Tanzarelli v Cap One... £ + default **WON**

[TANZARELLI]

Just phoned the court and Crap one have entered a defence, so will be getting the AQ in the not to near future.

 

With regard to the draft order for directions is there anything which can be added re default removals?? I know smel has been toying with this idea. For example if the charges are unlawful (which they are) then if they had not been added then total wrong so default figure added inacurately, so could something be added to draft directions order asking them to prove this?

[jonni2bad]

Just a quick recap from above, the cheque issue is to ensure they don't return it to you, although if they take it as being aggressive then all the better in my book.

 

I'm not sure if there is anything for use in the scenario you've just described - the DPA should suffice for the removal of incorrect information and that would be gained from showing a Judge that the charges were UNLAWFUL - not illegal.

[bill-k]

Just a quick recap from above, the cheque issue is to ensure they don't return it to you, although if they take it as being aggressive then all the better in my book.

I think we understand your feelings, Jonni !!!

 

I suppose writing heavily across the cheque with something like "CANCELLED," "VOID," or "REFUSED BY PAYEE" would be good enough, and less "in ya face" for these poor sensitive souls !!!

[TANZARELLI]

Just a quick recap from above, the cheque issue is to ensure they don't return it to you, although if they take it as being aggressive then all the better in my book.

 

I'm not sure if there is anything for use in the scenario you've just described - the Data Protection Act should suffice for the removal of incorrect information and that would be gained from showing a Judge that the charges were UNLAWFUL - not illegal.

 

I take the point and had not really thought to much into it but, if it does wing its way back to me i will rip it up and then I will write on both halfs cancelled in a big marker. lol:D

[TANZARELLI]

Finally received the letter from Worcester County Court dated 25th Jan, which enclosed the Cra@p One Defence. I recieved this today after requesting it be re-sent yesterday due to it not arriving.

 

Their defence simply said:

 

Please see copy of letter attached which we have sent to Mr T.

 

THis explains our position and acts as our defence in this claim.

 

The full "1033.92 has been paid but the default is correct and cannot be removed.

 

What a load of Cra@p

[TANZARELLI]

I sent this to the court today:

Worcester County Court,

The Shire Hall,

Foregate Street,

Worcester.

WR11EQ

6th February 2007

 

The Court Manager,

Re: Claim Number *********

Thank you for resending your letter of 25th January 2007, which I received on the 6th February 2007, in which you enclosed the defence from the Defendant.

You will be aware from my letter which I sent you, of 29th January that I have refused to accept the Defendants offer of partial settlement as they have refused to remove the default notice from my credit file. I have enclosed a copy of this letter for your information. I wish my claim to proceed to a hearing of the case, as I believe that the default has been added inaccurately to my credit file and feel that the Defendant has left me with no alternative but to let a County Court Judge decide.

In my previous letter to the court of the 29th January 2007, I enclosed copies of the letters which I sent the Defendant informing them of my intention to continue my claim. I am enclosing another copy of my letter to the Defendant of the 22nd January 2007. I also wrote to the Defendant on 29th January and returned the cheque which they had sent me for the outstanding balance as this was also inaccurate as it was not including daily rate interest totals that have been accruing since my claim was filed, I am not prepared to accept any monetary payment until this matter is dealt with in full.

Please forward me an Allocation Questionnaire which I will complete and return within the specified timeframe.

I hope this clarifies my position.

Yours faithfully,

****** ******* *********

Enc:

Copy of Letter to Worcester County Court of 29th January 2007

Copy of Letter to the Defendant of 22nd January 2007

[smel24]

Good one Tanz, they have no defence!!

[TANZARELLI]

Good one Tanz, they have no defence!!

 

Well there defence is the letter they sent me above dated 16th Jan, this has already been responded to. Hows your claim going haven't seen you post for a while?

 

Tanz

[TANZARELLI]

thanks for the click whoever clicked

[johnwilsonstorey]

You are very welcome as my case is very simlar to yours. My account was sold to Lovell Financial and a default added so you may have saved me a lot of work regarding any letters etc. Keep up the good work John

[TANZARELLI]

No probs glad it was of use to you. Just to update.

 

Recieved AQ today and got until 23rd Feb to submit. Also recieved Manual Intervention info and another set of copy statements in relaion to my late SAR request. Got to lok through this MI stuff in some detail.

 

However not had CCA through as yet. Might remind them of this with yet another deadline reminder.

 

What stage are you at with yours?

 

Tanz

[TANZARELLI]

Thanks for the click

[johnwilsonstorey]

Mine is in the very early stages it will be several weeks before the fun starts If you want to see

John v Capitol one

 

By the way are you snowed in by all accounts the News says you should be

[pmhcfc]

Thanks for the click

 

Will be going through the same as you soon Tanz, cept mine includes a CCJ removal request as well...Just joining your thread

[TANZARELLI]

THANKS FOR THE CLICKS AT 17:20 AND ALSO AT 18:26 WHOEVER CLICKED.

