HFC Marbles Card Charges Reclaiming

[tifo]

As i've posted a lot on my 'Tifo vs HFC' thread, i'll briefly explain the background to my request now.

 

I had a Marbles credit card which defaulted in Dec 2002. The balance was around £800 and the account was unusable by me. The bank continued to apply charges of £40-£50 every month from Jan 2003 - Feb 2004, resulting in the balance increasing to £2,000.

 

In June 2004, they offered to settle for 30% (£600) of the total of £2,000. Note here that the settlement was a percentage, not an amount. So i paid this and the account was marked £1,400 defaulted and fully settled/£0 at two of the CRAs. They continued to report a full balance at one CRA.

 

Forward to May 2007 and i claim charges back, which amounted to some £1,200 on the £2,000 i had settled. The bank offered to pay these by cheque to me, after confirming i did not owe them any balance. I refused the offer, because they had also offered interest over the telephone (total £2,600), but not reflected this in writing.

 

I then passed the matter to the FOS and asked for interest to be paid on top of the £1,200 charges as well as compensation for the default they maintained. The bank had previously admitted it was by mistake.

 

At the FOS, the bank again offered £1,200 and i was awarded £300 compensation and no interest. But, the bank now wanted to keep the money towards its write off of £1,400 and i was offered the difference of £100. This was a complete shock to me and totally unexpected. I have refused this and the matter is ongoing with the Independant Assessor.

 

I am saying i have paid some (all?) of the charges because they were part of the settled amount, but this is ignored.

 

As part of the complaint, the bank has stated they refunded this money (charges) at the time of settlement. This means they have misrepresented the balance of £2,000 to me. Had they stated the £800, i would have paid £240 as 30%, not the £600. They gained £360 from me. It also means the defaults published at the CRAs were incorrect, because they were for £1,400 and not the £200 left after their 'refund' and my payment.

 

I asked for the duration of the charges period to be looked at and why the bank applied such charges for over 2 years, increase the balance, and then offer a settlement on that. This was not looked at.

 

So, this is where i stand now. I have paid 100% on an account i settled at 30%. The bank used its dominant position to increase the account from £800 to £2,000 and then used this figure as a settlement, while being aware it consisted of charges which they were refunding anyway, but not informed me of this to gain a larger sum in settlement.

 

How do i go forward with this?

 

I am thinking of using :

 

1. Unfair Relationship because the bank used its dominant position in the agreement and at the FOS.

2. Misrepresentation because the bank stated a balance over what it actually knew the true balance to be. It made a gain of £360 at the time.

3. If no agreement, then a refund of all interest and charges paid, minus money i have spent, as fair Equity.

4. Estoppel applies and the bank has to pay me what it offered prior to the matter being passed to the FOS, because it induced an expectation that a cheque would be sent to me, which led me to passing the matter to the FOS, thinking i would get the money anyway, and which has led to my loss of this money.

5. I can claim compensation for incorrect defaults, because the bank says they refunded the charges to me at the time of settlement, this was not reflected in the defaults which published the whole amount.

 

Advice please.

Edited September 13, 2008 by tifo

[reallymadwoman]

Have you had the final decision from the FOS yet? If not, you've really got nothing to lose by waiting for that as it's not binding on you. I take it you have responded to whatever the FOS have sent you so far with all of the above points.

 

If you have had the final response and they're siding with the bank (as they do!), then what's to stop you from taking it to court? If the bank counterclaim for the balance of the account then you have proof to show to the judge that it was all settled.

[tifo]

Have you had the final decision from the FOS yet? If not, you've really got nothing to lose by waiting for that as it's not binding on you.

 

Yes, the decision was made in Oct 2007. The FOS ignored everything i sent and asked, including law. After all, they don't have to follow law, do they.

 

Then its been through an Ombudsman, Service Review and now the Independent Assessor. Not that i expect much.

 

I raised the question because it is a done deal that the bank will keep my charges refund towards its write off. The only thing i may get is more money with interest and compensation, then i get to keep some as well.

