Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

MacBoy Vs. Halifax and Hello To the Group!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5606 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

It seems I've stuffed up :roll:. I've had it in my head for weeks now that the case was today - and doing a final document check this morning have just noticed the date on the N24 form (Notice of Claimant's Application) - 22nd August - tomorrow!!!! DOH! :lol:

 

Doh thats what calender's are for mac :p

 

So...as you were - same time tomorrow? :grin:

 

 

lmao mac if you think you is getting another good lucky piccy mr think again :rolleyes::p:lol:

 

 

BTW what time you in court TOMORROW :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 895
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

:p

 

2pm 8-)

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck, go get 'em.

 

If you get the jitters, just picture in your minds eye the most daunting thing you have ever achieved at some point in the past, and use that to put the current events into perspective.

 

Will likewise look in later, do please post up a synopsis of events.

 

Pm

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you get the jitters, just picture in your minds eye the most daunting thing you have ever achieved at some point in the past, and use that to put the current events into perspective.

 

Works for me as well. We know that you will however, be "charged" up, as most of us have been.

 

Excuse the pun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Application Hearing, Today, 14:00 Lambeth CC

 

Bit of a Curate's Egg, really (good in parts!):

 

Judge started off by asking Defendant's Barrister whether they were sure they wished to proceed with the Defence they had submitted. The Barrister said they did.

 

Judge recognised immediately that they had played the Halliday card (see para. 5 in their defence).

 

He said that it is clear that the Claimant has put forward a much more sophisticated argument than the one they appeared to have responded to.

 

He said that in his opinion the matter of whether or not I was awarded at CI levels and not S69 levels was the only outstanding matter in the case, as they had already deposited a sum equivalent to the latter into my account. (I decided to reserve my response to this for the moment).

 

Barrister said that he had been instructed by his client that this matter should go to a High Court and be tried by a Chancery Judge, as it was a 'hugely complex' case, that had the potential for "massive implications...blah...blah....something about public policy...blah)".

 

Your ol' Mac smelt a rat. ;)

 

Judge explained the implications of this to me and asked me what I thought of this suggestion. I replied that it was "clearly a cynical display of dissembly by the Defendant, designed for no other reason than to intimidate the Claimant".

 

Judge appeared to agree, but without making it too obvious. After taking another cursory glance through my PoC he declared: "Its a fairly complex argument, but certainly not too complex to fall outside the small claims track - so there it would remain. Barrister went a bit red, but conceded.

 

After a little more minor to-ing and fro-ing between me and the Barrister, the Judge ordered thus*:

 

1. That my move to strike out the Defence be dismissed

 

2. The Court is satisfied that the remaining issue was the CI vs. S69 level of interest on charges claimable.

 

3. That the Defendant be given the opportunity to amend its Defence should it wish to do so, provided that such amended Defence is filed and served to the Court not later than 16:00 on 19th September 2008. He also suggested that I consider writing up a small Skeletal, as the PoC was a little on the long side.

 

4. That the case shall remain on the Small Claims Track and that both parties shall file at Court and serve copies of all documents on which they intend to rely on all parties, including:

 

a) Witness Statements of Fact

 

b) Any originals, which should be brought to the hearing (not too sure what he meant by this - statements?)

 

5. The issue of costs be reserved.

 

And that was it, really.

 

There was a bit of a comedy moment on the way out, when neither me nor the Barrister could open the door out into the main Court Building for what seemed like several minutes. The Judge eventually heard the kerfuffle and walked through, saying "one of you had better get it open because I wish to leave soon!" As if on cue, the Usher turned up and saved the day!

 

I have to say I was impressed with the Judge, who was both pin-sharp and I think fair to both parties.

 

On the way out, the Barrister (who was actually an OK guy), apologised to me and insisted that he had not initially seen the bit about the High Court until he was leafing through his brief in Court. He seemed genuinely concerned not to appear as though he had sprung it on me after exchanging pleasantries with me before the hearing.

 

I replied: "well, I think I called it out for what it was". He replied "you did indeed...".

 

And on that we all went our merry ways.

 

So in summary, whilst not achieving my main aim of a strike-out and a shot at Summary Judgment, I did get a chance to sharpen up my argument and I think HFX got a bit of a shock about the standards of Draftsmanship that ensue when you get Trainee Solicitors to respond to complex cases.

 

That could work for or against me, I'm not sure which. But it does give me the focus of having my day in court to concentrate on just one main argument. I think there's also a small possibility that HFX will decide to throw in the towel and settle in full, rather than being forced to do some real work for a change.

