Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


tnook

Claiming Cahoot credit card charges from 2003/2003 contractual interest

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 300 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, I have a similar thread on Barclays.

 

I have some old credit card charges on my Cahoot card from 2002/2003. I have the statements!!! :whoo:

 

I have plugged the charges into the compound interest calculator and the total comes to:

 

Charges: £275

Compound interest (24.99%): £7842

 

Total: £8117

 

Do Santander/Cahoot settle eventually or are they courtroom bruisers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update. I've written my preliminary letter asking for the charges and 24.9% interest in restitution. I also included a schedule of the charges and interest.

 

Will no doubt get a standard "Thank-you for your complaint we will get back to you in 8 weeks" letter from them.

 

Letter as follows:

 

__________________

 

 

PRELIMINARY LETTER: REQUEST FOR REFUND OF CHARGES AND RESTITUTION

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

CARD/ACCOUNT NUMBER: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

 

I now understand that the regime of fees which you have been applying to my account in relation to late fees and over limit charges are unlawful at Common Law, Statute and recent Consumer regulations.

 

I would draw your attention the implied term of the contract that you would conduct yourselves lawfully and in a manner which complies with UK law.

 

I calculate that between 2002 and 2003 you have taken £275 in charges. I also claim £7,764.34 in interest in restitution as per Sempra Metals vs HMRC, calculated at an APR of 24.9%, making a total of £8,039.34

 

I enclose a Schedule of Charges listing the amounts that I require to be repaid.

 

In addition to full payment of the sum mentioned above, I require that you remove the default entry from the register. Please note that mere correction or amendment to the entry will not be acceptable.

 

In recent years Courts have been happy to accept claims for bank charges that exceed 6 years, whilst having regards to the precedent set between KLEINWORT BENSON -v- LINCOLN CITY COUNCIL under section 32 © of the Limitations act 1980.

 

Should county court action be needed I will be seeking to rely on this.

 

Therefore this letter requests a refund of all charges indicated including interest in restitution from the date of this letter.

 

I request that payment is made directly to me by cheque and that any refund in whole or part should not be allocated to any set off or third parties.

 

Should the latter occur my claim will be deemed as unsettled and I will proceed to the Courts for recovery.

 

You now have 14 days to respond positively. I trust this clarifies my position.

 

 

 

Yours faithfully,

tnook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's been 3 weeks and no reply from Cahoot/Santander. Time to draft the LBA and give them a final 14 days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Called Cahoot, they claim there is no record of getting my letter. They say their address moved from Coventry to Belfast, however their mail does get forwarded.

 

It's a little non-sense because I also wrote to them with a GDPR request at that address and got a reply. Anyhow. I have now sent my LBA to their Belfast address and given them a final 14 days before I start court action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a call from Santander, left a voicemail saying they want to discuss my recent correspondence with them. Fast they are not.

 

Anyway I’ve already sent the LBA. Will see what they have to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoke the the gentleman at Customer Services. He’s claiming they only got my letter a couple weeks ago. Was questioning why I put down 24.9% since they never applied that rate to me. I told him its the likely rate they would have made money on my funds based on other loans and cards they offer, He said he would call back in a couple days with Santanders position. I won’t hold my breath.

 

I need to start preparing for court now. Can anyone assist? I’ll start to draft the POC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok got the final response from Santander/Cahoot. They are not playing ball as wexpcected. Say it is time barred and there is no company error so they will not do anything.

 

Ready to proceed to court. Any help much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

follow the shelley/martin2006 threads

 

dx


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

I’ve managed to get all my credit card statements for Cahoot going back to 2002. I intend to claim contractual interest as restitution from Cahoot/Santander. 

 

Status:

1. Got the statements

2. Sent letter requesting the refund and interest

3. Sent the LBA.

4. Reply from Cahoot - ‘legal and fair charges etc, no refunds’

 

I now need to prepare the POC and start court action. Is this POC from the famous Shelly thread still valid and should work?

 

Quote

New POC Santander/Cahoot (N1)

Claim No [ ]

 

IN THE [xxxxxcounty court

 

 

 

 BETWEEN

 

 [Mr xxxx xxxx]

 Claimant

 

 and

 

 

 -Santander PLC t/a Cahoot

 

 

 Defendant

 

 

 

 

 PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

 

 1. The Claimant entered into an agreement (“The Agreement”) with the Defendant on or around xx/xx/xxxx, whereby the Defendant was to advance credit facilities to the Claimant under a running credit account, Account no xxxx xxxx xxxx 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.

© 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) The default charges Apr xxxx – Jun xxxx were £xx.xx, Aug xxxx – Nov xxxx was £xx.xx & Jun xxxx was £xx.xx.

 

Penalty

 

9.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.

 

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

 

The Regulations

 

 

11.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 Bank 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 key information provided to new customers.

 

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 £xxx.xx between xx/xx/xxxx and xx/xx/xxxx. Particulars appear from Schedule 2.

 

18. On xx/xx/xxxx the Claimant demanded repayment of the sums wrongly applied.

 

19. The Defendant has not repaid them or any of them.

 

And the Claimant claims; 

 

 

(1) A declaration that the sums totalling £xxx.xx have wrongly been applied to the Account. These charges are older than the normal 6 years but are claimed by virtue of s32 (1) c Limitations Act 1980 as per Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council.

 

(2) Payment of the said sum of £xxx.xx and interest in restitution of £xxxx.xx as per Sempra Metals v Inland Revenue Commissioners.

 

(3) Interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 29.9% per annum on the amount claimed (daily rate of £x.xx) until judgment or sooner payment.

 

(4) Court costs of [ xxxx].

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

 

Dated

 

 

 

Signed

 

 

 

 

Schedule 1

 

From Cahoot Conditions in force (as of Dec xxxx).

 

3. Credit limit

From time to time we will work out your credit limit and tell you what it is.

 

5. Repayments

each month you must make a minimum payment. This will be;

(a)3% of the statement balance for Initial Visa, First Classic and Classic and 2% of the statement balance for Gold Barclaycard and Barclaycard Platinum or £5 whichever is more; or if the statement balance is less, the statement balance; or

(b)If a special promotion allows you to put off making repayments for a period, the amount worked out under (a) but with the relevant promotional balance taken away from the statement balance. 

The minimum payment must be received by us and paid into your account on or before the payment date.

 

 

 

 

Schedule 2

 

 

 

Attach your schedule of charges and head it schedule 2 be sure to include the date that charge was applied to the account, the date you paid the charge, the type of charge eg over limit, late payment etc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @slick132 could you let me know if the above POC is still ok for Credit Card charges with contractual interest? I took it from the Shelley thread. I’m ready to proceed to court with Santander.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've asked for comment from others who are better placed to comment on the PoC.

 

😎


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 !:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Site Team Andyorch has commented as follows :-

 

Looks Okay as a separate particulars...far too lengthy to input on MCOL characters wise.

 

I would drop the declaration clause  ....... that's not going to happen.


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 !:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Slick132 and @Andyorch. I'll adapt it and submit to the courts. 

 

Look forward to seeing their response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make sure you follow the guidelines in submitting separate particulars through MCOL


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 The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been back and forward with Cahoot recently when they looked like they were going to refund some charges.

Now plowing ahead with the court action.

 

I was wondering would it be prudent to add a line to the POC highlighting that Credit Cards are not subject to the Bank Charges OFT hearing? It seems banks are using it as a defence to confuse the judges.

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...