 

But i want to raise a claim along misrepresentation and unfairness grounds, which they have been. They can't be right both ways, one is wrong and that's where my claim is. At the moment, they seem to be right every way.

[reallymadwoman]

Did you actually get a piece of paper headed 'Final Decision' and if so did you sign and return the acceptance? If not, I don't see why you couldn't take it to court as a simple charges reclaim and deal with any defence and counterclaim as it arises.

[tifo]

no, it was done over the telephone, though the bank says at the FOS that they did send some paperwork. I've requested this and more, but the bank and FOS ignore my requests.

[reallymadwoman]

You haven't agreed to anything then and so it's not binding.

 

Start your charges reclaim through the court.

[tinkerbell20]

You haven't agreed to anything then and so it's not binding.

 

Start your charges reclaim through the court.

 

 

yes

[tifo]

I am about to take the step and issue my first credit card claim, after hitting a (hard) brick wall with the Ombudsman many times.

 

In many cases, the bank has offered to pay the refund to the DCA even though it has never been a part of the account during the period claimed or the complaint at the FOS.

 

The FOS has refused to discuss the matter further or contact the DCA, even though they have stated my account with them is a separate matter and no concern of the bank, then said it is fair for the bank to pay them.

 

This leaves no choice but to now take the bank to court.

 

What i am asking is the court procedure. What do i send with the N1, other than a POC of which i have samples?

 

Could someone explain the court procedure to me and what would be required to be sent/received at each stage, so i don't mess things up?

 

Thanks.

[tifo]

Hi,

 

I am posting this to get users' views on the likelyhood of my claims succeeding or not.

 

Last year, I claimed charges back from various credit card companies (some with PPI) and many refused to offer PPI and the full amount of charges, instead hiding behind the 'allowed' £12 re OFT report of 2006. Some even said the payment has been sent to the DCA to whom the account was sold, but this was without my acceptance of course.

 

I then passed these claims to the FOS who have taken since last year to the present to get through my claims, allowing the banks as much time as they want to respond. Many of my charges have gone beyond 6 years because of this.

 

Many of the banks have offered to pay a refund to the DCA to whom the account was sold. The FOS has agreed with this, though they have not even contacted the DCA, even after i have asked them to, since they are getting money due to me. The FOS refuse to look into it anymore after they have made their decision, i.e. the bank can pay the DCA. At this stage i've stated that since the bank has brought another party into the complaint, the DCA should also refund any charges as my claim is for charges on the account and now there are two organisations to claim from but there was only the bank when i made my complaint. The FOS refuse to look into anything more.

 

This now leaves me no option but to issue a claim in the court for each bank and request my charges back. I would need to use s.32 of the Limitations Act as my charges are over 6 years now, because of the FOS. I would also show that i have attempted to be as reasonable as i can with the bank by sticking it out with the FOS for over a year.

 

The bank will more than likely apply for a stay and state that have already offered a refund through the FOS, even though this was to an outside company who has no part in my complaint and who has not been contacted by the mediator (FOS) or the bank. In some cases, i don't even know who the money is going to, what the balance was, will be etc. and whether it includes any charges.

 

The FOS say they don't have to follow law, only consider it, which makes a mockery of submissions i've made citing relevant legislation and case law. They only make a decision which is fair and reasonable, though this is only a person's opinion and viewpoint.

 

Advice please, as all my claims have been looked at by the same Adjudicator, who has stated he doesn't think i will pay the DCA if i receive the refund and this seems to be the basis for his decisions.

 

On another note, no DCA has yet complied with a s.78 request since last year and none are being paid by me. In the eyes of the law, they cannot ask for payment and most have sent unenforceable short application forms only.

 

In total, my claims will be around £12,000 or more among various banks. This is the amount the FOS has 'given' away to DCA's, so you can understand why i want to fight for money due to me.

[palomino]

I get the impression that most people here are accustomed to receiving N1 claims rather issuing them ...

[tifo]

some of us have to issue them when we don't get anywhere.

