 Request for further information to the defendant representative on xx xx 2015 to clarify what the unfair charges figures are made of and the brake down of the amount but did not get any reply. (ExhibitC16)

 

20. I sent another Part 18 Request for further information to the defendant representative on xx xx2015 to which I did not get any response. I wrote again on xx xx 2015 but I did not get any answer. (Exhibit C17)

The defendant failed to respond to my request yet the Claimant's claim is about the Unfair charges and therefore proportionate the fairness or unfairness of the charges.

 

21. I received a letter dated xx xx 2015 in regards to PPI Claim from the Defendant’s representative. (Exhibit C18)

 

22. I responded to the defendant’s representative letter regarding the PPI claim on – xx 2015. (Exhibit C19)

 

23. The defendant made Without Prejudice Offer on xxxxx in a letter dated and the Claimant rejected this offer as it fell short of the Claimant;s claim. There has never been any agreement pre or post litigation therefore the defendant's presentation that the sum of £192.62 was offset towards the debt is untrue. The claimant is not aware of such arrangement.( I have not exhibited the letter referred to but will bring the original to court if the Court is interested to see).

 

Hi Mike,

 

Could you please have a look at my WS above with the suggestions added.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, been away for a couple of days

 

Statement is an improvement but hopefully you covered all bases prior to filing. Bear in mind the claim itself is fairly straightforward but you will need to show the court how and why the 200 odd squid in charges has now compounded to the value claimed. If you haven't already filed/served with your statement I'd think it prudent to issue your calculations by way of annexing. Whilst it would be out of time it causes no prejudice [given the trial date] so should be allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mike,

 

Thank for checking on me again.

unfortunately I submitted it on Monday.

 

I gave it my best short as per the guidance and advise given.

 

I will update as and when there is news.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, prepare a spreadsheet anyway and a convincing argument for how the interest has compounded the quantum claimed. Bear in mind you're on the SCT so the dj will be looking for a fair outcome at minimal cost to either side or the court.

 

You will probably get away with filing/serving additional info very close to the trial date so long as the dj believes it causes no prejudice to the other side you should be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Mike,

 

Please have a look at the attachment in post #1. Can that be used or do I need to prepare another spread sheet.

Thanks

 

Dot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd not looked at that before, had assumed everything was in order prior to filing the claim. I think you'll struggle with the quantum claimed in your spreadsheet, restitution is a two way street..... it can't gain at assignment unless it sells above book value. Restitution is underpinned by the 1st party giving up its gain to the 2nd party. I can only think that's the reason for it invoking its putback option to offer it some relief to contra against the balance should it lose.

 

Probably sensible to calculate the compounding effect of interest to date of assignment and 8% thereafter as a straightforward claim in damage. Change the 'claim to' date to the known date of assignment and add 8% simple interest thereafter, post the revised figures back here.

 

You need to look at a combination of when you ceased paying it and when it ceased applying interest at any point prior to assignment.

 

If you stopped paying it can't have gained from something it didn't have, there could be an argument that by increasing its book value it follows that it lends more and gains from same but I'm not sure that would be a simple issue to convince the court of. If it continued to apply interest prior to sale any judgment could be setoff against any current balance but that's not restitution per se more a simple contractual right to set off sums owed [or not].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mike,

 

Does that mean amending the claim?

So I should work the Compound interest until it was sold to Lowell then Simple interest?

 

What do I need to do to change the claim?

 

Any cost involve?

 

I will work on the revised figure then post back.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I added a couple of lines to my post.

 

Too far down the road in the case to worry about amending, plead your case on the day but be prepared for questions re your calculations. If you win the dj will tell you what s/he is or isn't allowing

 

Try [and prepare] different calcs taking into account assignment date, last application of interest, sums paid during the period, effect of PPI premiums etc etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I had missed the bottom bit. Ok,a quick to revisit to the statement indicates that the last payment was made in early 2009 and interest was applied around the same time too. I also noticed that the last PPI was also applied at the same time. Actually, both interest and PPI were applied a month after the last payment.

 

I will work out the the figures you suggested then I will post back.

 

According to their WS, the debt was assigned to Lowell in July 2014.

 

Sorry I was a bit down with cold but recovered now.

Taking the time of the last payment which was in Feb 2009, according to my calculations,

the compound interest up till that point is £227.10 bringing the total to £525.45. That excludes the 8%.

 

One question I have is from what point is the 8% calculated from?

 

I am not sure of how to do the calculation you mentioned that takes PPI into account.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh bugger, that's a bit light of your claim

 

8% simple interest would/should be from the point that no contractual interest was applied/point of assignment, whichever came first

 

Restitution is a little more complex than some may suggest, its inherent within gain calculations that the other side may have suffered a loss which counters the quantum in the case. To simplify.......you pay it £1000.00 whether by unfair term or mistake, it has the benefit of same for 5 years and realises £5000.00. With no other interaction between the parties the gain is £4000.00. In restitution it gives over that gain to you

 

In a case like yours, it charges £227.10, you decline to pay, it perhaps uses the book value as some form of collateral in sales and earns maybe £200.00 over the same period. It fails to recover the principle but assigns at maybe 20% and recovers 20% input tax - the original 'debt' remains contested at 227.10, the 'gain' sits at £200.00 + £90.84 giving a total of £517.94 [not a million miles away from your calcs in a simple damages claim] but....... in restitution it could also counter the calculation with any contractual interest charges due which may or may not reduce the value to zero.

 

Its going to be easier for you to argue that the effect of settled PPI should void the charges rather than contrary to UTCCR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mike,

 

Not sure of what to do or expect now. I will try and prepare as much as I can and I sincerely appreciate all the help you are giving me.

 

The amount is small but as you said, the PPI can not be ignored as it has had an effect.

The settled PPI falls sort though of the outstanding amount by over £200. Will that not be a prolem then?

 

Whether the DJ will agree on not, we are yet to see.

 

 

Dot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mike,

 

The total for PPI and the charges is more than what was owed. Do you think this could help the with case?

 

Dot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its difficult to tell, I'm not entirely sure that it won't still want to compromise the case at a reasonable value. If it believed it had a high probability of winning it would have counter claimed.

 

I think if you can get over the initial hurdle of the court agreeing the principle charges, whether by virtue of UTCCR or simple contractual remedy [linked to the PPI] the interest element should fall into place.

 

Try making a WP offer to the other side at corrected quantum, post your revised spreadsheet back on here first though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...