Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and 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.   1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant 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;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   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.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
    • Tell your son and think on this. He can pay the £160  and have no further worries from them. If he read POFA  Scedule 4 he would find out that if he went to Court and lost which is unlikely on two counts at least [1] they don't do Court and 2] they know they would lose in Court] the most he would be liable to pay them is £100 or whatever the amount on the sign says. He is not liable for the admin charges as that only applies to the driver-perhaps.If he kept his nerve, he would find out that he does not owe them a penny and that applies to the driver as well. But we do need to see the signage at the entrance to the car park and around the car park as well as any T&Cs on the payment meter if there is one. He alone has to work out whether it is worth taking a few photographs to help avoid paying a single penny to these crooks as well as receiving letters threatening him with Court , bailiffs  etc trying to scare him into paying money he does not owe. They know they cannot take him to Court. They know he does not owe them a penny. But they are hoping he does not know so he pays them. If he does decide to pay, tell him to wait as eventually as a last throw of the dice they play Mister Nice Guy and offer a reduction. Great. Whatever he pays them it will be far more than he owes as their original PCN is worthless. Read other threads where our members have been ticketed for not having a permit. [We know so little about the situation that we do not know if he has a permit and forgot to display it. ]
  • 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 3658 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...