AlphaGeeK Vs Amex ***WON***

[Alphageek]

I will phone the court tomorrow and make sure they got the fax. So what happens next?

[Alphageek]

The court confirmed they have received the fax.

[Alphageek]

I phoned the court again this morning and Amex filed an acknowledgement to my part 20 counterclaim which the court entered on to the screen on the 15th of August.

 

I bet they filed late, but such is the way of things.

 

Do they have another 14 days to file a defence to the counterclaim now?

[steven4064]

THey will have 28 days from the data of service

[tiokim]

Nothing new on this case yet??

[Alphageek]

Still not heard anything from the Court, but I did get a copy of their defence to my counterclaim dated 5th Sept.

 

We write further to the above-mentioned matter and hereby enclose a copy of the Defence filed in respect of your Counterclaim. We confirm a copy of the same has been filed with the Court. We will contact you in due course once we have received directions from the Court.

The defence says

 

DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM

 

1. Save insofar as the same consists of admissions, the Claimant joins issue with the Defendant's Counter Claim.

 

2. Paragraphs 54, 55, 56 and 57 are admitted.

 

3. Paragraph 58 is not admitted save that some default charges were applied to the defendants card account when it was necessary.

 

4. Paragraph 59 is denied save that default charges were applied pursuant to the standard terms and conditions.

 

5. Paragraph 60 is denied.

 

6. Paragraph 61 (a) is admitted.

 

7. Paragraph 61 (b) is admitted.

 

8. Paragraph 61 © is denied as to the amount of sums payable except although it is admitted that fees were payable under the Agreement.

 

9. Paragraph 61 (d) is denied as to sums stated, although default fees were payable.

 

10. Paragraphs 62, 63 and 64 are denied however liquidated damages were payable under the contract.

 

11. Paragraph 65 is admitted.

 

12. Paragraph 66 is denied.

 

13. In paragraph 67 it is denied that any terms in the

contract are unfair.

 

14. Paragraph 67 (a) is admitted.

 

15. Paragraph 67 (b), © and (d) are all denied.

 

16. Paragraph 67 (e) and (f) are not admitted.

 

17. Paragraph 67 (g) is denied.

 

18. Paragraph 68, 68(a), 68(b) and 68© are not admitted.

 

19. Paragraph 69 is denied.

 

20. Paragraph 70 and 71 are denied in that charges were not wrongly applied and the account was not wrongly reported.

 

21. Paragraph 72 is not admitted and it is denied that any sums have been wrongly applied.

 

22. Paragraph 73 is admitted.

 

23. Paragraph 74 is not admitted but for the avoidance of doubt, it is denied that the Default Notice served by the Claimant failed to comply with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 or was otherwise inaccurate.

 

24. Paragraph 75 is admitted.

 

25. Paragraph 76 is not admitted.

 

26. Paragraph 77 is not admitted except that the debt was passed to debt collection agencies and solicitors and a referral fee of £148.08 was applied.

 

27. Paragraph 78 is denied.

 

28. Paragraph 79 is admitted only to the extent that a file referral fee of £157.83 has been applied. However this replaces the file referral fee of £148.08 referred to in paragraph 26 above and it is denied that there has been any contravention of the Office of Fair Trading's guidance on debt recovery.

 

29. It is denied that the Defendant is entitled to a declaration that any sums have been wrongly applied to his account.

 

30. It is denied that there are any sums due to the Defendant.

 

31. It is denied that the Defendant is entitled to the removal of any entries held by third party data controllers and further denied that any such entries are incorrect.

 

32. It is not admitted that there has been any injury to the Defendants credit worthiness.

 

33. It is denied that the Defendant is entitled to any damages from the Claimant.

 

34. It is denied that the Defendant has been harassed and further denied that the Defendant is entitled to any damages as a result.

 

35. It is denied that the Claimant has failed to keep proper records and further denied that the Defendant is entitled to any damages as a result.

 

36. It is denied that the Defendant is entitled to any costs. Dated: 5th day of September 2008

 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Defence to Counter Claim are true. I am duly authorised by the Claimant to sign this statement.