 

I'm looking forward to bouncing ideas off you lot too :D

 

*My hasty transcript of the Judge's Order was scribbled as he was speaking. I'll reproduce the full order here when I receive it.

Edited by MARTIN3030
Removed name of DJ
  • Haha 1
  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to go Mac hopefully you got HFX on the run :) if they had any sense they would. they have had one taster of you :D

 

lol had to laugh a the door saga, now i could have understood it if that had been me :p

 

 

 

 

Tilly

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good work so far Mac-and allows another shot.

For obvious reasons have edited post that shows DJs identity.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update

 

Mr. M. Boy vs Halifax Bank of Scotland Plc

 

Before DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE XXXXXXXXXX sitting at Lambeth County Court

 

Upon hearing the Claimant in person and counsel for the Defendant

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

 

  • The Claimant's application to strike out the defence is dismissed, the court being satisfied that the sole remaining issue as to compound interest is sufficiently identified in the pleadings

 

  • The Defendant may, if so advised, amend the defence in relation to compound interest provided that the Amended Defence is filed at court and served on the Claimant by 4pm, 19th September 2008

 

 

  • The hearing of the claim will take place at nn:00 on the nnth December 2008 at Lambeth County Court and should take no longer than 2 hours and 30 minutes. A hearing fee of £100 is payable by 18th September 2008 by the Claimant unless you make an application for a fee concession. failure to pay the fee will result in the hearing being removed from the list

 

  • The court must be informed immediately if the case is settled by agreement before the hearing date

  • The hearing fee will be refunded in full if the court receives notice in writing at least 7 days before the hearing date that the case is settled or discontinued

 

  • Each party shall deliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents (including any experts' report) on which he intends to rely at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing.

Edited by MacBoy
  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The upshot of the above is that the Judge has recognised that I have correctly identified and argued the case for CI, but that the Defendant has not addressed it properly in their Defence.

 

In other words - they've been lazy, dismissive - and caught out :lol:

 

It will be interesting to see, having already sent counsel once to court to defend this matter, and now being effectively made to answer a much more complex and involved argument than they had anticipated; whether they will spend thousands of pounds more in Barristers and solicitors fees (to attend and facilitate a 2.5 hour court hearing), or crumble and settle.

 

Watch this space.

Edited by MacBoy
  • Haha 1
  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching with "interest" !!

 

PM

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Current Account case duly filed this afternoon. ;)

 

Also payed the Hearing Fee for the Credit Card case into the Court office.

Edited by MacBoy
  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the 'end' game of chess then? After all your hard work I do hope so. I can't tell you what an inspiration you have been/continue to be to me and I'm sure hundreds of others on this site.

 

Indeed it is, sallysas - for the Halifax anyway. I intend to get a parachute a/c opened up shortly and go after A&L, which is the home of my 'current' Current Account (if you see what I mean!).

 

Meanwhile the endgame for my Halifax Credit Card case (or more correctly the argument for CI therein) will take place in December.

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks TUTTSI -I'm hoping that some of it at least will be useful to other CAG-gers :D

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amended Defence from DLA Piper below

 

I've typed this, but the original as sent to me is a complete bloody mess, containing all the original defence written by HFX's in-house team; crossed out and the added stuff double underlined. See sample image below:

 

Hfx amend_def.jpg

 

As well as as looking like a total dog's breakfast (which I'm sure will not impress the judge), I just can't see how what they've added (marked in bold below) strengthens their case one iota.

 

I'm not a lawyer - but this is certainly not what the Judge asked for.

 

IN THE LAMBETH COUNTY COURT

 

CLAIM NO. 8LBnnnn

 

Between:

 

MR XXXXXX XXXXX

 

Claimant

 

and

 

BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC (SUED AS HALIFAX (BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC) Defendant

 

DEFENCE

 

1. The Defendant is a Bank. The Claimant has a credit card account with the Defendant, having card number nnnn nnnn nnnn nnnn ("the Credit Card Account").

 

2. The Claimant appears to be claiming £397.00 In respect of Credit Card charges, £43.78 in respect of statutory interest, £920.69 in respect of contractual interest (or, in the alternative, £132.72 in respect of simple statutory interest) and £75.00 Court fee.