[AndyOrch]

Hi Tifo

 

Try this I know its RatsNest but the proceedure is the same

 

Nat West Claimants: New/and or unsure: Please read this

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Hopeful1]

Tifo, that's terrible. I am not experienced with court so hopefully someone else will share their opinions.

 

I cannot understand how FOS can second guess what you will do with the refund. You should be able to use that money to negotiate with the DCAs, who as you say, do not have the right to collect without providing a CCA anyway.

 

I really hope you can resolve this.

[tifo]

Hi all,

 

Had an Abbey card from 1997 which MBNA took over in 2002. This was sold to a DCA in 2004 who promptly got a CCJ and a charging order on me (i fought but didn't get an understanding judge).

 

I made a claim against MBNA for a refund of the PPI i had paid to them only and they refused to pay. I passed the matter to the FOS and after over 12 months, the bank offered to settle and i got a settlement letter from the FOS which i accepted and sent back.

 

The bank then said it was an error and they won't accept liability because i didn't take the PPI from them as it was originally an Abbey card. The FOS agree and are asking Abbey to accept liability and i assume they would be refunding from 1997.

 

What's my position in this case as i thought the bank's offer, when accepted by me, was legally binding and haven't they accepted liability by making the offer and if they didn't carry out due diligence before making this offer, who's fault is it?

 

The FOS simply accept what the bank says and now i'm having to wait for Abbey to sort this out, after waiting over 12 months with MBNA.

 

Also, if MBNA now don't accept liability for PPI refunds, wasn't the account absolutely assigned from Abbey and if not, how were MBNA able to sell it to the DCA? If there is something wrong here, i may be able to use it to have CCJ and CO taken off.

 

Thanks.

[pompeyfaith]

IMNO mbna brought the debt from abbey so they are ultimately responsable.

 

That is like buying the cake but leaving the wrapper lol.

 

PF

[tifo]

that's what i think but if they're now disputing liability and the FOS agree, i want to use this to get my CCJ and CO off (more bothered about CO as CCJ will fall off in a year). If they didn't buy everything then they couldn't have sold everything.

 

they're refunded charges to me last year but i only claimed what they'd charged me anyway and nothing from what Abbey had charged (i only went back 6 years and from when MBNA started administering).

[angry cat]

Thats a nice big mess for Santander!

 

Wonder, if they will pass the back back to MBNA?

[angry cat]

Surely, when MBNA bought the Abbey credit card business, they bought the liabilities as well as the assets!

 

MBNA set for Abbey finance - Telegraph

 

MBNA paid £289 Million:)

[angry cat]

Pull the other one MBNA!

 

Abbey sells card business to US provider MBNA for £289m - Business News, Business - The Independent

[tifo]

thanks, that's good info. I've passed it to the FOS and asked them to clarify with MBNA the type of assignment done. I've also asked for copies of agreements and assignment documents so that i can check the info.

 

then, after the 5 year deal, Abbey launched its own cards again.

Edited November 11, 2009 by tifo

[tifo]

FOS have made Abbey accept liability but say they can only go back 6 years since they are only legally obliged to keep records for that long, but will ask them to consider longer since i took this card out in 1997.

 

So Abbey trying to hide behind the limitation and rules?

[angry cat]

They cannot!

 

This matter relates to a faulty product and negligence in contract!

 

Please see the following re: section 32 of The Limitation Act 1980:

 

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS - WITHOUT LIMITATION? - Representation and Advice for Commercial Clients - Humphreys & Co. Solicitors

 

Got Get Them...

 

AC

[angry cat]

Limitation Act 1980 (c. 58)

 

AC

X

[tifo]

The question concerns my claim against HFC for an account i settled in 2004 and which included £1,100 of charges and £160 of PPI as well as the interest applied to these amounts.

 

The credit limit was £750 and the bank applied charges from Jan 2002 to Feb 2004 (26 months) at the rate of £25 x 2 (missed payment fee and overlimit fee) raising the balance to around £2,000. They then offered a 30% settlement of this balance at £600 which i paid. The account was marked as settled and £0 owing though £1,400 defaulted at two agencies. They continued to report a full oustanding balance at the third agency until Jan 2007.