 

FULL NAME: PERSON

Position or office held

Litigation Executive

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Alphageek!

 

Might've been simpler for them to just say:

 

We deny the lot, except for the obvious bits!

 

It must've taken them ages to draft that and get each boring response correct.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Alphageek]

Hi BRW, just need to wait for allocation now and get it transferred to my local court.

[fleeced_by_rbos]

Does anyone have an opinion on the response from the Information commissioner to Alphageek? They obviously disagree with AG's claims but I think they are failing to take into account how the DPA comes into effect within the CCA.

 

Any thoughts anyone?

 

Also, well done Alphageek - I've been reading your MBNA thread and this one with a huge grin! How is this case progressing?

[Alphageek]

It's still awaiting allocation. I think the Court must only have one Judge and one Admin staffer.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Alphageek!

 

Hi BRW, just need to wait for allocation now and get it transferred to my local court.

 

I may be wrong here, but I think the case should've been moved to your local Court before the AQ stage.

 

I think that should've been done when you filed your Defence.

 

At least that's what Judge Patricia Pearl says in her book!

 

May be worth checking up on that.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Alphageek]

Hi BRW, I have Judge Pearl's book and agree with you.

 

I was just being sloppy with my language.

 

The case is still stuck in Maidstone though

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Alphageek!

 

The case is still stuck in Maidstone though

 

It may be worth sending a PM to PT2537, Surfaceagentx20 or Andyorch for advice, as I think it may just be a Court cock-up that has resulted in your Case being stuck at the wrong Court.

 

Or check out HMCS Web Site, as there should be rule within CPR that you can perhaps quote to the Court to alert them it should've been moved to your Local Court automatically when your Defence went in.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Alphageek]

Hi BRW, thanks for that - I have been calling the Court on and off just to hear the same old "we're busy" nonsense from them.

 

I have not called for a couple of weeks - i'll give them a call tomorrow.

[Alphageek]

The Court at Maidstone had not entered Amex's defence to my part-20 counter-claim in to the computer system... so it would have been stuck forever if I had not called.

 

They say they have now transferred it to my local Court.

 

In a separate development, I received a letter from their solicitors headed "Without Prejudice" asking me to call and discuss settlement because of the delays in the court.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Alphageek!

 

They say they have now transferred it to my local Court.

 

Good, that should be more convenient for you at least...and more inconvenient for Amex!

 

In a separate development, I received a letter from their solicitors headed "Without Prejudice" asking me to call and discuss settlement because of the delays in the court.

 

That could be interesting, but I'd still make them keep that in writing.

 

Most of such Calls are never intended to help, they are at best a fishing exercise to see how little they can get away with if indeed they are even considering Paying you anything at all.

 

Letters also slow things down, force them to put their best foot forward in terms of any Offer, and give you time to review and respond.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Alphageek]

Yes, I shall be suggesting they keep to written communications as usual.

[Monty2007]

The dangers of prevarication!!

 

I have received a Court Claim (from MCOL by the looks of it) filed by Brachers on behalf of Amex. Oh well, I guess it has saved me the Court fee.

 

The despicable pigs have sent it to one of my previous addressed they found via the CRAs. My Amex account has never had that address on it.

 

I wonder why they chose to serve me at an address they have never used? Oh, I know - they don't have a hope in hell of winning LOL

 

I will post full details up when I get home. I get the feeling I am going to enjoy this.

 

Ok folks, as per my previous comments - here is another case of Amex issuing proceedings (using Brachers) at an old address, they are trying to get judgement by default!

[tiokim]

Very interesting issues here. This thread should to be moved to legal issues.

[banker_rhymes_with]

This thread should to be moved to legal issues.

 

No offence intended here at all, but I disagree.

 

This was the problem before CAG created an Amex Forum, i.e. the Amex issues were spread all over CAG, making it hard for anyone trying to fight Amex to see the big picture of how they operate.

 

I think the better option would be to start a new Thread in the Legal Forum, to highlight any points raised here.