 

3. The Claimant has provided particulars implying that £397.00 of his claim relates to Credit Card charges incurred on his Credit Card Account. These charges were debited to the Credit Card Account in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Credit Card Account ("the Account Conditions"), which the Claimant agreed to accept and by which he is bound. Under the Account Conditions, the Defendant is entitled to apply charges to the Credit Card Account, inter alia and so far as is relevant to this claim, for:

 

(a) Each time you do not make a minimum payment by the payment date;

 

and:

 

© Each time a direct debit, cheque or other item is not paid, including a cheque which you write;

 

4. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Defendant has, without admission of liability refunded £515.78 to the Claimant. This sum represents all the credit card charges that the Claimant has incurred in the period claimed, being £397.00, together with £43.78 in respect of interest and £75.00 in respect of Court fee.

 

5. The remainder of the claim, £920.69, appears to relate to compound interest on top of the charges and interest which haye already been refunded as described at paragraph 4 above, The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to compound interest on these sums.

 

(a) The Claimant alleges at paragraph 40 of the Particulars Of Claim that he suffered interest losses by having to take out loans to cover the charges applied. The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to recover any such sums and puts the Claimant to strict proof of these allegations.

 

b) The Claimant alleges at paragraph 32 of the Particulars Of Claim that the Defendaot has made "considerable profit" as a result of the charges and claims a compounded interest rate of 20.6%. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to such sums and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the rate alleged.

 

6. The correct basis for any such award of interest would be simple statutory interest at a rate of 8% under the County Courts Act 1984. The Defendant is currently making arrangements for a total of £136,01 in respect of simple statutory interest (in respect of £132.72 statutory interest claimed to the date at issue and a further sum of £3.29 in respect of statutory interest at a daily rate of 10.6p to the date of repayment as per the Claimant's claim form) to be refunded directly to the Claimant's Credit Card Account.

 

7. On the basis of matters pleaded above, the Defendant denies that it is liable to the Claimant for the sum of £920.69 in respect of the balance of his claim or for any other sum.

 

DATED this 18th day of September 2008

 

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

 

Signed XXXXX X XXXX

 

Solicitor

DLA Piper UK LLP

Edited by MacBoy
  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't submit documents like the above and expect to be taken seriously by the judge. I'm terrible at understanding legal documents compared to some people but even I can see they have not put a single answeer to what was asked of them. A win is on the cards before christmas methinks.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, sallysas. Apart from a letter I'm drafting to the solicitors (insisting that they do not make the intended deposit into my account and that they reverse the one they already have made), I don't think I'm even going to bother with a Reply to Defence ahead of the hearing now - it is that crap.

 

Why should I give them another chance to get their act together? :rolleyes:

 

I have every reason to believe that the Judge will roast them alive for this. They have completely ignored his direction.

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Response letter to amended Defence

Will be posted in the morning. I'm currently considering a response to their Defence via the court, but may not bother, in the light of its sheer crapness :rolleyes:

 

DLA PIPER UK LLP

Princes Exchange

Princes Square

Leeds

LS1 4BY

 

Original to: DLA Piper

 

Copies to: Halifax (Bank of Scotland) Plc, Lambeth County Court

 

Saturday, 20 September 2008

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Case No. nLB0nnnn | Your ref. xxxxnnnnnnn

 

Response to forced settlement offer made after Amended Defence Filed

 

It appears from reading your client’s amended defence in the above matter that they have once again disregarded all previous representations from myself, in respect of making forced settlements into my credit card account. I wish to make it clear that I accept neither the original nor any subsequent payments that may be made in this manner and presented as purported settlement, either in full or part, of the above matter.

 

I therefore request in the strongest terms that your client not proceed with the intended payment alluded to in your Amended Defence dated 18th September 2008. I further request that your client reverses forthwith all such payments already made.

 

Furthermore, I refer them to my previous letters to Angela McDade, Complaints & Consumer Guidance, HBOS PLC, sent 23 April 2008, 10 May 2008 and 15 June 2008. In all of the above letters, I also requested a copy of a properly executed agreement, signed by both parties, in respect of the instant account. I will now reiterate this request a fourth time.

 

If I do not receive this within fourteen days of the date of this letter, I shall consider applying to the court for a Pre-Action Disclosure order and will make further complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office, as this request was part of an official Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998, made on 30th March 2007; which has still not been fulfilled by your client.

 

Finally I refer you to para. 4 of your client’s Amended Defence, in which they state that they have refunded the court fee of £75 into my account. In fact this payment was not made through the account, but separately by cheque, which I subsequently returned. No further payment was made into my account in respect of court fees or anything else as far as I am aware.

 

With regard to the remainder of your client's amended defence, I am currently considering this and if necessary shall respond through the court. I look forward to hearing from you or your client in due course.

 

Yours faithfully etc.

Edited by MacBoy
  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...