 

Glad it was useful.

[smel24]

Hey Tanz, long time no chat.

 

Good to see you got your AQ - I did go on a bit with mine (I needed an extra sheet!) but I think at least it gets the message across. I gave this in to the court the same day as Cap1 sent me a cheque which I of course sent back as no default removed - ha!

 

So the waiting goes on.....who do you think will get the money and default first (if either of us do)??!

[TANZARELLI]

I have not returned my AQ yet as been having a few pc probs. GFonna do it Monday and take it in along with one for LTSB. lol

 

I Suppose your in front at moment but it will prob depend on court date.

[blackd2103]

Tanzarelli/Smel24 watching both of your cases with interest. My summons was only issued to Cap one last week.

[TANZARELLI]

Nice one blackd2103.

 

Good luck with the claim, are you applying to have a default removed also? Post a link to your thread and we can monitor and help if we can.

 

Tanz.

[blackd2103]

Thanks Tanz

 

I am applying for default removal as well. The link to my thread is

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/35983-wils-capital-one-2.html#post556678

[TANZARELLI]

Thanks for the click

[TANZARELLI]

Right this is what I have added to Section G of the AQ N149:

 

The Claimant proposes the attached draft order for directions, for the courts due consideration. If ordered, the Claimant believes these directions will allow the overriding objective's to be furthered in that they will fully identify the most fundamental issues in dispute (as detailed below), and allow them to be assessed so that this claim may proceed justly and expediously.

 

The crux upon which this claim rests is the true cost incurred by the Defendant as a result of the contractual breach from which its charges arise. If the Defendant cannot substantiate the cost of each charge as proportionate to its loss incurred, it has charged contractual penalties contrary to the UTCCR 1999 and common law principles established since the early 1900's.

 

In the event that the Defendants charges were accepted as being a fee for a service (which is denied), examination of its true costs is required to determine whether the price is reasonable as required by the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

 

As the law relating to contractual penalties is long established, the Claimant believes the outstanding issues to be of fact. Accordingly, the Claimant respectfully requests that the claim be allocated to the small claims track, and estimates that the hearing of the claim should last no longer than one hour.

In the event that the Defendant fails to prove that the charges taken from the Claimant's account were reasonable and proportionate to their costs then the Claimant requests that the Court order the Defendant to remove the Default which it has entered from the Claimant's credit file with all Credit Reference Agencies (under Section 14 of the data Protection act) as it is an inaccurate reflection of the debt owed to the Defendant by the Claimant. Please also see the Claimants response to the letter from Capital One dated 16th January 2007 (which they also used as there defence), which is also attached.

 

Will attach another copy of my letter sent in response to their Defence.

[TANZARELLI]

Slight change to the above post added another bit:

 

The Claimant proposes the attached draft order for directions, for the courts due consideration. If ordered, the Claimant believes these directions will allow the overriding objective's to be furthered in that they will fully identify the most fundamental issues in dispute (as detailed below), and allow them to be assessed so that this claim may proceed justly and expediously.

 

The crux upon which this claim rests is the true cost incurred by the Defendant as a result of the contractual breach from which its charges arise. If the Defendant cannot substantiate the cost of each charge as proportionate to its loss incurred, it has charged contractual penalties contrary to the UTCCR 1999 and common law principles established since the early 1900's.

 

In the event that the Defendants charges were accepted as being a fee for a service (which is denied), examination of its true costs is required to determine whether the price is reasonable as required by the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

 

As the law relating to contractual penalties is long established, the Claimant believes the outstanding issues to be of fact. Accordingly, the Claimant respectfully requests that the claim be allocated to the small claims track, and estimates that the hearing of the claim should last no longer than one hour.

The Claimant does not feel that the charges are a true reflection of the loss incurred and that they are therefore a penalty. The Claimant is happy to pay the Defendants actual costs if this can be substantiated; the Claimant also states that had the actual costs of the customer's contractual breaches been applied at the time of each contractual breach then the account would never have reached the point of default.

In the event that the Defendant fails to prove that the charges taken from the Claimant's account were reasonable and proportionate to their costs then the Claimant requests that the Court order the Defendant to remove the Default which it has entered from the Claimant's credit file with all Credit Reference Agencies (under Section 14 of the data Protection act) as it is an inaccurate reflection of the debt owed to the Defendant by the Claimant. Please also see the Claimants response to the letter from Capital One dated 16th January 2007 (which they also used as there defence), which is also attached.

[jonni2bad]

Looks good...

[TANZARELLI]

Cheers J2B. Get this off Monday morning to the courts and also to Cr@p One. Hopefully should speed things up and as you may know smel has also already been told they will be removing hers, see here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/42034-smel-c1-refund-plus.html

 

She has mentioned thanks to you for your help with my letter which she used in her claim.