Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Cahoot card court action to reclaim charges and contractual interest


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

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.

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.

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.

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..

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

 

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

 

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...

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

 

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.

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 !:-)

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 !:-)

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Hi all,

 

I've been over the years fighting to get my old statements from Cahoot/Santander.

I've got them,

I've sent all the preliminary and LBA letters and started court action to recover the charges and claim restitution as contractual interest.

 

The current state is that Santander have filed their defence and I need to complete my directions questionnaire.

I will redact their defence and post here.

 

they are denying all the claim and claim it is over 6 years old and statute barred, they have asked for the court to strike out.

 

Will post my POC and their defence in the next post.

 

I have a parallel thread in Barclaycard where I am also starting court action to recover charges and contractual interest as restitution. The steps taken with Santander mirror the steps in the Barclaycard thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

numerous threads merged for complete history

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

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

 

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

 

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Latest developments are that I've submitted my N180 Directions Questionnaire today.

 

Santander seem to be prepared to proceed to a hearing. I've removed my personal information and attached their defence below.

 

They are saying the charges are statute barred, not penalties and part of their terms and conditions.

They also complained about not having the schedule of charges, these were send separately and they have them now.

 

I informed the courts and highlighted Santander had the schedule 3 times previously in my letters, copies also sent to the courts and Santander.

 

Any feedback much appreciated

 

.Defence-redacted.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to mention you by name @Andyorch. This is my Santander/Cahoot claim, exactly same setup and POC as the Barclaycard one. Running two claims at the same time. They filed their defence, attached above as a PDF any feedback would be appreciated. They mention not getting the schedule of charges, but they and the courts have in the meantime, they arrived separately from the MCOL submission.

 

Thanks :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical defence that you would expect in response...reads rather like a witness statement than a defence.

 

Be wary of point 25 .....are you currently indebted to the agreement ?.....they are relying on CPR 16.6 to use a set off defence.

 

Andy

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Had the mediation call. Their position is standard, it's all in the T&C's, statue barred, OFT said £12 per charge was fair. Offered £115 plus my court costs. All finished and now going to court. I get the impression they also want to take this to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...