 

I made my claim for a refund of £1,100 charges and the bank offered to send me a cheque for this amount but pay no interest. They declined to refund the PPI with interest. They said sorry for the wrongful default and sent a cheque for £10 as compensation for the credit report i had to get.

 

They then said they'll look into paying interest and we matched our figures. They then said we've decided no interest.

 

At this stage i thought that they had accepted that i owed them no outstanding balance and so they offered to refund the charges to me by cheque, because i had settled the whole balance with the agreed payment.

 

Based on the above, i passed the matter to the FOS asking for the interest etc to be paid.

 

The bank offered to refund the charges and interest applied to charges and the FOS awarded me £300 in compensation of the wrongful default the bank maintained after the account was settled. BUT the bank wanted to put this refund and compensation towards the £1,400 they'd written off. The FOS agreed with this and that was the end of that. I didn't accept the offer so it went nowhere.

 

The bank also misled me by stating that i was settling £2,000 (the whole balance) when they later said they'd refunded the charges because they took account of them when settling but i was not told of this. But then why did they offer to refund them again at the FOS?

 

What options do i now have to make a claim?

 

1. Can estoppel be used because it was on the basis of the bank paying me by cheque that i took the claim to the FOS so they shouldn't be able to change this now.

 

2. The bank told me i was paying off the WHOLE £2,000 and hence that amount was used for the settlement figure of £600 or 30%.

 

3. The bank also stated at the FOS that the charges had been paid because they took them into account when settling. When queried they then offered to refund them but towards themselves.

 

4. I was never told of (3) above otherwise the 30% settlement figure would have been lower.

 

5. The bank acted unfairly because they were able to apply charges for 26 months (and i wasn't able to stop them) and increased the balance to £2,000 where they then offered to settle this whole balance by receiving almost what the balance would have been without charges/PPI and interest on these (£600). Therefore the bank told me i was settling at 30% when in fact they knew they were getting 100%.

 

6. The compensation of £300 was awarded to me for something the bank did AFTER the settlement and yet they want to keep it towards their write off from 3 years before.

 

The bank now refuse to correspond with me in any claim and cite the FOS decision. They don't respond to any correspondence i send and said the system notes say to ignore everything i say to them.

 

Thanks.

Edited March 7, 2010 by tifo

[tifo]

I received an offer of a refund of PPI and statutory interest and sent them the signed settlement. When discussing the refund, I asked them to include in the offer letter that they're going to send me a cheque and they did this. The cheque was authorised by a senior manager who's dealing with my ongoing default claim (they owe me at least £100).

 

It's been 6 weeks now and they promised a cheque within 28 days. For the past few weeks i've been told it's in the "current batch" to be processed within a week.

 

I rang them again and was told again that's it's in the "current batch" but queried this. I was finally able to talk to someone at the PPI team and was then told that the delay was because they were looking to pay the refund towards a HFC loan I have with them (separate to the credit card account which was closed in June 2004). I got annoyed at this because this is a totally separate matter and the offer was only accepted because they offered a cheque. Because i've had problems with them before, I made sure they wrote the payment method on their offer letter.

 

Some years ago, I made a claim for a refund of default charges and they offered to send me a cheque but when they received my acceptance they wanted to pay this towards a write off of the credit card when i'd settled it in June 2004. I passed it to the FOS who agreed with the bank but in total their offer minus write off left me with £100. I didn't accept this and the claim is ongoing.

 

This time they wanted to pay the refund towards the loan.

 

They're offering PPI plus interest at statutory rate but no refund of the interest they charged on PPI premiums. I had a long chat with them yesterday but they don't seem to understand that FOS guidelines state they MUST refund me PPI and associated interest to put me in the same position of not having been charged and the statutory interest is for borrowing the money. They kept on saying that with the interest you're getting more than we charged you (as interest).

 

It's about £60 i'm losing now but i've told them i'll "write off" this amount but will add it to my ongoing claim in the same way the bank has done by resurrecting their "write off".

 

They don't seem to have changed a bit !!!