 

Amex are a very hostile bunch, and have got away with breaking many OFT and Court rules for far too long.

 

People need to see as many Amex Threads together as possible, and that was why the CAG Amex Forum was started.

 

Before this Forum, it could take hours and hours of Searching to find even a handful of Amex related Threads.

 

That is not the case now, because the Amex Threads are gradually being gathered here, and I think that has to be a good thing.

 

However, some do need to start in the Legal Forum, but my suggestion is that once they have *WON* they should be moved here for the benefit of all future Caggers who may get struck down by a nasty dose of the Amex rash!

 

With our help, the dose will only be temporary, and Amex will then get another good dose of the CAG rash instead!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Monty2007]

No offence intended here at all, but I disagree.

 

This was the problem before CAG created an Amex Forum, i.e. the Amex issues were spread all over CAG, making it hard for anyone trying to fight Amex to see the big picture of how they operate.

 

I think the better option would be to start a new Thread in the Legal Forum, to highlight any points raised here.

 

Amex are a very hostile bunch, and have got away with breaking many OFT and Court rules for far too long.

 

People need to see as many Amex Threads together as possible, and that was why the CAG Amex Forum was started.

 

Before this Forum, it could take hours and hours of Searching to find even a handful of Amex related Threads.

 

That is not the case now, because the Amex Threads are gradually being gathered here, and I think that has to be a good thing.

 

However, some do need to start in the Legal Forum, but my suggestion is that once they have *WON* they should be moved here for the benefit of all future Caggers who may get struck down by a nasty dose of the Amex rash!

 

With our help, the dose will only be temporary, and Amex will then get another good dose of the CAG rash instead!

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

I totally agree with BRW, new Amex cases need to be easily available to new and existing CAG members.

[fleeced_by_rbos]

Ok folks, as per my previous comments - here is another case of Amex issuing proceedings (using Brachers) at an old address, they are trying to get judgement by default!

 

And manipulating (abusing) the legal system in the process. They should be in hot water for that one. Especially if Amex have been writing to you at your current address and you've been corresponding with them from it.

[Alphageek]

No offence intended here at all, but I disagree.

 

This was the problem before CAG created an Amex Forum, i.e. the Amex issues were spread all over CAG, making it hard for anyone trying to fight Amex to see the big picture of how they operate. BRW

 

That was exactly my problem when I first joined CAG. I could not understand why there wasn't an Amex group.

 

I think it's also one of the reasons why I took so long preparing my POC to take them to court and them beating me to it.

[Alphageek]

Anyway, I spoke to my local court today and they still do not have the case transferred from the Maidstone court.

 

I spoke to Maidstone (who told me in early Dec 08 it would be transferred that afternoon) and they said they cannot find the file.

 

I told them I was disgusted that a case where I filed defence in May of last year has not been transferred to my local court and it's now Jan '09.

 

The admin manager was not in and as she was the person who told me she would transfer it in early Dec, there was a note left for her to call me tomorrow.

 

Any advice on what I should say to her; 1: if she rings and 2: if she doesn't ring and I have to call her?

[Desperate Daniella]

Dear Alphageek

 

I'm wishing you lots of luck with this as I am just starting my own battle with Amex who appear to be trying to say the T&Cs were on the back of my application form when actually they don't fit!

 

May I ask you a question, please? At the very beginning of your thread, you posted two application forms. The one on the right is stamped approved in 1997 and in the Credit Agreement box it says that you agree be bound by the Terms and Conditions which form part of this agreement. This what is says on my application form and I am fairly certain this indicates it was on a separate leaflet, as the box on Personal Info on my form refers to "paragraphs overleaf". It is not consistent.

 

Is there any form of date anywhere for the one on the left. In that CA box it refers to "Terms and Conditions set out overleaf", so at some point Amex wised up to the fact that the prescribed terms had to be within the document and not on a separate leaflet. I really need to find out the date when this happened.

 

I'd be so grateful for any help.

 

Thank you.

 

DD