Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I posted a reply earlier which I have now deleted because I realise that I hadn't read your story correctly. You have laid out £1000 on repairs to a vehicle which according to you is probably in need of further repairs. Although you have been rebuffed by the dealer at your first asking, your position would be much better had you provided the quotes for the repair work to the dealer in advance so that he had forward knowledge and was able to present his own opinions before you went ahead and spent the money. This kind of transparency is essential when you are in conflict with somebody who may later on dispute the value of the work which was carried out. Fortunately you have had more than one opinion from independent garages and this will be very helpful to you. So in order to recover your money, you have prepared a letter but which is rather open-ended because it simply says that you would like to have a reply within 14 days or else you may go and see a solicitor. Given that you have been rebuffed quite peremptorily by the seller of the vehicle, I don't think that this is going to make very much impression. You need to take control of this and assert yourself. I notice that you say that you are too exhausted to look around for a replacement vehicle. Do you have the stamina to conduct a small claim against this dealer? It's very easy but it will require some tenacity and there won't be a quick solution. I can expect to go on for six months or so before you get a result unless the dealer decides to put their hands up. I would avoid going to a solicitor if I were you because first of all you incur expenses which you will not get back from the dealer. Also the solicitor will start off by sending letters which will simply delay things further and of course will incur further costs for you. You haven't told us the name of the dealer – even though you have been asked by another member of the site team. He also haven't told us anything about the car – the make, model, year, mileage and price. I think we will have to modify your letter based on whether you think that you would be prepared to take your own small claim action. If you do take a small claim action then your financial outlay will be fairly minimal and everything you do outlay will be recoverable – assuming that you win. On the basis of what you say, I would guess that your chances of success are much better than 90%. However, there is the issue that the dealer may try to challenge the value of the work you have had carried out because you didn't give him any advance notice. We will have to deal with this.  
    • So Guys, After sending the last letter as everyone else  here I got a reply from Moriartylaw with a statement that ADCB instructed them to act on their behalf and a copy of all my credit card bank statements. Not sure what to do now. They want me to respond and supply them with a list of asset and liabilities.    please the attachment of the letter. moriartylaw.jpeg.pdf
    • Okay, let me start again. In terms of planning, is it not enough to say they don't have it since it's not shown on the council site? If not, if I ring Stockport planning would they put in writing that there's no planning?   I could contact the land registry to find out who the land owner is. If I contact them directly maybe they'll tell me if they have a contract in place. If they ignore my request too then should I be doing other things to find this out?
    • I'm trying to work through this step-by-step as I read the story again. There was a dispute over a will in respect of your grandfather's house but the dispute was eventually abandoned and it seems that the house was apportioned to your mother and her brother who presumably were the only two children. The will was unsigned and so we could say that the house passed to the two of them under the rules of intestacy. You then decided to buy the house for £50,000 and presumably the money you paid was divided between your mother and your uncle – who were the owners of the house. This was in 1999. We talking about 20 years ago here and so in respect of most legal questions I would have thought that some limitation period applied. (However the issue of the trust has been raised – and this wouldn't be affected by limitation) However, presumably the house was bought at a proper value given the market at the time and any work that it needed doing. Presumably the house was properly conveyed. Although a lot of things have passed – including home improvements, tenancies et cetera, from the story you have told us, neither your parents nor your uncle have been involved in this at all. Now you have received a letter from your parents saying that the house is really theirs and that you have simply been holding it on trust for them and they now want it back. Is this a reasonable summary of what has happened?   Although you have written a fair bit about bills, tenancies, and that you have lived in your parents home for some of this 30 years, I'm not sure what relevance that has to the problem. I have to say that your explanation is very unclear. A bit rambling in fact. If you think that part of the story is relevant then maybe you'd like to express it all a little more clearly and say in what way you think it is relevant to the problem. You are much more familiar with the story then I am but I don't see that those factors are terribly important on the brief understanding that I have. if if any money is owed to your parents because of you having lived with them et cetera then it seems to me that that is a separate matter and has nothing to do with your ownership of the property. You say that you have received a letter from solicitors claiming first of all that there is a constructive trust or that you might be subject to a proprietary estoppel. In terms of the estoppel, that doctrine is only available in very particular circumstances and could not be used to attack you in any event. Estoppel, whether it is proprietary or promissory can only be used as a defence. So the question of estoppel in this situation is completely irrelevant, in my view, although I don't see any basis for one in any event. So what remains is the possibility of a constructive trust. It seems to me to be highly unlikely that there is such a trust and I think that the first question needs to be asked is on what basis they consider that there is a constructive trust. Secondly, of course, even if there was a constructive trust, on the basis of what you have told us, it wouldn't only be your mother who was the beneficiary, it would also be your uncle. Furthermore, if you were a constructive trustee then at the very least you would be entitled to recover all of the expenses that you had laid out over 30 years – including the cost of the property plus interest – less any financial benefit that you had accrued from renting it out and so forth. I'm not sure how good this analysis is. This is well out of my experience – but I would suggest that you consider it and see whether any of it rings true. I would also start making a very detailed account of all the money which you have spent over the years on the property and also a detailed account of all the benefits you have accrued from it. I wouldn't supply this to their solicitor but if you end up having to instruct your own lawyer then I'm sure that you may be asked for this if there is any suspicion that a constructive trust may exist. Frankly it sounds like a load of rubbish to me but we will be very interested if you will keep us up to date. So there you have it. No particular answers. Just a few unsupported and unqualified opinions    
    • Hello and welcome to CAG.   I agree with dx, hiring a lawyer is unlikely to help as most of them don't understand fare matters, so you end up paying for their learning curve.   Your idea about involving your GP is a good one, it sounds as if you need their input with how you're feeling. And if they would write a supporting letter that could help too. Hopefully your medical information will be through in time.   HB
  • Our picks

Alphageek

AlphaGeeK Vs Amex ***WON***

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3644 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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


The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The court confirmed they have received the fax.


The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?


The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THey will have 28 days from the data of service


Steven

 

Using CAG Toolbar will generate much needed income - Download Here

 

Confused by Simple Interest? Confounded by Compound Interest? Read my Interest Tutorial

My Wins

 GE Money Won unconditionally May 2007

NatWest Won unconditionally August 2007

Brighthouse Won unconditionally August 2007

Goldfish Won unconditionally April 2008 (including CI on the basis of Sempra)

Clydesdale Financial Services (now BPF) Won unconditionally February 2008

 

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. Do not take any legal action on my advice alone. Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site.

 

Please note, I will not give advice by PM. Please send a link to your thread and I will do my best to answer there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?


I wonder if MBNA are the new Enron :roll:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :x


The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


I wonder if MBNA are the new Enron :roll:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?


The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...